Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   NASA, brought to you by Estée Lauder   (cnn.com) divider line
    More: Sad, shot  
•       •       •

1361 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 19 Sep 2020 at 8:41 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



19 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-09-19 3:36:39 PM  
Original Tweet:

 
2020-09-19 3:41:08 PM  
This is worse than Ivanka's beans.
 
2020-09-19 3:51:21 PM  
Welp
 
2020-09-19 4:21:37 PM  
 
2020-09-19 7:06:02 PM  
Government employees doing work for commercial interest using government resources. I never worked in space but the gov offices I did work in, well, that'd be illegal as shiat. Who knows these days.
 
2020-09-19 8:49:56 PM  
Hey, if it helps pay the bills, why not?

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-19 8:59:53 PM  

edmo: Government employees doing work for commercial interest using government resources. I never worked in space but the gov offices I did work in, well, that'd be illegal as shiat. Who knows these days.



Government employees are already riding on private rockets in private space suits that may soon carry tourists. Their faces will be on commercial products, it's unavoidable.
NASA has been wanting more private operations in space. It's the only way to provide the additional budget that congress has not, and it's key to long term space development.  They're even planning while new wings of the iss for this.
Anything that entices people to buy up the rack space is a plus.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-19 9:59:41 PM  
Al Worden unavailable for comment.

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2020-09-19 10:25:55 PM  
Well I have t thought too hard about this but my initial impression is this sucks
 
2020-09-19 10:58:20 PM  
Oh no, if they're hawking things on the ISS, how will they find time to accomplish all the super important stuff that needs to be done aboard the ISS? By the way, what exactly is that super important stuff?

/next to no reason for manned space flight
 
2020-09-19 11:52:28 PM  
Not yet? Hrmph.

external-content.duckduckgo.comView Full Size
 
Al!
2020-09-20 1:10:01 AM  

way south: edmo: Government employees doing work for commercial interest using government resources. I never worked in space but the gov offices I did work in, well, that'd be illegal as shiat. Who knows these days.


Government employees are already riding on private rockets in private space suits that may soon carry tourists. Their faces will be on commercial products, it's unavoidable.
NASA has been wanting more private operations in space. It's the only way to provide the additional budget that congress has not, and it's key to long term space development.  They're even planning while new wings of the iss for this.
Anything that entices people to buy up the rack space is a plus.

[Fark user image 850x849]


Going that way is fine. The government is allowed to contract services. The other way is where the problem lies. The government should not be contracted out.
 
2020-09-20 2:29:07 AM  

way south: Their faces will be on commercial products, it's unavoidable.


Fark you. No, seriously, fark you. It's not unavoidable. Fark. You.

And it's not their faces on products that are the problem, of course, it's the commercialization of space for advertising purposes.
 
2020-09-20 4:59:14 AM  

Befuddled: Oh no, if they're hawking things on the ISS, how will they find time to accomplish all the super important stuff that needs to be done aboard the ISS? By the way, what exactly is that super important stuff?

/next to no reason for manned space flight


You're right.  We should be sinking that money into more sports stadiums or another trillion dollar aircraft that barely flies instead.  It's not like every dollar that's wasted at NASA returns $7 back to the economy or anything.

Nothing good has ever come out of the space program.
 
2020-09-20 8:57:16 AM  

AngryDragon: You're right. We should be sinking that money into more sports stadiums or another trillion dollar aircraft that barely flies instead.


Dude, that is one awesome strawman. Next to a good cup of coffee, nothing is better in the morning than a good strawman argument.

The claim that every dollar put into NASA gives back seven dollars reeks of bullsh*t.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/​f​iscal-multiplier.asp
In 2008, Mark Zandi, then chief economist of Moody's, estimated the following fiscal multipliers for different policy options, expressed as the one-year dollar increase in real GDP per dollar increase in spending or decrease in federal tax revenue:

[chart of various values redacted]

By far the most effective policy options, according to this analysis, are temporarily increasing food stamps (1.73) and extending unemployment insurance benefits (1.64). Both of these policies target groups with low incomes and, as a result, high marginal propensities to consume. Permanent tax cuts benefiting mostly higher-income households, by contrast, have fiscal multipliers below 1: for every dollar "spent" (given up in tax revenue), only a few cents are added to real GDP.
 
2020-09-20 9:09:17 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: way south: Their faces will be on commercial products, it's unavoidable.

Fark you. No, seriously, fark you. It's not unavoidable. Fark. You.

And it's not their faces on products that are the problem, of course, it's the commercialization of space for advertising purposes.


Well triple fark you too!

Space is a massive frontier of untapped potential and right now mankind faces the underwear Gnome problem of figuring out what the step two is between us and profit.
Is it mining? Is it space solar power? Is it space internet?  Maybe it's putting on some farking lipstick and smiling for the camera so advertisers and movie studios start to think seriously about sending film crews to orbit.

If the universities and congress won't step up to actually pay for the rack space they demanded, equipment they forced us to launch on the most expensive rockets, then private industry might pay. NASA has the unique task of trying to find that money wherever it can. Sometimes you have to risk a loss to create the business, no different than when the government was propping up airlines or railways.

Until there's an actual orbital industry to take over these tasks, NASA time is very much available to any bidder.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-20 10:58:03 AM  
Who exactly is the target audience of this 🤔
 
2020-09-20 11:32:33 AM  
"Ground Control to Major Tom
Eat your Quest® protein bar, a complete protein source with no added sugar, and put your helmet on..."

"This is Ground Control to Major Tom
You've really made the grade
And the papers want to know his you like the UnderArmour® Activity Gear, the official activity wear of NASA."
 
2020-09-20 12:19:46 PM  

Befuddled: AngryDragon: You're right. We should be sinking that money into more sports stadiums or another trillion dollar aircraft that barely flies instead.

Dude, that is one awesome strawman. Next to a good cup of coffee, nothing is better in the morning than a good strawman argument.

The claim that every dollar put into NASA gives back seven dollars reeks of bullsh*t.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/f​iscal-multiplier.asp
In 2008, Mark Zandi, then chief economist of Moody's, estimated the following fiscal multipliers for different policy options, expressed as the one-year dollar increase in real GDP per dollar increase in spending or decrease in federal tax revenue:

[chart of various values redacted]

By far the most effective policy options, according to this analysis, are temporarily increasing food stamps (1.73) and extending unemployment insurance benefits (1.64). Both of these policies target groups with low incomes and, as a result, high marginal propensities to consume. Permanent tax cuts benefiting mostly higher-income households, by contrast, have fiscal multipliers below 1: for every dollar "spent" (given up in tax revenue), only a few cents are added to real GDP.


What you posted has nothing to do with my statement or cited reference.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.