Where's the motivation? [Debt Ceiling]

2011-07-16 22:17:45

#101

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6124|eXtreme to the maX

Spark wrote:
FEOS wrote:
For someone who harps about "the greater good" all the time, Dilbert's a lot more focused in NASA's bottom line than on the differences their scientific contributions have made to the world at large. And, IIRC, government entities couldn't patent or earn royalties from their designs until recently...still can't earn royalties, for sure. So the money thing is moot.
I seriously hope he's not taking this rather dumb line of argument up simply because NASA is an American organization.

I'm simply asking Kmar to back up his assertion with something.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-07-16 22:18:06

#102

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6619|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:
Kmar wrote:
The proof is in the pudding dilbert. All government spending is not equal. You have to weigh the benifts and returns of each program. I listed just a miniscule amount of technology generated by nasa. Expediency is important when it comes to who developes what technology first. NASA has without a doubt played a major role in pushing leading edge technology and job growth. Its rather easy to put two and two together. .. for most people.
Sorry, you need to provide some figures if you're going to say giving money to NASA provides better cost-benefit than, say, increasing R+D tax credits to technology companies or spending on nuts and bolts military technology.

Otherwise you just sound like lowing.

It's a common sense logical deduction. The fact that you can't get it makes you sound a lot like Dilbert.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 22:18:25

#103

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5255|Cleveland, Ohio

pwnt

2011-07-16 22:19:14

#104

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6619|132 and Bush

AussieReaper wrote:
Kmar wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:

yes, and you don't want the "dailyshow viewers" to express their viewpoints.

*slow clap*
Oddly enough I watch the Daily Show..lol. Stewart is actually pretty witty. His humor isn't always on though.
I like Colbert simply because of the Poe's Law support he gets from Republicans. lol

I used to like Colbert. But his schtick is getting tired for me.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 22:20:19

#105

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6124|eXtreme to the maX

Kmar wrote:
It's a common sense logical deduction.

No it isn't.

NASA takes billions in tax dollars.

The net financial benefits are unknown and unquantifiable.

There is nothing to deduce.

Your argument against cutting funding "Yeah but moon-lasers :sadface:" isn't even an argument.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-16 22:21:18)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-07-16 22:23:09

#106

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6693|Canberra, AUS

Kmar wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Kmar wrote:

Oddly enough I watch the Daily Show..lol. Stewart is actually pretty witty. His humor isn't always on though.
I like Colbert simply because of the Poe's Law support he gets from Republicans. lol
I used to like Colbert. But his schtick is getting tired for me.

Yeah Colbert has gone sort of downhill since Obama got elected.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-07-16 22:31:00

#107

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6619|132 and Bush

Spark wrote:
FEOS wrote:
For someone who harps about "the greater good" all the time, Dilbert's a lot more focused in NASA's bottom line than on the differences their scientific contributions have made to the world at large. And, IIRC, government entities couldn't patent or earn royalties from their designs until recently...still can't earn royalties, for sure. So the money thing is moot.
I seriously hope he's not taking this rather dumb line of argument up simply because NASA is an American organization.

NASA employs people all over the world, including some top scientist.. like Rosaly Lopes-Gautier for example.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 22:45:51

#108

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6619|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:
Kmar wrote:
It's a common sense logical deduction.
No it isn't.

NASA takes billions in tax dollars.

The net financial benefits are unknown and unquantifiable.

There is nothing to deduce.

Your argument against cutting funding "Yeah but moon-lasers :sadface:" isn't even an argument.

A November 1971 study of NASA released by the Midwest Research Institute of Kansas City, Missouri ("Technological Progress and Commercialization of Communications Satellites." In: "Economic Impact of Stimulated Technological Activity") concluded that “the $25 billion in 1958 dollars spent on civilian space R & D during the 1958-1969 period has returned $52 billion through 1971 -- and will continue to produce pay offs through 1987, at which time the total pay off will have been $181 billion. The discounted rate of return for this investment will have been 33 percent.”

Other statistics on NASA's economic impact may be found in the 1976 Chase Econometrics Associates, Inc. reports ("The Economic Impact of NASA R&D Spending: Preliminary Executive Summary.", April 1975. Also: "Relative Impact of NASA Expenditure on the Economy.", March 18, 1975) and backed by the 1989 Chapman Research report, which examined 259 non-space applications of NASA technology during an eight year period (1976–1984) and found more than:

— $21.6 billion in sales and benefits;

— 352,000 (mostly skilled) jobs created or saved,and;

— $355 million in federal corporate income taxes

According to the "Nature" article, these 259 applications represent ". . .only 1% of an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 Space program spin-offs."

In 2002, the aerospace industry accounted for $95 billion of economic activity in the United States, including $23.5 billion in employee earnings dispersed among some 576,000 employees (source: Federal Aviation Administration, March 2004).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_ … SA_funding

The fact that the best you've concluded from my opinion during our exchange is "Yeah but moon-lasers :sadface:" is more of a poor reflection on you than it is on me.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 22:56:42

#109

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6124|eXtreme to the maX

Uh huh, and how much did NASA cost over that period?

Would R+D tax credits for private companies to the same value have been more or less productive?

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-07-16 23:00:08

#110

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6619|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:
Uh huh, and how much did NASA cost over that period?

Would R+D tax credits for private companies to the same value have been more or less productive?

It's highlighted. You should also realize that NASA does provide grants for private industry, as well as contracting them for R&D. Example, Boeing was selected to build the primary heat shield for the Orion crew exploration vehicle.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-17 01:39:50

#111

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6124|eXtreme to the maX

And is $25bn spent vs $355bn returned any better or worse than any other similar program?

Those figures are pretty old too, NASA and its programs have changed a good deal since, mainly incremental as opposed to radical progress - so the returns won't be the same.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-07-17 02:04:37

#112

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5196|Sydney

You're questioning whether a program that has a 1420% return on its investment to create 25,000 - 30,000 new technologies is worthwhile?

2011-07-17 02:05:32

#113

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6124|eXtreme to the maX

A typical investment in a car plant will return at least that.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-07-17 02:22:09

#114

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5196|Sydney

That wasn't the question.

2011-07-17 02:36:25

#115

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6619|132 and Bush

I like how Dilbert demands hard numbers, gets them, rejects them with new conditions, and then throws out statements himself without providing his own hard numbers. His best response is to say a typical investment in a car plant would yield at least that. I guess he hasn't heard what happened at Government motors.

Give it up man.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-17 02:42:39

#116

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5196|Sydney

Yeah GM did spring to mind. Oh dear.

2011-07-17 02:54:00

#117

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6619|132 and Bush

If you wanted to look beyond the immediate impact..

Kmar wrote:
Resources, everything we put a value on-on earth is in spades in space. I was watching a show the other night and they were talking about asteroids within our own solar system that could be mined for hundreds of trillions of dollars in return (net profit). "In fact, all the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium and ruthenium that we now mine from the Earth's crust, and that are essential for our economic and technological development, came originally from the rain of asteroids that hit the Earth after the crust cooled.

That's some advanced foresight though. I've purposely left it out of this discussion up until now.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-17 03:03:42

#118

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6017|...

Dilbert is trolling you. He's supposed to be an engineer himself I very much doubt he's as stupid as he acts on here.

Or well I'm starting to doubt the engineer thing as well after the whole mechanical movement / friction thing....

Last edited by Shocking (2011-07-17 03:04:14)

inane little opines

2011-07-17 03:12:56

#119

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6619|132 and Bush

Yea I know. It's like an easy game of whack-a-mole.

Kmar wrote:
Keep setting them up. I'll keep knocking them down.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-17 03:53:45

#120

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6124|eXtreme to the maX

Jaekus wrote:
That wasn't the question.

The question was whether money 'invested' in NASA could be better invested elsewhere, all we have is the figures for NASA, no comparisons.

Shocking wrote:
Or well I'm starting to doubt the engineer thing as well after the whole mechanical movement / friction thing....

You're not understanding the definitions of the words then.

You can have mechanical movement with negligible frictional losses just as you can have current flowing with negligible resistance losses compared with the overall power or storage capacity of the system.
Mechanical movement =/= Friction any more than Volts = losses.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-17 03:54:01)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-07-17 04:09:38

#121

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5196|Sydney

No, no. And no.

My question was:

Jaekus wrote:
You're questioning whether a program that has a 1420% return on its investment to create 25,000 - 30,000 new technologies is worthwhile?

which you interpreted as "is it better to invest it there rather than anywhere else".

I was merely asking if you think NASA is worthwhile, when you look at the benefits it has generated.

And you have still not answered this question.

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-07-17 04:10:17)

2011-07-17 06:43:48

#122

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6124|eXtreme to the maX

Not sure really, its impossible to say if those technologies would have been developed without NASA being involved.

Very often technology follows complex pathways, often parallel, no one person or organisation can really claim the full credit.

As noted previously, many of the claimed spinoffs on Kmar's list are so broad as to be meaningless.
Many of the inventions attributed to NASA in fact have nothing to do with them, the same goes for Bell Labs.
Whether NASA really gives value for money I very much doubt.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-17 06:47:08)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-07-17 06:52:28

#123

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5196|Sydney

Have you got any articles or evidence to back up your claims? Just because you asked similar of Kmar, which he provided.

2011-07-17 06:58:59

#124

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6124|eXtreme to the maX

What claims? That technology development follows complex paths or that 'Advanced Plastics', 'Water Purification' and 'Solar Power' weren't invented exclusively by NASA?

The bulk of technology NASA developed was developed in parallel by the Russians, they were ahead on a lot of it.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2011-07-17 07:00:33

#125

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5196|Sydney

Well you claimed many of the spinoffs attributed to NASA had nothing to with NASA, so I was wondering where you could show it was the work of companies completely indepenedent of NASA.

BF2S Forums Where's the motivation? [Debt Ceiling]

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Kmar wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Board footer