This is an amazing effort, great to watch. However, this being youTube, it's always spoiled by the "My knob's bigger than your knob" debates that inevitably follow. Shame.
Anything more than that requires a change in our very culture to live a more healthy lifestyle, but changing culture is well beyond the scope of what the Federal government can and SHOULD ever do.
As for spaceflight, it sits quietly in the corner with 00.5% of our federal spending while our social health programs take about 60%. I hardly believe socializing the whole thing will exactly make the situation any better.
To restate my point, a socialized healthcare system is not the answer to our countries woes, and certainly not as effective per cost as investments in spaceflight technology would be given current budgeting.
If we want to help our countries health, instead of being sheeple, with uncertainties of socialized care, we should
Pay doctors more so more people will enter the field,
heavily tax tobacco production and exchange, and
more strictly regulate cholestrol such as saturated and trans fats.
There hasn't been an alternative as so far no country with a mostly or largely private healthcare system has ranked any higher than 37th in the world overall. All of the countries with private systems are developing countries. All of the countries with nationalized healthcare have lower costs per person and much better health statistics all around.
@Eagle1Division2 - As for Energia I don't know where you got that figure from. Energia's costs for manned flights are around the same as the Falcon 9's costs for manned flights are realistically being projected to be.
And finally, another reason our healthcare is so expensive is our culture. Americans live fast-paced lives and don't find time for healthy activities such as walks and at LEAST mild excercise. This as well as and evidenced by the fact that America has a ~10% high obesity rate than the next highest country developed country, the U.K, naturally creating a 10%, if not higher, strain on our health system.
Not even mentioning other factors.
nationmaster (dot) com / graph / hea _ obe-health-obesity
Wiki: "Space Shuttle program", total cost is $145 billion for the program as of 2005, around 130 missions at that point, summing up to $1.1billion per launch.
For carrying ~23 tons into orbit, roughly twice that of the Falcon 9, it remains almost 10x as expensive.
Once again, most efficient solution: Private space.
As much as I love the technological achievement of the shuttle, it wasn't used enough to be cost-effective versus other rockets.
Some are listed as how to find them, some are listed directly.
"
spacex (dot) com / falcon9 (dot) php # pricing _ and _ performance
-49.9-56 mil. in total. The page IS up to date, I admit I was off by 5 million.
CIA world factbook: Google "Greek government spending" - first result
"
As for Soyuz, it's actually more expensive per pound than the Falcon 9. Although they cost the same, the Falcon delivers 10 tons while the Soyuz delivers 6 1/2.
Another sign that private space is more efficient.
@Eagle1Division2 - It's more expensive per pound because RKK Energia company pays a bit more proportionally and they charge foreigners extra money. It's not really so much efficiency or inefficiency as price gouging.
As for the Shuttle the Shuttle has always been expensive. The Gemini Program was a government space program and was considerably cheaper. Somewhere in the neighborhood of Soyuz and Falcon costs.
@spacevidcast ohh succes-rate? how many sojus exploded? how many Kosmonauts:Astronauts died? 4:14 ! and the Spaceshuttle program have 135 flights since beginning. sojus has nearly 300 since 1990 alone! and many more since 1967. and how costly is the sojus in $/kg.
10 times cheaper!
succes rate hey? :-)
btw the sojus will flight for next 30 years... the NASA even cannot supply the ISS now and for the next years.
space x hey? hmmm finally you US-Americans got it? the russian Systems running this way for decades! it will take you more than 10 years to establish a system so reliable like the russian is. maybe you ask the russians for some help.
btw: without the Sojus the ISS is dead. roskosmos and ESA now take care. seems that the US-Century is finally over - in space too.
@CarstenOepping Both Russia and the US have the about the same failure rate (about 2%). Yes, the US lost more astronauts, but we've also sent more people to space than Russia.
youtube it's comment section back. This type of discussion belongs somewhere else; like so:
/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8&feature=related
And yeah, private space companies are already launching satellites, as the video shows. That's because the private sector runs things more efficiently. So it's only natural it should take over, as it is. The only sad part is the gap after the shuttle retires and before the Dragon-9 is crew-certified.
@Eagle1Division2 - "private space companies are already launching satellites"
Yeah, I know and that's great but what does that have to do with efficiency of nationalized healthcare systems vs. private ones? It actually doesn't prove the private sector is more efficient at launches either.
@A86 I did refer more sources than Steven Crowder. Sure he's a comedian, but he actually DID go to Canada to see if their healthcare is better, and unlike other sources, he didn't bring a camera crew or anything, he was honestly finding out (you can tell he used a pen camera in many shots). After his experience in Canada, he has good reason to oppose National health overhaul.
@Eagle1Division2 - He went to one province where they had problems with wait times. It doesn't really change the fact that in general their care is cheaper in per person expenditures and GDP. He simply chose one of the worst places to go in Canada. It would be like going to Detroit and holding that up as typical US healthcare.
@A86 Ugh. I shouldn't be continueing this... But I've already told you why our GDP is higher. There's two reasons,
#1, we ALREADY HAVE medicare and SS, which are social health programs, ALONG WITH our privatized system. Now, if you had to completely give up your insurance companies or SS and medicare, which would you value more? I think it's already clear whether companies or government run things better. I challange anyone to retire on SS alone, since that's what it was made for, after-all.
@Eagle1Division2 - What I would value more is different than your opinion but the problem is both ways they're still opinions. Social Security is NOT a health system. It's a retirement system. Given it has a $2.7 Trillion surplus I'd say that it's a fairly successful program. When it comes to Medicare and Medicaid (what you were going for) they both have much lower administrative costs than private insurance. Only 3-5% overhead compared to the 30%+ overhead of private insurers.
#2, the point I've already made, is that includes things like weight loss pills. And excuse me, there's another reason.
#3, We have the most high tech system compared to other countries. Our cancer treatment and genetic as well as stem cell research are ahead of the rest of the world. Naturally, this comes at a price.
As for the space program, for that to be true, Energia would have to be paying more than 40% extra to account for the differences. Not likely. Where's the source?
@Eagle1Division2 - Weight loss pills aren't a significant source of healthcare costs or problems in the US. Our system is not that high-tech either for the average lower-end patient. It is for higher-end patients but that's not a significant source of our healthcare costs. A much larger percentage of our costs come from Big Pharma price-gouging, high administrative costs with insurers and high numbers of uninsured people using the ER.
@Eagle1Division2 - Stem cell research? What stem cell research? Bush halted it, remember? Our cancer research may be ahead but our treatment isn't. Cancer survivability in the US is about identical to rates in Canada. Obesity is definitely a contributor to healthcare problems in the US but it's not the main cause. What I'm saying applies to people even who aren't obese.
I'm sorry but you keep pulling stuff out of your hind quarters and most of it is flat-out wrong.
@A86 Can I also take it as pure happenstance that the most highly populated area in their country is also the one that's struggling the greatest with healthcare? It's more the equivalent of New York, or Los Angeles, actually.
what inefficiencies there are in our healthcare system come from the fact it's already too socialized, not that it's privatized.
And sure there's some people who aren't covered, but it's better than everybody being covered with a system that doesn't work at all!
I would go on with more valid, yet to be disproved points, but I've already made plenty of those. No progress is being made either way, so instead of hogging up the comments section I think it's time to go back on topic and give
@Eagle1Division2 - While Medicare and Medicaid have problems in the US a lot of our problems are from the insurance industry as well. There are people who aren't covered BECAUSE of the privatized section (which is the majority of US healthcare). These uninsured people are a major part of our appallingly high healthcare costs and troubling health statistics. The under-insured contribute to this as well. Such as lower life expectancy, higher cancer death rates, infant mortality, etc.
Since it's pointless to refute your points because they've already been proven wrong at least twice each now, I'll just state my points.
1. U.S. Healthcare is good as it is. It's expensive because we're wealthier and we buy more.
2. Social Healthcare, like all government programs, will be ill-run, over-budget, and inefficient, like it has been in every country it's implemented. I know firsthand, the LAST thing doctors need is more beaurocrats who know nothing of medicine telling them what to do.
@Eagle1Division2 - 1. Wealthier than whom? There are over a dozen countries wealthier than us (in GDP per capita and/or HDI factors) and they all have less expensive and more reliable healthcare. Our healthcare is 37th best in the world. That's not good for an industrialized nation.
2. National healthcare is cheaper, more efficient and less costly in every industrialized nation. In which one is it more expensive or less efficient?
My sources are first-hand and second-hand accounts, logical deduction, the CIA, History, and the Federal government. If you can't acknowledge any points against your own, then there's no point to discussion. You might as well be deaf (or, since it's text, illiterate). Your strategy so far seems to be posting such a large wall of text of your opinions that viewers can't see my points or arguments. I refuse to argue any more with such nonsense. I have a life to live off youtube.
My dad happens to be a medical surgeon. Patients never wait more than a week for surgery. A month would be absolutely unheard of. Under the socialized system, many wait years. And many die while waiting.
Private > Public
Social medical programs consume about 120x as much budget as NASA, and are a detriment to our nation, and our public welfare.
Through the General Welfare clause, A committee should be made to ensure health care never becomes socialized.
@Eagle1Division2 - Not even getting into people being dropped from insurance in the US.
"Patients never wait more than a week for surgery"
People in Canada don't have to wait long for most surgeries in Canada either. They aren't billed for it either. In contrast 40% of Americans can't be seen enough times a year, 17% have no insurance at all and 18% can't afford their meds.
So it seems like Public > Private when it comes to healthcare. Our system is 37th. No system ranked higher is private.
@Eagle1Division2 - "and are a detriment to our nation, and our public welfare"
That would be insurance companies since insurance companies are the reason 57% of Americans have improper care and a large part of the reason healthcare costs are going up and why so much is spent on care compared to other industrialized nations for lesser results. Tens of thousands of people die every year due to lack of insurance or being dropped from insurance.
@A86 For goodness sakes! I've made my points again and again with reliable sources every time! You've failed to show them wrong except simply by saying "you're wrong".
You simply ignore my points and go on without any sources of your own!
This is maddening! This is no place for discussion of private or public health anyways! I would continue this discussion except there's no point because you don't accept any evidence that isn't in your favor, or even acknowledge the existence thereof.
@Eagle1Division2 - Most of what you say is just you making bald assertions with no data to back it up. One of the only sources I remember you using was Steven Crowder. He's not the CIA or a federal source, just a comedian. Not unlike Bill Maher. Now admittedly I like the latter better but I wouldn't use him as a reference in a debate.
So, what was all that about U.S. healthcare being the worse of any industrialized country?
/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw&feature=related = Canadian Care
I've had two close people in medical emergencies. Both times, response was rapid, and there was no wait. I've been to clinics for blood tests and to the hospital for a relative. I've never had to wait more than 15 minutes in our privatized system.
This man was told by Canada's "better" system to wait 2-3 years, or go to a private clinic.
@Eagle1Division2 - Seriously? Steven Crowder? I'd take the argument more seriously if it was a legit source giving actual data instead of a comedian (I'd say the same thing if a liberal used Bill Maher as a source). Canada has slightly longer wait times than the US (it also depends on the region and illness) but spends less per capita on healthcare, less GDP and has better survival rates from preventable deaths, lower infant mortality, higher cancer survival rates and higher life expectancy.
@Eagle1Division2 - Of course there's no wait for medical emergencies. You can go to the ER. However, ER is not care, it's just stabilization. It doesn't cure people of chronic illnesses and it passes costs onto the taxpayer if you're uninsured (one of the main sources of healthcare costs in the US). You do have to wait for appointments in the US just like you do in Canada. The insurer tells you when you can be seen, where and by whom. Sometimes you have to wait months.
The USSR had a system where the central government actually ran hospitals, pharmaceutical entities and tried to pay for everyone. In nationalized systems of modern industrialized countries the government simply insures everyone. Like a national version of Medicare.
I'm sorry but it seems like you've swallowed a bunch of talking points and claptrap with little critical examination of it.
Also, if the government has totally screwed up SS, as even you admitted, then how can we trust it with our LIVES?! Maybe not as many people are covered in the U.S., but what coverage there is is far, far better than anywhere else in the world. You have to wait hours in a clinic for care, as opposed to weeks or months.
The same way you seem to trust private insurers even though they cause thousands of deaths per year from dumping people off of insurance plans. Or the way you trust the federal government with protecting your freedom and your life from potential invasions. In European systems its not even the government providing healthcare, it's a government insurance plan.
Also, the reason we spend so much is BECAUSE we're wealthy. It makes it possible for so many people to get into weight loss pills and other non-critical areas of health care. The 16% of GDP figure is hugely beefed up because we CHOOSE to pay far more for health care because we're rich enough compared to other countries that we CAN.
Also, a federal health system is non-constitutional, and is only part of government growth and takeover, one small step at a time. Or in this case, a huge leap.
@Eagle1Division2 - "a federal health system is non-constitutional"
Not at all. It's already provided for like other social programs in Section 8 Article I of the Constitution. The "General Welfare Clause" is long-established by the Butler v. United States Supreme Court case. Please tell us how a government insurance program would be a "takeover". Takeover of what?
@A86 When our constitution was written, I think the founding fathers assumed people would understand the message and they trusted the American people. The government was NEVER to run the economy. The "General Welfare Clause" was to support things like the Fire Department, but has now turned into "The Elastic Clause".
As for the government-run military, there's plenty of incentive to work hard there: NOT DYING.
The government has never run the economy but has always been the single largest actor in the economy. Including in the 18th century. The "General Welfare Clause" covers more things today than it did in the 18th century because the economy is far larger and more complex than it was in the 18th century. The government has to change and expand to take this into account.
@Eagle1Division2 - "there's plenty of incentive to wok hard there"
There's plenty of incentive to work hard anywhere as long as you're getting something out of it and as long as the consequences for not working hard are substantial.
required to treat anybody in an emergency condition. My Dad works as a Cardiovascular surgeon. Do you know what he did the day our Socialist health bill passed? He did a free surgery on an illegal immigrant who was in jail. And you know who paid for the surgery? You did. I did. America did. And the doctor didn't make a penny of it.
@Eagle1Division2 - Social health bill? Are you kidding? The Bill is a total giveaway to the insurance industry.
"is BECAUSE we're wealthy"
No, it's because the uninsured keep passing their medical costs onto the rest of and because of high administrative costs and pharmaceutical prices. Though we pay far more than other countries on healthcare our system is much worse. So just throwing money at the system doesn't cut it.
BTW "under-insured" means insured but can't afford to see the doctor.
In particular, I want to know where "highest infant mortality rates" and "highest cancer rates in the industrialized world" comes from.
So, we're supposed to ask the U.N. if we can invade somewhere? So what, is it the New World order or something? Because the U.N. isn't corrupt... right?
So that's why after filling a commission to investigate corruption, where it found many cases, the committee was immediantly disbanded?
As for the UN you don't have to ask permission but you do have to follow rules set by the UN. We have punished other countries and leaders for violating UN law (such as Slobodan Milosevic) and we're no different. The UN is certainly corrupt but so is the US government.
"Go to google and type 'U.S. Government in Afghanistan'".
Okay, fair game. Go to Google and type: "2012: the end of the world".
There's a lot of America hate, so people will go out of their way to make the U.S. look bad. Not to mention news never letting truth get in the way of a good story. I personally know people who have been to Iraq, we are not the bad guys. Our soldiers are good people who are fighting for freedom against bloodthirsty terrorists, no matter what Hollywood tells you.
Certainly some of them are. Some of them are not. Just like every other military. That has nothing to do with the military-industrial complex that runs the military. Their interests certainly are not pure or altruistic. Their interests are in money and influence.
@A86 19th century? Because there was less competition. How much competition do you think there is if the government runs and ENTIRE district of the economy?
As for the Falcon 9 - SpaceX has projected a cost of ~20 mil. per person for NASA. The Soyuz is 51 mil. a person. Your number is accurate, but that's the cost for the entire launch. I'm thinking 20 mil must be off since Dragon will carry 7 astronauts for 51 mil ALLTOGETHER. With Soyuz at 51 mil A PERSON.
@Eagle1Division2 - Less competition? There were more companies on the market relative to market size in the 19th century than there are today. Today the market has been reduced to a small number of oligarchies controlling the vast majority of economic activity in the marketplace.
I don't know where you pulled those SpaceX figures from but those figures are old and were pulled out of thin air to begin with. The current projected cost is closer to $40-50 mil/seat.
the economy. I also know second-hand of people who pay 50% tax rates in London, because of their health system.
It also makes sense in principle. The Soviet Union collapsed because government just doesn't run things as well as the private industry. That's why the Falcon 9 can get us into orbit for far, far, less than any of the government rockets could.
That's why an entire payload to LEO costs 50 mil on the Falcon 9. - The same price PER PERSON on Russian Rockets.
@Eagle1Division2 - The Soviet Union collapsed because of corruption, the problem with state farming and debt.
"run things as well as the private industry"
Such as the private industry that has brought the US the worst healthcare system in the industrialized world or the 2008-Present Recession? Lol
I like the Falcon 9 but so far it costs about the same or more than the Soyuz rocket. That $50 mil figure was pulled out of thin air almost 4 years ago. Costs have gone up since then.
@A86 For instance, my brother worked in the local city government recently - the secretary would ceaselessly talk on the phone and never work. Just an example of my point: There's no incentive. She won't get fired, she'll still get paid, because it really doesn't matter to the workers that their employees work hard. Everyone still gets paid. But because they don't work, the nation's wealth and product dwindle. Point is - Private sector runs things better. Why were businesses so bad in the late
budget is spent on socialist programs other than SS and medicaid. Add SS and medicaid (39%) and assuming by "less than 25%" you mean 20% (a very gratuitous assumption in your favor), and it comes up as 59%. And to be honest, I have never in my life heard of anyone leaving the country for medical care. I know second-hand that Canada has millions of people in waiting lines for care that are months long. Greece recently had riots in the streets because it runs so many programs socially, damaging
(dot) time (dot) com / time / health / article / 0,8599,1861919,00 (dot) html
Greece's bankruptcy is not because of social programs and healthcare. Healthcare is less than 12% of their budget. The US spends the most on healthcare of ANY industrialized country (17% of our annual GDP).
@A86 Alright, Time magazine, if you're referencing politically leaned articles, then I can do the same.
/watch?v=SPq6_7AFsp4
As for why Greece collapsed, it's still because of government interference with the Economy - a full pension retirement at 38 for Civil Servants.
As for the U.S.'s spending on Healthcare, I've already said it's because that figure includes non-necessities such as weight loss pills and such, which can be hand in the U.S. because the U.S. is so well off.
@Eagle1Division2 - How was the Time article political leaned? It was just factual.
Greece's economy is collapsing because they're in debt thanks to unregulated foreign loaning and borrowing. How much of the GDP goes to government spending is of little importance. What's important is does the spending yield positive or negative benefits.
@A86 Now I can't help but ask where the HECK these numbers are coming from? Al Gore? According to the very same source you listed, defense budget gets 23%. 39% is the two big socialist programs, with 20% more coming from "discretory" and "mandatory" spending programs, such as Welfare and other insurance agencies. I've heard from some pretty reliable sources that the U.S.A. is 2nd in life expectancy only to Japan. (Human Geography textbook, to be precise.) You yourself said less than 25% of
@Eagle1Division2 - Where I got the numbers from? The US government itself (what the hell does Al Gore have to do with anything?) Defense spending plus overseas contingencies is $663.8 billion/year as of 2010. About $319 to $664 billion of Other Mandatory Spending (17% of the budget) is military and defense-related spending. That makes war spending over $1 Trillion per year.
@A86 To nail the point in on big government - of the ~332 bil GDP greece had, 161 of it, almost half, was government spending. So why does it seem every time a country relies more and more on government that it fails? It's because there's no competition, there's no real and present incentive to make people work harder. As much as I like to believe humans are generally good, fact is, they need incentive. The Private sector has that incentive: Competition. And so it's much more efficient.
@Eagle1Division2 - "why does it seem every time a country relies more and more on government that it fails?"
When did this happen? The vast majority of wealthy countries in the world have a vast array of social programs and social spending. The countries in the world with the least government spending are usually "third world" countries. Government spending doesn't limit competition. We had more government spending in the 50s and 60s and more competition back then.
Ever heard of anyone going out of the USA for medical care? Millions of people around the world DIE waiting in HUGE ques for medical care. Canada is just an example you might personally know about. But also in many other countries, essentially all of Europe.
All-in-all though, I have great respect for anyone that's able to stay level-headed in an argument and counter with clear points rather than insults. I wish I could say more people were like that
As for not getting a lot out of or current healthcare system, I really disagree. Our system is currently the best on Earth, there are people that travel across the world for U.S. privatized healthcare because it works so much better than the national healthcare that most countries have already adopted, and, as a result, now pay as much as 50% taxes in some places (London) for a much poorer product. Ever heard of Cancer treatment in other countries? What about their huge waiting lines?
According to whom? According to the WHO it's in 37th place. We have the most expensive healthcare system in the world that eats up 17% of our GDP and costs 2 to 3 times per capita than any national healthcare system in the world yet 15% of Americans are uninsured, 40% are under-insured, 18% can't afford all their medications, we're 50th in life expectancy and we have the highest infant and cancer mortality rates in the industrialized world.
@Eagle1Division2 - We have the best system in the world IF YOU'RE RICH. That doesn't say much since most Americans aren't rich. The majority of people from other countries who come here for care are wealthy. The majority of low and middle-income people who can't afford healthcare go to Japan, Canada, India and France for care. Not the US.
Canada has a much lower rate of people dying from lack of care than the US.
@Eagle1Division2 - "Look up what life is like under Taliban rule"
The Taliban is more established now than it was in 2002. The war has done little to topple their rule in the long-run. Part of the relative peace in that region is actually from our government bribing them to stop attacking. We did topple Saddam (a dictator our government put in place in the first place) but illegally and at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in debt.
@A86 The Government just doesn't spend as well as the private sector. That's why Capitalism has survived since the Dawn of time and the Soviet Union collapsed after 70 years. Everyone starved. Nobody wanted the government to run things anymore because THAT DOESN'T WORK!
Why were all the corperations during the Industrial Era so bad? Because there was no competition!
So how much competition is there when the GOVERNMENT ALONE runs an entire industry. (Say... Health?)
Saddam was a dictator but he wasn't that bad. He was no threat to the world like Hitler. Saddam was mostly just a threat to his own people and to Kurds. Iraq can't take over industrialized nations like Hitler. Mobutu Sese-Seko of Zaire was as bad or worse than Hitler and our government was on friendly terms with him back in the 70s. No trillions of dollars spent toppling his rule from us.
@A86 - A bad company is annoying. A bad government kills millions of innocent people. - How did we put Saddam there? Yeah, we gave Pakistan Weapons to fight off the Soviets, but Saddam? And why do you think we're Bribing the middle-east? I'm preatty sure mobilizing armored battalions, attack helicopters, nuclear-powered supercarriers, battleships, attack helicopters... etc. isn't called a bribe. That's called War.
And the Taliban is only another reason why we need to stay there!, so they don't
It can also kill people. Look how many people had to die to fill Halliburton's pockets. Look how many people private armies like the Pinkertons had killed off in the past for going against corporate interests. Both a bad government and a bad company can kill people.
We did give Saddam gas weapons. We have records of it and pictures of Rumsfeld handing them over to Saddam in 1983. We aided him during the Iraq-Iran War in the 80s.
@Eagle1Division2 - "why do you think we're Bribing the middle-east?"
Go to Google and type in "US government bribing Afghanistan". Brings up a lot of interesting information that I'm not sure will get through YouTube's anti-spam system.
We toppled Saddam illegally because we invaded a country without permission that had not attacked us. That's a violation of several UN conventions. That's exactly why Europe declared war against Nazi Germany: illegal invasions.
@A86 come back in the long-run. And how did we topple Saddam illegally? It was war. Illegally as defined by the same people that said it's O.K. to melt a soldier's face with a laser but not to blind them to capture them?
As for Tyrants in our world today or recent, I don't have a very large knowledge base on that, so I can't argue there. Sounds pretty bad. If I had it my way, the U.S. would be overthrowing these dictators. We're refusing dying men medicine by not overthrowing them.
the vast majority of people use private companies, insurance agencies, or their own bank accounts for retirement, because the private sector spends far more efficiently. So if we used private programs instead of social ones, far more people could afford them and get more out of them.
What the private sector won't do, though, is save human lives from terrorists, overthrow Hitler-like dictators, or put men on other worlds
@Eagle1Division2 - What does people using private companies to buy goods have to do with NASA? As for insurance agencies most of our healthcare is privatized yet we spend more than countries with nationalized systems and have less to show for it.
"private sector spends far more efficiently"
The economic meltdown of 2007-Present says otherwise. Look how much debt we've racked up bailing out Wall Street. In the past 10 years domestic job growth has been a net gain of almost zero.
@A86 I'm saying we don't need SS and medicaid and such b/c private insurance companies work better. Do most people rely on SS alone for retirement? No! Would it be wise to rely on SS alone for retirement (as that's what it was made for)? No! So if the Feds screw up something as simple as what was made as a bank account for retiring, how can they run something as complex as healthcare better? Want a list of the times national Healthcare has failed?
"Space... the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before."
@kalish86 That can be said of most human accomplishments.
Including pretty much all art and most architecture.
Oh wait one can provide us with enourmous amounts of resources and make sure we dont get wiped out by a asteroid..........so space exploration isnt useless.
oh yes I agree with that, all life is useless, but I was talking in more "pragmatical" way, we know money for space either go to exploration (human exploration) or robot exploration. Now the most efficient is robot one, I would like human space exploration, but that is not for now unfortunately, it is too much expensive, maybe in few years-centuries.
@kalish86 In a few centuries without the colonization and industrialization of space humanity will die.
If we dont get killed like i said by a asteroid.
I think robots for the signifigant future will be the choice to explore places like venus, mercury etc places that just are to harsh to try to send people.
But really we know all we need to survive in space its getting resources up there that are the problem. We should try to live off the land. (cont)
@valcan321 Mine and build from asteroids in orbit around the earth. Then branch out from there. Eventually have only people and specialty items delivered to space. We can get up there and make it. We just need the money and the political will power which is lacking.
Consider this of the US budget more than 3/4ths is welfare programs. Imagine if even 10% of that were put into the industrialization and exploration of space?
Ok but that's not the aim of administration today when they think about human exploration. Whatever we need a major breakthrough in space propulsion to do what you want. All other improvements and researches are really lower priority. I hope my english was clear. Have a good day.
And for all you retards calming that NASA is now worthless, NASA is funding these space missions. What other monetary purpose for space flight would there be for private companies aside from joy rides?
Communications and entertainment being a complete loss when it comes to making money, I guess I'd have to agree with you. Space-X launches cost around $10 million. Their competitors launch for about 4-5 times that. There's no way a company like Sirius, having a measly $1.6 billion in revenue, could come up with that kind of money.
Sirius XM has launched eight satellites. Total. Their 2008 annual report shows $204 million for depreciation and amortization, and another $59 million for satellite and transmission.
You bet they can afford the satellites on $1.66 billion of revenue.
The reason that they're losing money is that their other costs are out of control. SAC of $371 million. Customer service and billing: $165 million.
HughesNet almost breaks even. DirectTV makes a nice profit. Don't blame the satellites.
"NASA also put up almost all of the satellites that allow cell phones to function. "
Holy jesus...I think I see the problem here. You have no idea what a cell phone actually is. Cell phones are so called because they use this thing called a "cell network." They are distinct from what are called "satellite phones."
Wait, yes, I said "cell phone" when I meant "satellite phone". My mistake. Still, satellite phones are commonly used. Not to mention this is just one invention from a list of tens of technological inventions NASA is either directly or indirectly responsible for.
This computer you're typing this anti-NASA post from utilizes technology originally developed by NASA.
"Turns out, *NONE* of those were invented directly or indirectly by NASA"
NASA is an organization which has infrastructure to help construct things or use things commissioned to be constructed by contractors for certain things.
To not give NASA any credit would be about like saying "Well, Neil Armstrong didn't walk on the Moon it was his suit that was. He was just inside it."
Private ventures are definitely the future of space travel. I bet that by 2050 most space travel and space exploration will be done by the private industry! There are already two test space stations in orbit (Genesis I & II) and Bigelow Aerospace promises to put the first space hotel in orbit by 2012! At least capitalism got something right!
They launched for under 10 million dollars. Most highways in the US cost about 1 million per mile, so any town that can afford 10 measly miles of highway can now afford their own space program. Most contractors working for NASA don't show pricing to the general public, because their half assed work is so embarrassingly expensive. Space X so far has made NASA look like the unmitigated failure it is. If it could kick NASA's ass any harder, NASA would be shitting out its nose.
I'm a fan of both and what you're saying is silly. This only the second successful flight so far. SpaceX still has miles to go. I'd hardly call NASA a "failure" when they have over a 98% success rate and the economic returns from their scientific ventures is 7:1.
The 7 to 1 ratio is nowhere to be found in the article. What is found, however, is the common and tiresome claim that "technological impact" justifies NASA's existence. Nevermind how this bullshit is measured. Say NASA invented nothing but Tang, and had a 0% success rate. If, over a thousand years, Tang's cumulative economic effect exceeds all the money spent on NASA (assuming NASA was disbanded today), does that justify its existence?
It's funny you're slamming NASA from a computer that NASA technology made possible for you to have. Do you enjoy your computer? Enjoy our missile technology and defense system? Enjoy hospital plastics, scanners and half of the technology in them today? Enjoy your hybrid vehicles and fuel cell technology in the works? Enjoy solar power, wind power and nuclear power? Enjoy your iPod? Thank NASA for all of that.
Wow, asinine to a point where rational thought is gone. Do you thank WW2 for those inventions? Because that's where all that shit actually came from. But that's beside the point. I picked Tang to show you that your premise is actually that no amount of waste is unjustifiable if leads to a single invention, because on a long enough timeline it would always pay for all the waste. Faced with this, you name drop inventions until you think I'm impressed.
WWII didn't invent the cell phone. Or hybrid technology, etc. You just destroyed whatever "point" you were trying to make.
Why do you keep harping on Tang? That's a minor invention of NASA and just one of tens. You credit NASA with Tang but none of the other inventions/innovations. That's a gap in your 'logic'.
"WWII didn't invent the cell phone. Or hybrid technology, etc." Neither did NASA. Use Wikipedia more often. And I said it was BESIDE the point you illiterate fuckup. I keep harping on Tang because THAT is related to the point I was trying to make. You could latch on to that ONE pitiful invention and, by the same logic you use name dropping any "major" invention NASA is responsible for, justify any amount of incompetence simply because that one invention pays for everything over the long run.
A lot of the technology in the cell phone was invented by NASA. NASA also put up almost all of the satellites that allow cell phones to function.
I don't think I'd call these inventions "pitiful":
(dot) thespaceplace (dot) com / nasa / spinoffs (dot) html
Unless you're going to call technology which allows for early detection of cancer "pitiful". At its height NASA also employed over 150,000 people. That's good for the economy.
Uh oh...you're really looking like a moron here. NONE...I repeat...NONE ZERO ZILCH...of the credit for the cell phone belongs to NASA. Google "MTS"...it was the first commercial mobile telephone service, and it predated NASA's establishment by 12 fucking years.
(dot) post - gazette (dot) com / pg / 09201 / 985039-51 (dot) stm
Where do you think the chips in cell phones that allow them to connect with satellites comes from? We aren't using the gamma electric cell. Your post is equivalent to saying we should thank Virtual Boy for the existence of PlayStation and XBox.
At the very least you should be happy NASA existed because if they didn't you and I might not be enjoying the video of this rocket taking off right now. The Falcon rocket family's main engine is based on a NASA engine:
Your premise here is that we wouldn't have space flight, or any of the inventions you mentioned without NASA. I have a feeling you've avoided stating this explicitly because you'd be confronted by the sheer retardedness of it if it were out in the open. Is this your position? Is it your personal belief that none of these things would have been invented anyways if not for NASA?
"Retardedness" is not a word, retard. Thanks for making yourself look stupid while attempting to insult me.
If NASA didn't exist some other government agency would have been created and done the same thing. You're also attempting to shift the conversation by going into hypothetical what-ifs about what might have happened had this and that not happened. No one knows. But the FACT is that the Falcon Merline engine is based on technology from NASA's LM engine.
Well, I'm glad you took the time to try looking up an obvious neologism in the dictionary. It's the finest research you've done so far. I'm not shifting the conversation to the what if. That WAS my fucking conversation this whole time. Hit Control-F and see if you can find me saying "BESIDE THE POINT YOU IDIOT" to you repeatedly when you were listing the shit they had invented.
Well that's a pretty dumb and pointless hypothetical. We can "what if" about anything. What if a bird had a glass ass? Would it crap window panes?
The fact is that NASA has created many technological inventions. Whether or not someone else would have done it has NASA not existed is pointless because it could have just as easily been some other government agency that might have developed it. That logic works for both government and private inventions.
"That logic works for both government and private inventions."
Here's the problem. You think there's a distinction between "private" and "govnerment" inventions, as if it makes sense to categorize inventions that way. You can't imagine any alternative to NASA other than another fucking government agency.
There isn't much of a distinction but your posts seem to indicate you don't like NASA simply because it's a government agency.
"another fucking government agency"
Of course there will be private space companies, like this. For now NASA is the main actor in space because the private sector has little incentive to care about things like space travel. My complaint was you claiming NASA is "worthless". That's a completely ridiculous comment.
@A86 Not true. NASA has often collaborated with private enterprises throughout its history. And while I have a moral quandry when it comes to public funding of something like a space program, I can't deny the important scientific progress that came as a result of it.
And I don't get your hostility to NASA (your huffing and puffing towards me isn't impressive and it to me it just sounds unintelligent). It's one of the most efficient organizations in existence, public or private. 98%+ efficiency and very high economic returns. There are a whole array of functions that the government spends far more money on that is far more wasteful. Like most wars.
It's not huffing and puffing in an attempt to impress you. It's sheer frustration at having to find the right combination of words to get you to understand something. We're back to square one, with the 98% statistic and an "economic return" that cannot possibly be quantified because it's so ambiguous. Whatever. Please, anyone besides A86, if you're out there, can you read what I've written and know what I was getting at, or am I fucking crazy?
I didn't post links earlier because I'm hesitant about posting links in videos. But if you truly want some then here are a couple which prove my point:
(dot) fas (dot) org / spp / garcia (dot) htm
Over 97% success rate with shuttles and as you know before the Shuttle era NASA only had 2 mission failures and 2 partial failures (for manned missions). The sources which show NASA's ROI rates are all pay sites. I'm still searching for one I can link to you.
Let's pick a forum if we're going to debate this any more. It's not possible in 500 character bursts without the comments section with 10 pages worth of this crap.
Well, I looked around for a while yesterday and today and so far I haven't found a single site which shows that NASA is ecnomically inefficient. Many hospital plastics and scanners alone are from NASA technology (not even talking about the other stuff). That saves thousands of lives per year and has generated billions for the economy from hospital and pharmaceutical profits.
Another example is this very rocket we're looking at right now which is heavily based on NASA tech.
What the fuck is 98% efficiency? You don't measure efficiency in how many payloads you don't lose, you measure it in cost per launch. STS is more than $1B per launch, which compared to Proton, Zenit or even Atlas is absolutely ridiculous.
I am very happy to see the vidoe Launch of the RazakSAT satellite via a Falcon 1 rocket from you, hopefully the others also are happy for You
Ondelendo 3 weeks ago
I Love The Video Launch of the RazakSAT satellite via a Falcon 1 rocket It Can Increase My Knowledge
bebeheuy 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
willamricard 3 weeks ago
Nice Video Launch of the RazakSAT satellite via a Falcon 1 rocket That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You
willamricard 3 weeks ago
I Really Like The Video Launch of the RazakSAT satellite via a Falcon 1 rocket From Your
imegatrone 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your Video Launch of the RazakSAT satellite via a Falcon 1 rocket Is Very Useful Sharing
bundawartini 3 weeks ago
Your Video Launch of the RazakSAT satellite via a Falcon 1 rocket Is Very Useful Sharing
bundawartini 3 weeks ago
Did anyone notice the mouse at 4:22? XD
kei1010101010 8 months ago
@kei1010101010
Ofcourse, its posted on youtube. You need a mouse for that.
Armigo91 7 months ago
@Armigo91 Good point. :3
kei1010101010 7 months ago
A86 - well said. That's all i have to say.
dannychuah 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
global satellite lauch charts
satlaunch.blogspot com
zpcc1 10 months ago
they launched it from a shark
1ADAM121212 11 months ago 6
This is fantastic. Its great to see the whole launch all from one view.
luketorpedo 11 months ago 2
lol at 11:40
FrozenHaxor2 11 months ago 14
The amount of money put into a space launch platform is inversely proportional to the creatively put into said platform.
jag9998 11 months ago
1:55 --jump to launch
spencercjohnson 11 months ago
1:55 --jump to launch
spencercjohnson 11 months ago
This is an amazing effort, great to watch. However, this being youTube, it's always spoiled by the "My knob's bigger than your knob" debates that inevitably follow. Shame.
swinkyuk 1 year ago
Anything more than that requires a change in our very culture to live a more healthy lifestyle, but changing culture is well beyond the scope of what the Federal government can and SHOULD ever do.
As for spaceflight, it sits quietly in the corner with 00.5% of our federal spending while our social health programs take about 60%. I hardly believe socializing the whole thing will exactly make the situation any better.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
To restate my point, a socialized healthcare system is not the answer to our countries woes, and certainly not as effective per cost as investments in spaceflight technology would be given current budgeting.
If we want to help our countries health, instead of being sheeple, with uncertainties of socialized care, we should
Pay doctors more so more people will enter the field,
heavily tax tobacco production and exchange, and
more strictly regulate cholestrol such as saturated and trans fats.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - "is not the answer"
There hasn't been an alternative as so far no country with a mostly or largely private healthcare system has ranked any higher than 37th in the world overall. All of the countries with private systems are developing countries. All of the countries with nationalized healthcare have lower costs per person and much better health statistics all around.
A86 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - As for Energia I don't know where you got that figure from. Energia's costs for manned flights are around the same as the Falcon 9's costs for manned flights are realistically being projected to be.
A86 1 year ago
And finally, another reason our healthcare is so expensive is our culture. Americans live fast-paced lives and don't find time for healthy activities such as walks and at LEAST mild excercise. This as well as and evidenced by the fact that America has a ~10% high obesity rate than the next highest country developed country, the U.K, naturally creating a 10%, if not higher, strain on our health system.
Not even mentioning other factors.
nationmaster (dot) com / graph / hea _ obe-health-obesity
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
Wiki: "Space Shuttle program", total cost is $145 billion for the program as of 2005, around 130 missions at that point, summing up to $1.1billion per launch.
For carrying ~23 tons into orbit, roughly twice that of the Falcon 9, it remains almost 10x as expensive.
Once again, most efficient solution: Private space.
As much as I love the technological achievement of the shuttle, it wasn't used enough to be cost-effective versus other rockets.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
Some are listed as how to find them, some are listed directly.
"
spacex (dot) com / falcon9 (dot) php # pricing _ and _ performance
-49.9-56 mil. in total. The page IS up to date, I admit I was off by 5 million.
CIA world factbook: Google "Greek government spending" - first result
"
As for Soyuz, it's actually more expensive per pound than the Falcon 9. Although they cost the same, the Falcon delivers 10 tons while the Soyuz delivers 6 1/2.
Another sign that private space is more efficient.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - It's more expensive per pound because RKK Energia company pays a bit more proportionally and they charge foreigners extra money. It's not really so much efficiency or inefficiency as price gouging.
As for the Shuttle the Shuttle has always been expensive. The Gemini Program was a government space program and was considerably cheaper. Somewhere in the neighborhood of Soyuz and Falcon costs.
A86 1 year ago
@spacevidcast ohh succes-rate? how many sojus exploded? how many Kosmonauts:Astronauts died? 4:14 ! and the Spaceshuttle program have 135 flights since beginning. sojus has nearly 300 since 1990 alone! and many more since 1967. and how costly is the sojus in $/kg.
10 times cheaper!
succes rate hey? :-)
btw the sojus will flight for next 30 years... the NASA even cannot supply the ISS now and for the next years.
de*wikipedia*org/wiki/Sojus-Startliste
space*skyrocket*de/doc_lau/soyuz*htm
CarstenOepping 1 year ago
space x hey? hmmm finally you US-Americans got it? the russian Systems running this way for decades! it will take you more than 10 years to establish a system so reliable like the russian is. maybe you ask the russians for some help.
btw: without the Sojus the ISS is dead. roskosmos and ESA now take care. seems that the US-Century is finally over - in space too.
CarstenOepping 1 year ago
@CarstenOepping
Funny considering we built the first space ship and sent the first man to the moon idiot...
BullCatification 1 year ago
@BullCatification hey: first men in space? first men in free orbit? first woman in space? first satellite?
the NASA is now UNABLE to supple the ISS for the next maybe 10 years ! period.
first space ship? huuu? do you mean the first spaceshuttle?! ok. and lost 14 Astronauts . the russians only 4.
the ISS is now dependent on russia alone (who can safely transport men)
CarstenOepping 1 year ago
@CarstenOepping Both Russia and the US have the about the same failure rate (about 2%). Yes, the US lost more astronauts, but we've also sent more people to space than Russia.
spacevidcast 1 year ago
youtube it's comment section back. This type of discussion belongs somewhere else; like so:
/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8&feature=related
And yeah, private space companies are already launching satellites, as the video shows. That's because the private sector runs things more efficiently. So it's only natural it should take over, as it is. The only sad part is the gap after the shuttle retires and before the Dragon-9 is crew-certified.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eagle1Division2 - "private space companies are already launching satellites"
Yeah, I know and that's great but what does that have to do with efficiency of nationalized healthcare systems vs. private ones? It actually doesn't prove the private sector is more efficient at launches either.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 I did refer more sources than Steven Crowder. Sure he's a comedian, but he actually DID go to Canada to see if their healthcare is better, and unlike other sources, he didn't bring a camera crew or anything, he was honestly finding out (you can tell he used a pen camera in many shots). After his experience in Canada, he has good reason to oppose National health overhaul.
Here's the other sources I referred:
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - He went to one province where they had problems with wait times. It doesn't really change the fact that in general their care is cheaper in per person expenditures and GDP. He simply chose one of the worst places to go in Canada. It would be like going to Detroit and holding that up as typical US healthcare.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Ugh. I shouldn't be continueing this... But I've already told you why our GDP is higher. There's two reasons,
#1, we ALREADY HAVE medicare and SS, which are social health programs, ALONG WITH our privatized system. Now, if you had to completely give up your insurance companies or SS and medicare, which would you value more? I think it's already clear whether companies or government run things better. I challange anyone to retire on SS alone, since that's what it was made for, after-all.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - What I would value more is different than your opinion but the problem is both ways they're still opinions. Social Security is NOT a health system. It's a retirement system. Given it has a $2.7 Trillion surplus I'd say that it's a fairly successful program. When it comes to Medicare and Medicaid (what you were going for) they both have much lower administrative costs than private insurance. Only 3-5% overhead compared to the 30%+ overhead of private insurers.
A86 1 year ago
#2, the point I've already made, is that includes things like weight loss pills. And excuse me, there's another reason.
#3, We have the most high tech system compared to other countries. Our cancer treatment and genetic as well as stem cell research are ahead of the rest of the world. Naturally, this comes at a price.
As for the space program, for that to be true, Energia would have to be paying more than 40% extra to account for the differences. Not likely. Where's the source?
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - Weight loss pills aren't a significant source of healthcare costs or problems in the US. Our system is not that high-tech either for the average lower-end patient. It is for higher-end patients but that's not a significant source of our healthcare costs. A much larger percentage of our costs come from Big Pharma price-gouging, high administrative costs with insurers and high numbers of uninsured people using the ER.
A86 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - Stem cell research? What stem cell research? Bush halted it, remember? Our cancer research may be ahead but our treatment isn't. Cancer survivability in the US is about identical to rates in Canada. Obesity is definitely a contributor to healthcare problems in the US but it's not the main cause. What I'm saying applies to people even who aren't obese.
I'm sorry but you keep pulling stuff out of your hind quarters and most of it is flat-out wrong.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Can I also take it as pure happenstance that the most highly populated area in their country is also the one that's struggling the greatest with healthcare? It's more the equivalent of New York, or Los Angeles, actually.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
Comment removed
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
what inefficiencies there are in our healthcare system come from the fact it's already too socialized, not that it's privatized.
And sure there's some people who aren't covered, but it's better than everybody being covered with a system that doesn't work at all!
I would go on with more valid, yet to be disproved points, but I've already made plenty of those. No progress is being made either way, so instead of hogging up the comments section I think it's time to go back on topic and give
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - While Medicare and Medicaid have problems in the US a lot of our problems are from the insurance industry as well. There are people who aren't covered BECAUSE of the privatized section (which is the majority of US healthcare). These uninsured people are a major part of our appallingly high healthcare costs and troubling health statistics. The under-insured contribute to this as well. Such as lower life expectancy, higher cancer death rates, infant mortality, etc.
A86 1 year ago
Comment removed
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
Since it's pointless to refute your points because they've already been proven wrong at least twice each now, I'll just state my points.
1. U.S. Healthcare is good as it is. It's expensive because we're wealthier and we buy more.
2. Social Healthcare, like all government programs, will be ill-run, over-budget, and inefficient, like it has been in every country it's implemented. I know firsthand, the LAST thing doctors need is more beaurocrats who know nothing of medicine telling them what to do.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - 1. Wealthier than whom? There are over a dozen countries wealthier than us (in GDP per capita and/or HDI factors) and they all have less expensive and more reliable healthcare. Our healthcare is 37th best in the world. That's not good for an industrialized nation.
2. National healthcare is cheaper, more efficient and less costly in every industrialized nation. In which one is it more expensive or less efficient?
A86 1 year ago
My sources are first-hand and second-hand accounts, logical deduction, the CIA, History, and the Federal government. If you can't acknowledge any points against your own, then there's no point to discussion. You might as well be deaf (or, since it's text, illiterate). Your strategy so far seems to be posting such a large wall of text of your opinions that viewers can't see my points or arguments. I refuse to argue any more with such nonsense. I have a life to live off youtube.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
My dad happens to be a medical surgeon. Patients never wait more than a week for surgery. A month would be absolutely unheard of. Under the socialized system, many wait years. And many die while waiting.
Private > Public
Social medical programs consume about 120x as much budget as NASA, and are a detriment to our nation, and our public welfare.
Through the General Welfare clause, A committee should be made to ensure health care never becomes socialized.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - Not even getting into people being dropped from insurance in the US.
"Patients never wait more than a week for surgery"
People in Canada don't have to wait long for most surgeries in Canada either. They aren't billed for it either. In contrast 40% of Americans can't be seen enough times a year, 17% have no insurance at all and 18% can't afford their meds.
So it seems like Public > Private when it comes to healthcare. Our system is 37th. No system ranked higher is private.
A86 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - "and are a detriment to our nation, and our public welfare"
That would be insurance companies since insurance companies are the reason 57% of Americans have improper care and a large part of the reason healthcare costs are going up and why so much is spent on care compared to other industrialized nations for lesser results. Tens of thousands of people die every year due to lack of insurance or being dropped from insurance.
That's unheard of in Canada.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 For goodness sakes! I've made my points again and again with reliable sources every time! You've failed to show them wrong except simply by saying "you're wrong".
You simply ignore my points and go on without any sources of your own!
This is maddening! This is no place for discussion of private or public health anyways! I would continue this discussion except there's no point because you don't accept any evidence that isn't in your favor, or even acknowledge the existence thereof.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - Most of what you say is just you making bald assertions with no data to back it up. One of the only sources I remember you using was Steven Crowder. He's not the CIA or a federal source, just a comedian. Not unlike Bill Maher. Now admittedly I like the latter better but I wouldn't use him as a reference in a debate.
A86 1 year ago
So, what was all that about U.S. healthcare being the worse of any industrialized country?
/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw&feature=related = Canadian Care
I've had two close people in medical emergencies. Both times, response was rapid, and there was no wait. I've been to clinics for blood tests and to the hospital for a relative. I've never had to wait more than 15 minutes in our privatized system.
This man was told by Canada's "better" system to wait 2-3 years, or go to a private clinic.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - Seriously? Steven Crowder? I'd take the argument more seriously if it was a legit source giving actual data instead of a comedian (I'd say the same thing if a liberal used Bill Maher as a source). Canada has slightly longer wait times than the US (it also depends on the region and illness) but spends less per capita on healthcare, less GDP and has better survival rates from preventable deaths, lower infant mortality, higher cancer survival rates and higher life expectancy.
A86 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - Of course there's no wait for medical emergencies. You can go to the ER. However, ER is not care, it's just stabilization. It doesn't cure people of chronic illnesses and it passes costs onto the taxpayer if you're uninsured (one of the main sources of healthcare costs in the US). You do have to wait for appointments in the US just like you do in Canada. The insurer tells you when you can be seen, where and by whom. Sometimes you have to wait months.
A86 1 year ago
spacex (dot) com / falcon9 (dot) php # pricing _ and _ performance
-49.9-56 mil. in total. The page IS up to date, I admit I was off by 5 million.
CIA world factbook: Google "Greek government spending" - first result
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
Lenin himself said Socialized medicine was the keystone in the Arch of his socialist state.
/watch?v=SPq6_7AFsp4
It's the biggest waste of money the U.S. will have ever spent. It should go to space, not liberal-political agendas.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - "Lenin himself said"
The USSR had a system where the central government actually ran hospitals, pharmaceutical entities and tried to pay for everyone. In nationalized systems of modern industrialized countries the government simply insures everyone. Like a national version of Medicare.
I'm sorry but it seems like you've swallowed a bunch of talking points and claptrap with little critical examination of it.
"liberal-political agendas"
As opposed to conservative ones?
A86 1 year ago
Also, if the government has totally screwed up SS, as even you admitted, then how can we trust it with our LIVES?! Maybe not as many people are covered in the U.S., but what coverage there is is far, far better than anywhere else in the world. You have to wait hours in a clinic for care, as opposed to weeks or months.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - "then how can we trust it with our LIVES?!"
The same way you seem to trust private insurers even though they cause thousands of deaths per year from dumping people off of insurance plans. Or the way you trust the federal government with protecting your freedom and your life from potential invasions. In European systems its not even the government providing healthcare, it's a government insurance plan.
A86 1 year ago
Also, the reason we spend so much is BECAUSE we're wealthy. It makes it possible for so many people to get into weight loss pills and other non-critical areas of health care. The 16% of GDP figure is hugely beefed up because we CHOOSE to pay far more for health care because we're rich enough compared to other countries that we CAN.
Also, a federal health system is non-constitutional, and is only part of government growth and takeover, one small step at a time. Or in this case, a huge leap.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - "a federal health system is non-constitutional"
Not at all. It's already provided for like other social programs in Section 8 Article I of the Constitution. The "General Welfare Clause" is long-established by the Butler v. United States Supreme Court case. Please tell us how a government insurance program would be a "takeover". Takeover of what?
A86 1 year ago
@A86 When our constitution was written, I think the founding fathers assumed people would understand the message and they trusted the American people. The government was NEVER to run the economy. The "General Welfare Clause" was to support things like the Fire Department, but has now turned into "The Elastic Clause".
As for the government-run military, there's plenty of incentive to work hard there: NOT DYING.
Btw: Costs for Falcon 9 go from 51.5-45.8 mil.
Sources:
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - Which is still fairly cheap, though.
"The government was NEVER to run the economy"
The government has never run the economy but has always been the single largest actor in the economy. Including in the 18th century. The "General Welfare Clause" covers more things today than it did in the 18th century because the economy is far larger and more complex than it was in the 18th century. The government has to change and expand to take this into account.
A86 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - "there's plenty of incentive to wok hard there"
There's plenty of incentive to work hard anywhere as long as you're getting something out of it and as long as the consequences for not working hard are substantial.
A86 1 year ago
required to treat anybody in an emergency condition. My Dad works as a Cardiovascular surgeon. Do you know what he did the day our Socialist health bill passed? He did a free surgery on an illegal immigrant who was in jail. And you know who paid for the surgery? You did. I did. America did. And the doctor didn't make a penny of it.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - Social health bill? Are you kidding? The Bill is a total giveaway to the insurance industry.
"is BECAUSE we're wealthy"
No, it's because the uninsured keep passing their medical costs onto the rest of and because of high administrative costs and pharmaceutical prices. Though we pay far more than other countries on healthcare our system is much worse. So just throwing money at the system doesn't cut it.
BTW "under-insured" means insured but can't afford to see the doctor.
A86 1 year ago
In particular, I want to know where "highest infant mortality rates" and "highest cancer rates in the industrialized world" comes from.
So, we're supposed to ask the U.N. if we can invade somewhere? So what, is it the New World order or something? Because the U.N. isn't corrupt... right?
So that's why after filling a commission to investigate corruption, where it found many cases, the committee was immediantly disbanded?
Also, how do you define "under-insured"?
Also, hospitals already are
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - Where it comes from?
As for the UN you don't have to ask permission but you do have to follow rules set by the UN. We have punished other countries and leaders for violating UN law (such as Slobodan Milosevic) and we're no different. The UN is certainly corrupt but so is the US government.
A86 1 year ago
"Go to google and type 'U.S. Government in Afghanistan'".
Okay, fair game. Go to Google and type: "2012: the end of the world".
There's a lot of America hate, so people will go out of their way to make the U.S. look bad. Not to mention news never letting truth get in the way of a good story. I personally know people who have been to Iraq, we are not the bad guys. Our soldiers are good people who are fighting for freedom against bloodthirsty terrorists, no matter what Hollywood tells you.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - "Our soldiers are good people"
Certainly some of them are. Some of them are not. Just like every other military. That has nothing to do with the military-industrial complex that runs the military. Their interests certainly are not pure or altruistic. Their interests are in money and influence.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 19th century? Because there was less competition. How much competition do you think there is if the government runs and ENTIRE district of the economy?
As for the Falcon 9 - SpaceX has projected a cost of ~20 mil. per person for NASA. The Soyuz is 51 mil. a person. Your number is accurate, but that's the cost for the entire launch. I'm thinking 20 mil must be off since Dragon will carry 7 astronauts for 51 mil ALLTOGETHER. With Soyuz at 51 mil A PERSON.
And the number has gone up, to 51.5.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - Less competition? There were more companies on the market relative to market size in the 19th century than there are today. Today the market has been reduced to a small number of oligarchies controlling the vast majority of economic activity in the marketplace.
I don't know where you pulled those SpaceX figures from but those figures are old and were pulled out of thin air to begin with. The current projected cost is closer to $40-50 mil/seat.
A86 1 year ago
the economy. I also know second-hand of people who pay 50% tax rates in London, because of their health system.
It also makes sense in principle. The Soviet Union collapsed because government just doesn't run things as well as the private industry. That's why the Falcon 9 can get us into orbit for far, far, less than any of the government rockets could.
That's why an entire payload to LEO costs 50 mil on the Falcon 9. - The same price PER PERSON on Russian Rockets.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - The Soviet Union collapsed because of corruption, the problem with state farming and debt.
"run things as well as the private industry"
Such as the private industry that has brought the US the worst healthcare system in the industrialized world or the 2008-Present Recession? Lol
I like the Falcon 9 but so far it costs about the same or more than the Soyuz rocket. That $50 mil figure was pulled out of thin air almost 4 years ago. Costs have gone up since then.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 For instance, my brother worked in the local city government recently - the secretary would ceaselessly talk on the phone and never work. Just an example of my point: There's no incentive. She won't get fired, she'll still get paid, because it really doesn't matter to the workers that their employees work hard. Everyone still gets paid. But because they don't work, the nation's wealth and product dwindle. Point is - Private sector runs things better. Why were businesses so bad in the late
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
budget is spent on socialist programs other than SS and medicaid. Add SS and medicaid (39%) and assuming by "less than 25%" you mean 20% (a very gratuitous assumption in your favor), and it comes up as 59%. And to be honest, I have never in my life heard of anyone leaving the country for medical care. I know second-hand that Canada has millions of people in waiting lines for care that are months long. Greece recently had riots in the streets because it runs so many programs socially, damaging
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - "leaving the country for medical care"
You haven't read much on medical tourism:
(dot) time (dot) com / time / health / article / 0,8599,1861919,00 (dot) html
Greece's bankruptcy is not because of social programs and healthcare. Healthcare is less than 12% of their budget. The US spends the most on healthcare of ANY industrialized country (17% of our annual GDP).
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Alright, Time magazine, if you're referencing politically leaned articles, then I can do the same.
/watch?v=SPq6_7AFsp4
As for why Greece collapsed, it's still because of government interference with the Economy - a full pension retirement at 38 for Civil Servants.
As for the U.S.'s spending on Healthcare, I've already said it's because that figure includes non-necessities such as weight loss pills and such, which can be hand in the U.S. because the U.S. is so well off.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - How was the Time article political leaned? It was just factual.
Greece's economy is collapsing because they're in debt thanks to unregulated foreign loaning and borrowing. How much of the GDP goes to government spending is of little importance. What's important is does the spending yield positive or negative benefits.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Now I can't help but ask where the HECK these numbers are coming from? Al Gore? According to the very same source you listed, defense budget gets 23%. 39% is the two big socialist programs, with 20% more coming from "discretory" and "mandatory" spending programs, such as Welfare and other insurance agencies. I've heard from some pretty reliable sources that the U.S.A. is 2nd in life expectancy only to Japan. (Human Geography textbook, to be precise.) You yourself said less than 25% of
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - Where I got the numbers from? The US government itself (what the hell does Al Gore have to do with anything?) Defense spending plus overseas contingencies is $663.8 billion/year as of 2010. About $319 to $664 billion of Other Mandatory Spending (17% of the budget) is military and defense-related spending. That makes war spending over $1 Trillion per year.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 To nail the point in on big government - of the ~332 bil GDP greece had, 161 of it, almost half, was government spending. So why does it seem every time a country relies more and more on government that it fails? It's because there's no competition, there's no real and present incentive to make people work harder. As much as I like to believe humans are generally good, fact is, they need incentive. The Private sector has that incentive: Competition. And so it's much more efficient.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - "why does it seem every time a country relies more and more on government that it fails?"
When did this happen? The vast majority of wealthy countries in the world have a vast array of social programs and social spending. The countries in the world with the least government spending are usually "third world" countries. Government spending doesn't limit competition. We had more government spending in the 50s and 60s and more competition back then.
A86 1 year ago
Ever heard of anyone going out of the USA for medical care? Millions of people around the world DIE waiting in HUGE ques for medical care. Canada is just an example you might personally know about. But also in many other countries, essentially all of Europe.
All-in-all though, I have great respect for anyone that's able to stay level-headed in an argument and counter with clear points rather than insults. I wish I could say more people were like that
Hint: Colleges teach with a political Agenda
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
As for not getting a lot out of or current healthcare system, I really disagree. Our system is currently the best on Earth, there are people that travel across the world for U.S. privatized healthcare because it works so much better than the national healthcare that most countries have already adopted, and, as a result, now pay as much as 50% taxes in some places (London) for a much poorer product. Ever heard of Cancer treatment in other countries? What about their huge waiting lines?
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - "Our system is..the best on Earth"
According to whom? According to the WHO it's in 37th place. We have the most expensive healthcare system in the world that eats up 17% of our GDP and costs 2 to 3 times per capita than any national healthcare system in the world yet 15% of Americans are uninsured, 40% are under-insured, 18% can't afford all their medications, we're 50th in life expectancy and we have the highest infant and cancer mortality rates in the industrialized world.
A86 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - We have the best system in the world IF YOU'RE RICH. That doesn't say much since most Americans aren't rich. The majority of people from other countries who come here for care are wealthy. The majority of low and middle-income people who can't afford healthcare go to Japan, Canada, India and France for care. Not the US.
Canada has a much lower rate of people dying from lack of care than the US.
A86 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but the phrase "What do we have to show for the wars?" Really got me.
Look up what life is like under Taliban rule. (What you're going to read on wikipedia is very fluffed up, btw. You can tell. See for yourself.)
Or, try the hundreds or thousands of innocent lives we've saved by stopping terrorists.
How about 9-11. Perhaps we should sit back and let that happen again?
Saddam was a tyrant up there with Adolf Hitler.
/watch?v=wss_urnuB7o
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - "Look up what life is like under Taliban rule"
The Taliban is more established now than it was in 2002. The war has done little to topple their rule in the long-run. Part of the relative peace in that region is actually from our government bribing them to stop attacking. We did topple Saddam (a dictator our government put in place in the first place) but illegally and at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in debt.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 The Government just doesn't spend as well as the private sector. That's why Capitalism has survived since the Dawn of time and the Soviet Union collapsed after 70 years. Everyone starved. Nobody wanted the government to run things anymore because THAT DOESN'T WORK!
Why were all the corperations during the Industrial Era so bad? Because there was no competition!
So how much competition is there when the GOVERNMENT ALONE runs an entire industry. (Say... Health?)
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - "a tyrant up there with Adolf Hitler"
Saddam was a dictator but he wasn't that bad. He was no threat to the world like Hitler. Saddam was mostly just a threat to his own people and to Kurds. Iraq can't take over industrialized nations like Hitler. Mobutu Sese-Seko of Zaire was as bad or worse than Hitler and our government was on friendly terms with him back in the 70s. No trillions of dollars spent toppling his rule from us.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 - A bad company is annoying. A bad government kills millions of innocent people. - How did we put Saddam there? Yeah, we gave Pakistan Weapons to fight off the Soviets, but Saddam? And why do you think we're Bribing the middle-east? I'm preatty sure mobilizing armored battalions, attack helicopters, nuclear-powered supercarriers, battleships, attack helicopters... etc. isn't called a bribe. That's called War.
And the Taliban is only another reason why we need to stay there!, so they don't
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - "A bad company is annoying"
It can also kill people. Look how many people had to die to fill Halliburton's pockets. Look how many people private armies like the Pinkertons had killed off in the past for going against corporate interests. Both a bad government and a bad company can kill people.
We did give Saddam gas weapons. We have records of it and pictures of Rumsfeld handing them over to Saddam in 1983. We aided him during the Iraq-Iran War in the 80s.
A86 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - "why do you think we're Bribing the middle-east?"
Go to Google and type in "US government bribing Afghanistan". Brings up a lot of interesting information that I'm not sure will get through YouTube's anti-spam system.
We toppled Saddam illegally because we invaded a country without permission that had not attacked us. That's a violation of several UN conventions. That's exactly why Europe declared war against Nazi Germany: illegal invasions.
A86 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - Whoops, as bad or worse than *Saddam Hussein, I meant. Mobutu wasn't as dangerous as Hitler either.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 come back in the long-run. And how did we topple Saddam illegally? It was war. Illegally as defined by the same people that said it's O.K. to melt a soldier's face with a laser but not to blind them to capture them?
As for Tyrants in our world today or recent, I don't have a very large knowledge base on that, so I can't argue there. Sounds pretty bad. If I had it my way, the U.S. would be overthrowing these dictators. We're refusing dying men medicine by not overthrowing them.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
the vast majority of people use private companies, insurance agencies, or their own bank accounts for retirement, because the private sector spends far more efficiently. So if we used private programs instead of social ones, far more people could afford them and get more out of them.
What the private sector won't do, though, is save human lives from terrorists, overthrow Hitler-like dictators, or put men on other worlds
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 - What does people using private companies to buy goods have to do with NASA? As for insurance agencies most of our healthcare is privatized yet we spend more than countries with nationalized systems and have less to show for it.
"private sector spends far more efficiently"
The economic meltdown of 2007-Present says otherwise. Look how much debt we've racked up bailing out Wall Street. In the past 10 years domestic job growth has been a net gain of almost zero.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 I'm saying we don't need SS and medicaid and such b/c private insurance companies work better. Do most people rely on SS alone for retirement? No! Would it be wise to rely on SS alone for retirement (as that's what it was made for)? No! So if the Feds screw up something as simple as what was made as a bank account for retiring, how can they run something as complex as healthcare better? Want a list of the times national Healthcare has failed?
Greece, France, England, China, Soviet Russia...
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
RazakSAT ~ Malaysia Satellite
lagenda2020 1 year ago
That's what I call a Falcon PUNCH!
sinblesser 1 year ago
"Space... the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before."
X6insane6X 1 year ago
We Americans are dreamers. Humans are not worth anything without dreams!
tryanjohnson 1 year ago
Congrats to the SpaceX team.
sataraid 1 year ago
I think private companies can make a whole lot of money by using rockets as banners and advertising space.
CamiloSanchez1979 1 year ago
@CamiloSanchez1979 I see a green rocket with Viagra on the side.
homertalk 1 year ago
@homertalk that's the spirit boy
CamiloSanchez1979 1 year ago
12 min!!!
BlogClanSu 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrSueVeneer 1 year ago
They should expand their facilities so that they can track all around the world.
NPSurvival 1 year ago
exploration is beautiful but most of the time useless.
kalish86 1 year ago
@kalish86 That can be said of most human accomplishments.
Including pretty much all art and most architecture.
Oh wait one can provide us with enourmous amounts of resources and make sure we dont get wiped out by a asteroid..........so space exploration isnt useless.
valcan321 1 year ago
oh yes I agree with that, all life is useless, but I was talking in more "pragmatical" way, we know money for space either go to exploration (human exploration) or robot exploration. Now the most efficient is robot one, I would like human space exploration, but that is not for now unfortunately, it is too much expensive, maybe in few years-centuries.
kalish86 1 year ago
@kalish86 In a few centuries without the colonization and industrialization of space humanity will die.
If we dont get killed like i said by a asteroid.
I think robots for the signifigant future will be the choice to explore places like venus, mercury etc places that just are to harsh to try to send people.
But really we know all we need to survive in space its getting resources up there that are the problem. We should try to live off the land. (cont)
valcan321 1 year ago
@valcan321 Mine and build from asteroids in orbit around the earth. Then branch out from there. Eventually have only people and specialty items delivered to space. We can get up there and make it. We just need the money and the political will power which is lacking.
Consider this of the US budget more than 3/4ths is welfare programs. Imagine if even 10% of that were put into the industrialization and exploration of space?
valcan321 1 year ago
Ok but that's not the aim of administration today when they think about human exploration. Whatever we need a major breakthrough in space propulsion to do what you want. All other improvements and researches are really lower priority. I hope my english was clear. Have a good day.
kalish86 1 year ago
priorities (in ordrer to achieve the ability to leave the earth).
kalish86 1 year ago
dahdar and blarker
BohmTech 2 years ago
And for all you retards calming that NASA is now worthless, NASA is funding these space missions. What other monetary purpose for space flight would there be for private companies aside from joy rides?
NJRocks281 2 years ago
Satellites.
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
that's not economically viable
NJRocks281 2 years ago
Communications and entertainment being a complete loss when it comes to making money, I guess I'd have to agree with you. Space-X launches cost around $10 million. Their competitors launch for about 4-5 times that. There's no way a company like Sirius, having a measly $1.6 billion in revenue, could come up with that kind of money.
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
Sirius XM has launched eight satellites. Total. Their 2008 annual report shows $204 million for depreciation and amortization, and another $59 million for satellite and transmission.
You bet they can afford the satellites on $1.66 billion of revenue.
The reason that they're losing money is that their other costs are out of control. SAC of $371 million. Customer service and billing: $165 million.
HughesNet almost breaks even. DirectTV makes a nice profit. Don't blame the satellites.
talzara 1 year ago
Sarcasm sometimes gets lost in text.
CrazyHorseInvincible 1 year ago
SpaceX is Awesome !!
ExoAtmospheric2010 2 years ago 4
Comment removed
123NOTlT 2 years ago
"NASA also put up almost all of the satellites that allow cell phones to function. "
Holy jesus...I think I see the problem here. You have no idea what a cell phone actually is. Cell phones are so called because they use this thing called a "cell network." They are distinct from what are called "satellite phones."
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
Wait, yes, I said "cell phone" when I meant "satellite phone". My mistake. Still, satellite phones are commonly used. Not to mention this is just one invention from a list of tens of technological inventions NASA is either directly or indirectly responsible for.
This computer you're typing this anti-NASA post from utilizes technology originally developed by NASA.
A86 2 years ago
Comment removed
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
Crediting NASA for the development of computers is like crediting the rooster for the sun rising in the morning. NASA was there. It participated.
But if NASA didn't exist, then someone else would've done them. Probably the US Air Force.
Go to NASA's Spinoff site, and read the FAQs. People ask about all sorts of supposed spinoffs -- Velcro, Tang, MRIs.
Turns out, *NONE* of those were invented directly or indirectly by NASA.
talzara 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Turns out, *NONE* of those were invented directly or indirectly by NASA"
NASA is an organization which has infrastructure to help construct things or use things commissioned to be constructed by contractors for certain things.
To not give NASA any credit would be about like saying "Well, Neil Armstrong didn't walk on the Moon it was his suit that was. He was just inside it."
A86 1 year ago
My mouth stands allready open, well done SpaceX! The future is yours...
Greets from germany!
Redigel 2 years ago
Private ventures are definitely the future of space travel. I bet that by 2050 most space travel and space exploration will be done by the private industry! There are already two test space stations in orbit (Genesis I & II) and Bigelow Aerospace promises to put the first space hotel in orbit by 2012! At least capitalism got something right!
zolarketh 2 years ago
Don't let Michael Moore know.
flashfast2000 2 years ago
Love how you can see the thrusters go red after staging =D
whiternoise2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
These guys try so hard to sound like NASA, but it comes across as incredibly cheesy.
bmd66 2 years ago
They launched for under 10 million dollars. Most highways in the US cost about 1 million per mile, so any town that can afford 10 measly miles of highway can now afford their own space program. Most contractors working for NASA don't show pricing to the general public, because their half assed work is so embarrassingly expensive. Space X so far has made NASA look like the unmitigated failure it is. If it could kick NASA's ass any harder, NASA would be shitting out its nose.
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
I'm a fan of both and what you're saying is silly. This only the second successful flight so far. SpaceX still has miles to go. I'd hardly call NASA a "failure" when they have over a 98% success rate and the economic returns from their scientific ventures is 7:1.
Great job on the successful launch.
A86 2 years ago
7 to 1?
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
7 dollars of economic gain from every 1 dollar invested.
A86 2 years ago
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / NASA _ Budget
A86 2 years ago
The 7 to 1 ratio is nowhere to be found in the article. What is found, however, is the common and tiresome claim that "technological impact" justifies NASA's existence. Nevermind how this bullshit is measured. Say NASA invented nothing but Tang, and had a 0% success rate. If, over a thousand years, Tang's cumulative economic effect exceeds all the money spent on NASA (assuming NASA was disbanded today), does that justify its existence?
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
It's funny you're slamming NASA from a computer that NASA technology made possible for you to have. Do you enjoy your computer? Enjoy our missile technology and defense system? Enjoy hospital plastics, scanners and half of the technology in them today? Enjoy your hybrid vehicles and fuel cell technology in the works? Enjoy solar power, wind power and nuclear power? Enjoy your iPod? Thank NASA for all of that.
A86 2 years ago
Wow, asinine to a point where rational thought is gone. Do you thank WW2 for those inventions? Because that's where all that shit actually came from. But that's beside the point. I picked Tang to show you that your premise is actually that no amount of waste is unjustifiable if leads to a single invention, because on a long enough timeline it would always pay for all the waste. Faced with this, you name drop inventions until you think I'm impressed.
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
WWII didn't invent the cell phone. Or hybrid technology, etc. You just destroyed whatever "point" you were trying to make.
Why do you keep harping on Tang? That's a minor invention of NASA and just one of tens. You credit NASA with Tang but none of the other inventions/innovations. That's a gap in your 'logic'.
A86 2 years ago
"WWII didn't invent the cell phone. Or hybrid technology, etc." Neither did NASA. Use Wikipedia more often. And I said it was BESIDE the point you illiterate fuckup. I keep harping on Tang because THAT is related to the point I was trying to make. You could latch on to that ONE pitiful invention and, by the same logic you use name dropping any "major" invention NASA is responsible for, justify any amount of incompetence simply because that one invention pays for everything over the long run.
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
A lot of the technology in the cell phone was invented by NASA. NASA also put up almost all of the satellites that allow cell phones to function.
I don't think I'd call these inventions "pitiful":
(dot) thespaceplace (dot) com / nasa / spinoffs (dot) html
Unless you're going to call technology which allows for early detection of cancer "pitiful". At its height NASA also employed over 150,000 people. That's good for the economy.
A86 2 years ago
Uh oh...you're really looking like a moron here. NONE...I repeat...NONE ZERO ZILCH...of the credit for the cell phone belongs to NASA. Google "MTS"...it was the first commercial mobile telephone service, and it predated NASA's establishment by 12 fucking years.
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
Sorry to disappoint you:
(dot) post - gazette (dot) com / pg / 09201 / 985039-51 (dot) stm
Where do you think the chips in cell phones that allow them to connect with satellites comes from? We aren't using the gamma electric cell. Your post is equivalent to saying we should thank Virtual Boy for the existence of PlayStation and XBox.
A86 2 years ago
At the very least you should be happy NASA existed because if they didn't you and I might not be enjoying the video of this rocket taking off right now. The Falcon rocket family's main engine is based on a NASA engine:
(dot) spacex (dot) com / falcon1 (dot) php
A86 2 years ago
Your premise here is that we wouldn't have space flight, or any of the inventions you mentioned without NASA. I have a feeling you've avoided stating this explicitly because you'd be confronted by the sheer retardedness of it if it were out in the open. Is this your position? Is it your personal belief that none of these things would have been invented anyways if not for NASA?
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
"Retardedness" is not a word, retard. Thanks for making yourself look stupid while attempting to insult me.
If NASA didn't exist some other government agency would have been created and done the same thing. You're also attempting to shift the conversation by going into hypothetical what-ifs about what might have happened had this and that not happened. No one knows. But the FACT is that the Falcon Merline engine is based on technology from NASA's LM engine.
A86 2 years ago
Well, I'm glad you took the time to try looking up an obvious neologism in the dictionary. It's the finest research you've done so far. I'm not shifting the conversation to the what if. That WAS my fucking conversation this whole time. Hit Control-F and see if you can find me saying "BESIDE THE POINT YOU IDIOT" to you repeatedly when you were listing the shit they had invented.
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
Well that's a pretty dumb and pointless hypothetical. We can "what if" about anything. What if a bird had a glass ass? Would it crap window panes?
The fact is that NASA has created many technological inventions. Whether or not someone else would have done it has NASA not existed is pointless because it could have just as easily been some other government agency that might have developed it. That logic works for both government and private inventions.
A86 2 years ago
"That logic works for both government and private inventions."
Here's the problem. You think there's a distinction between "private" and "govnerment" inventions, as if it makes sense to categorize inventions that way. You can't imagine any alternative to NASA other than another fucking government agency.
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
There isn't much of a distinction but your posts seem to indicate you don't like NASA simply because it's a government agency.
"another fucking government agency"
Of course there will be private space companies, like this. For now NASA is the main actor in space because the private sector has little incentive to care about things like space travel. My complaint was you claiming NASA is "worthless". That's a completely ridiculous comment.
A86 2 years ago 8
@A86 Not true. NASA has often collaborated with private enterprises throughout its history. And while I have a moral quandry when it comes to public funding of something like a space program, I can't deny the important scientific progress that came as a result of it.
supahsekzy 1 year ago
And I don't get your hostility to NASA (your huffing and puffing towards me isn't impressive and it to me it just sounds unintelligent). It's one of the most efficient organizations in existence, public or private. 98%+ efficiency and very high economic returns. There are a whole array of functions that the government spends far more money on that is far more wasteful. Like most wars.
A86 2 years ago 15
It's not huffing and puffing in an attempt to impress you. It's sheer frustration at having to find the right combination of words to get you to understand something. We're back to square one, with the 98% statistic and an "economic return" that cannot possibly be quantified because it's so ambiguous. Whatever. Please, anyone besides A86, if you're out there, can you read what I've written and know what I was getting at, or am I fucking crazy?
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
I didn't post links earlier because I'm hesitant about posting links in videos. But if you truly want some then here are a couple which prove my point:
(dot) fas (dot) org / spp / garcia (dot) htm
Over 97% success rate with shuttles and as you know before the Shuttle era NASA only had 2 mission failures and 2 partial failures (for manned missions). The sources which show NASA's ROI rates are all pay sites. I'm still searching for one I can link to you.
A86 2 years ago
Let's pick a forum if we're going to debate this any more. It's not possible in 500 character bursts without the comments section with 10 pages worth of this crap.
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
Well, I looked around for a while yesterday and today and so far I haven't found a single site which shows that NASA is ecnomically inefficient. Many hospital plastics and scanners alone are from NASA technology (not even talking about the other stuff). That saves thousands of lives per year and has generated billions for the economy from hospital and pharmaceutical profits.
Another example is this very rocket we're looking at right now which is heavily based on NASA tech.
A86 2 years ago
Forum
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
Whats your issue with NASA? Its my favorite group of people in the world...
pacificguitarist 2 years ago
@A86
What the fuck is 98% efficiency? You don't measure efficiency in how many payloads you don't lose, you measure it in cost per launch. STS is more than $1B per launch, which compared to Proton, Zenit or even Atlas is absolutely ridiculous.
ChrisInAStrangeLand 1 year ago