NASA Trailer To Be Shown Before Star Trek: Into Darkness 158
Tired of seeing ads for cars and soda before the films you watch at the theater? Well, a successful crowdfunding campaign at Indiegogo will see a trimmed down version of NASA's 'We Are Explorers' video aired before showings of the upcoming Star Trek: Into Darkness in theaters all over the country. "Most people recognize space as a key expression of our character. They know our space programs as a globally recognized brand of ingenuity. The recently landed Mars Curiosity Rover was the latest reminder that space systems are the crown jewels of our scientific and technical prowess. Less known is the indispensable value space systems bring to our everyday lives. Space provides irreplaceable capabilities for defense, public health, finance, medicine, energy, agriculture, transportation, development and countless other fields. Investments in space programs are precisely about improving and protecting life on Earth. ... By funding this campaign, we can remind students and the general public that our nation's space agency is working hard on the next era of exploration." The campaign's funding goal was reached in just six days — their stretch goal will increase the number of theaters for the clip from 59 screens to 750. The movie comes out on May 17th.
Good (Score:5, Informative)
Wider exposure to science cannot be a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Real progress is also developing cheap spaceflight that works. It's doing everything quickly. It's actively developing reusable rockets. It's building inexpensive space habitats for people to live in.
Landing on Mars is a goal, with the added bonus of expecting real people to live there. Till they die of natural causes. Not regularly putting Captain America in an aging hunk in LEO for a few months until you replace him with a female Captain America, wash, rinse, repeat.
I'm not one to downplay what NASA does.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess you've never heard of Golden Spike Company or Inspiration Mars? The first is a private effort to land people on the Moon, and the second one is trying to organize a private spaceflight attempt to send people to Mars. Both plan on having this happen in this decade (meaning some time before the year 2020).
You can debate if either of these companies, or the numerous space prospecting companies that are starting to show up will be successful at getting things done in space, but they are trying to kick the door down and make some real progress by sending people and spacecraft well beyond LEO.
We will be stuck in the Solar System for quite some time as interstellar travel is quite beyond our capability (the Voyager spacecraft not withstanding.... and they won't get near another star within human lifetimes, much less the lifetimes of any current human civilization). The Solar System is a big place though with literally thousands of worlds to explore and enough raw materials to expand human civilization several orders of magnitude in terms of population.... and to do that with style and comfort.
The big goal of private spaceflight at the moment is to cut the cost of getting up there to at least make the fuel being used to get there as a major cost component. Several companies are making some significant progress in doing that.
Re: (Score:1)
As was said above - come back when they've DONE it. At the moment they're at least fifty years behind the front line. I know it's painful for you, but you have to admit it was the government that got us into space, and the government that got us to the moon. Not private enterprise, not profit motivation.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX currently owns the only man-rated spacecraft that are in active service from vehicles launched within America, not NASA. That says quite a bit. Orbital Science (another private company) is doing the same thing and will have that spacecraft launched some time next month (aka April). I'd say they are getting things done. Bigelow Aerospace has not one but two orbital spacecraft in orbit right now that are capable of sustaining people, and are right now only waiting for a paying customer and for the
Re: (Score:1)
Granted, but that isn't exactly breaking new ground, is it? The two companies you originally mentioned (Golden Spike/Inspiration Mars) seem to be doing little more than producing powerpoints. SpaceX, Bigelow, Virgin Galactic, sure, they're getting to orbit, but orbit is not the moon, and it's certainly not Mars. When private space enterprise reaches the moon, they've caught up with 1969 NASA, and it's much easier to follow a trail already blazed.
I'd also argue with the premise that keeping people in space i
Re: (Score:3)
@teancum - SpaceX has a man-rated rocket? Capsule? I thought not yet, but working on it.
Seems to me the progression for commercial interests is:
get there (LEO, Moon, asteroids and/or Mars;
find and expand ways to make money at it;
low-level continued exploration for resources in those areas;
later explore and exploit stuff further out - moons of Jupiter and Saturn;
and in all or most all cases/areas they will be in the footprints of government exploration efforts. That's for near-term, next 100 years and mor
Re: (Score:3)
I'd love to be wrong about this
How about developing a new line of orbital launch vehicles. which SpaceX did, for less than a factor of ten that NASA would have payed for it (at least in the initial contract, it'd go up with cost overruns)? Some NASA people examined SpaceX's accounting books and reached that particular conclusion. Exploration (and more important things like development) of space will be helped along by this new generation of cheap access to space.
Don't you love being wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
They've gone to some of the easier places cheaper. That's not exploration, that's just repetition.
Well, that just goes to show that you don't know what exploration is. "Been there. Done that." is useless as a principle of exploration because eventually you'll get to the point where it's too expensive to "Be there. Do that." You have to have affordable infrastructure, not merely a smattering of moderately adventurous activities.
That's what SpaceX (and in time others) will provide. Infrastructure for space exploration and other things. And rather than speak of the things we do in the past tense, we'll
Re: (Score:2)
Your ridiculous "Doing it again only cheaper counts!" is pointless.
Pointless compared to what? There is nothing that NASA does which would stick around, if the funding got cut off. The ISS would have to be deorbited, the space probes ignored (and eventually run out of juice), etc. That's because none of it generates a return in any concrete way that could continue to fund the activity.
It won't matter in twenty years what NASA does now aside from as a demonstration of technology (which incidentally could have been acquired for far less than the NASA price tag). All their
Re: (Score:2)
Er no, it's got external funding.
Of course it does. It has NASA and it has private sources.
Also, they are not, as has been pointed out many times, exploring anything.
Not at the moment though Elon Musk has indicated plans down the road. But they are more important to long term space exploration now than NASA is because they attack the core obstacle to space exploration, namely cost of access to space.
and that's the very lowest end of estimates
I'm willing to lowball those ridiculously optimistic guesses. We need to keep in mind that NASA is grossly inefficient with its funding. You take at least an order of magnitude hit in cost from having NASA handle the
Re: (Score:2)
" these developments would have occurred anyway."
Prove it.
What do you mean by "proof"? I mentioned solar cells and computers. I think the vast amounts of non-NASA-based funding for that research, is sufficient evidence. But maybe you have some other research in mind.
After all your moving of goalposts, all your redefinitions, you end up at the point I was at originally: Private Enterprise has yet to explore anything space related. Next time could you just have a bit of a think before you post?
Well, let's go over what I actually posted:
How about developing a new line of orbital launch vehicles. which SpaceX did, for less than a factor of ten that NASA would have payed for it (at least in the initial contract, it'd go up with cost overruns)? Some NASA people examined SpaceX's accounting books and reached that particular conclusion. Exploration (and more important things like development) of space will be helped along by this new generation of cheap access to space.
Did I say that SpaceX was directly exploring anything? No, I merely pointed that they were in the process of greatly reducing the cost of all space exploration, which I think is more important, and you should as well. Let's see some more examples:
Well, that just goes to show that you don't know what exploration is. "Been there. Done that." is useless as a principle of exploration because eventually you'll get to the point where it's too expensive to "Be there. Do that." You have to have affordable infrastructure, not merely a smattering of moderately adventurous activities.
That's what SpaceX (and in time others) will provide. Infrastructure for space exploration and other things. And rather than speak of the things we do in the past tense, we'll be speaking of them in the future tense.
And later:
All such trips whether exploration or other activities, must to some extent come from Earth. SpaceX makes all such trips cheaper whether it be another oh-so-boring trip to the Moon or a trip to someplace that would be "new" by your definition.
It's worth noting that even if we accept your analogy, it is possible for someone to buy a cheap plane ticket from Delta and explore (no "scare quotes" needed) NYC. Even if they've been to NYC before. It's a big place and not everyone has been everywhere there. So Delta and its cheaper air fares is indeed enabling new exploration of NYC as we speak.
And
Re: (Score:2)
You're joking. These are all NASA firsts. These are all genuine exploration of the universe we live in.
There's something like eighty or ninety space projects right now? That's Genuine Exploration (TM), right? Here's the problem, the one I've been talking about since the first post. Once the funding dries up, the only thing we'll have to show for all those missions is a meager bit of knowledge, some pretty pictures, and a little litter in space.
Let's give a big example of this profound lack of ambition. The Moon is the only world outside of Earth where you can teleoperate in near real time. It has a numbe
Re: (Score:2)
We know how old the universe is. That's not meager, that's one of the most profound discoveries of history.
We would have learned that anyway with Earth based observation.
Then you complain about NASA costing too much and at the same time want more Mars rovers.
Then you didn't get it. Those Mars rovers were paid for with existing NASA funding. More exploration, sooner. Don't you want that? My point here is that even ignoring whether NASA is actually doing anything useful or whether SpaceX and similar businesses can lower cost of access to space, we can still greatly improve what NASA does and the outcomes it gets through some simple changes such as doing things more than once.
As for your patronizing "read up..." - I WORK on this. For a private company, I'm not going to say which. And I dream of NASA contracts because then I'll be working on something that will be a real contribution.
Even worse. Someone who sh
Re: (Score:2)
At the moment they're at least fifty years behind the front line.
What front line? NASA has done much on the manned front in the last 50 years.
I know it's painful for you, but you have to admit it was the government that got us into space, and the government that got us to the moon.
And what has the government (and really by this phrase I mean all governments not just the US) done lately? They haven't returned to the Moon in forty years. They haven't surpassed any new barriers in that time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You make it sound like NASA / JAXA and every other space agency didn't make real progress. They did, in fact they did A LOT of progress over the past decades. We learned so much about space from knowing nothing, and learn so much about safety and protocols to follow. What needed to be learned was the foundations of space, not how to effectively make space crafts without rockets. We didn't even know if we could swallow in space or even keep in the food we eat. There was progress but then serious budget cuts
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. You make some sense. But, poetry is motivational too.
Go out, crank up your motorcycle, crank up some tunes, and hit the highway. Rumble out across the badlands, with "Highway to the Danger Zone" booming in your ears. Try it.
I'm no poet, but poetry is indeed motivational. If it isn't, then you probably have no soul.
Re: (Score:3)
A Ferengi is far less likely to invest in basic research. We still need an agency that will develop the technologies that corporations will reuse. There is unprofitable work to be done before things can be handed over to the likes of Mosk. That is what NASA has done for 50 years and the new corporate space ventures are the dividend of very old investments.
The shoulders of giants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nasa isn't science, nasa is throwing trillions at a problem and NEVER ever solving anything or creating anything new..
All I know is it's wonderful showing my son a picture of earthrise from the moon, and watching his eyes go wide in wonder (followed by him running to his big sister's room to grab her globe and start investigating).
Re: (Score:2)
Preaching the choir? (Score:5, Funny)
It's not like you have to convince the average Star Trek fan that NASA should get some sensible funding.
But given the quality of the more recent Star Trek movies, this might just be the best thing they'll see that evening.
Kinda ironic... (Score:5, Funny)
The entire thing basically looks like the intro of Star Trek: Enterprise. Minus the singing.
Also, practically minus the "future". All that trailer does is show things NASA "used to do".
Making the ST: E intro far more inspirational.
On the other hand, "We are explorers" is not really the motto that syncs with Jar Jar's Trek - which is about lens flares, explosions, running, shooting and apparently tits in space.
Not that there's anything wrong with tits in space, it's just that when talking about "exploration of celestial spheres" our goal should be set a little farther than a pair of double Ds.
Re:Kinda ironic... (Score:4, Funny)
Tits in space? Hmmm. Interesting concept. Should I assume that we'll find human women attached to those tits? I don't know that whole mountains of disembodied tits would benefit man or mankind very much.
Re: (Score:2)
If Star Trek has taught us anything, it's that green skinned alien women also have tits.
Re: (Score:2)
Should I assume that we'll find human women attached to those tits? I don't know that whole mountains of disembodied tits would benefit man or mankind very much.
Well, benefits of disembodied sexual organs is has been previously pointed out. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry. English is not my forte when I've been working for 20 hours straight. I should stick to French. Or German. Or Spanish.
Surely nobody will go see the movie anyway (Score:1, Insightful)
The last movie turned out to be a lie.
It was called star trek and it had some characters with the same name in and a few things in common.
But it wasn't star trek, the universe wasn't the same one.
I don't imagine many people will be conned again
Re: (Score:3)
That's exactly how I felt about it: It was a modestly interesting SF movie, but it wasn't Star Trek.
Re: (Score:2)
I can give some slack to character interpretations bu honestly, the ending sucked and I concur, other than name it did not feel like 'star trek'
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That is the nature of any inter-generational story. Some fanboy will always whine that the newest incarnation is not a true Scotsman.
It doesn't matter if it's Dickens or Batman.
Lost opportunity (Score:1)
Just think how much more awesomer this would have been if made by the IRS. Cheaper too - they already have a Star Trek set and costumes.
Target audience? (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA cites younger people as being the target audience. As a young person who also happens to know quite a few other young people this seems strange. In general, young people tend to understand the importance of NASA and space programs in general - we all know all know the associated trivia such as where ballpoint pens and Teflon came from. We all know the importance of science - we are all (unless you are in the Bible Belt of the USA) taught it in school and we are all aware of what science can do for us.
It seems to me that the people who actually need to be targeted are the middle aged and older people who are in control of the votes and money needed to revitalise the space programs. Luckily, there is some penetration of Star Trek into these age groups.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that the people who actually need to be targeted are the middle aged and older people who are in control of the votes and money needed to revitalise the space programs. Luckily, there is some penetration of Star Trek into these age groups.
Like, everyone who watched TOS when it was new...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, "that whole age bracket" agrees with you, which is why the Historical Documents marked the beginning and end of the franchise, and it died alone, unloved and unremembered, inspiring nothing and no-one.
Re:Target audience? (Score:4, Insightful)
TOS was terrible. I know I'm going to get hate for saying that, but it's truly unbearable crap. No-wonder that whole age bracket has an aversion to science.
Yeah, it should have been sophisticated, like today's television shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Though I don't agree, your comment should get modded up as a conversation starter because it is both right and wrong. Yes, many of the TOS episodes are unbearably (can't think of the right word) trite by some modern standards and even at the time it was pointed out (among other things) that the concept of the ship's captain putting himself in life threatening situations was unrealistic (to say the least). However, for the time (and I was there to see it) it was a fascinating and insightful show which ofte
Re: (Score:2)
TOS was terrible.
Both true and false. yes, the special effects were terrible compared to nowadays and Shatner's ego tend to dominate everything. However, they had to rely on compelling stories (take a look at credits of screenplays, you will see some notable SF authors). They could not use CGI to make up for a bad plot though it seems these days it what they are doing, and it ain't working (who watches sci-fi channel these days?). One thing for sure it generated a whole genre and several movies and TV shows all based on a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that the people who actually need to be targeted are the middle aged and older people who are in control of the votes and money needed to revitalise the space programs.
It's also nearly impossible to change the opinions of middle aged and older people.
Re: (Score:2)
we all know all know the associated trivia such as where ballpoint pens and Teflon came from
Do tell.
The ballpoint pen was invented by Laszlo Biro in 1938
Re: (Score:2)
The history of the ball point pen goes back a lot further then that. It just took a long time to perfect with the Biro brothers making an important step in the ink department and having luck like meeting the President of Argentina on an ocean liner and American pilots discovering it.
Really it was Bich who ended up perfecting it and managed to sell it which was hard as so many ball point pens had leaked and ruined shirts.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither ball-point pens nor Teflon came out of NASA. But if they spur your interest in NASA, science, and the rest, more power to y'all. Go for it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I've owned several, they work well; only drawback I ever found was a tendency for a very small blob of ink to appear when starting to write. I found they were more than a gimmick on Earth; I've had enough occasions taking down measurements or marking up framing, for instance, worked nicely, and sometimes better than just using a pencil (and you don't have to sharpen it).
Was done by Fisher, of Fisher Pen; he put in a million out of his pocket towards development, so the story goes. See Wikipedia for
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, should have been a hyphen before ink. And no, it didn't have to be pumped.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally (Score:1)
I've been worried lately that to enough of my colleagues know about NASA or understand how prestigious it would look on their resume. Money well spent.
p.s. If you don't know, NASA is the government-funded space agency in the USA.
This is awesome BUT (Score:5, Interesting)
.. I wish there was a "This video was funded by public donations" under the NASA ad at the end. I can see a lot of people in the theatre being needlessly jaded by the idea that their tax dollars were spent advertising a government agency, when that isn't the case here.
All Hail the Federal Civil Servant (Score:1)
In Start Trek's one world government run by the army, seemingly
Re: (Score:2)
You're just bitter that they send the roboticists away for reprogramming, aren't you? But with non-scarcity they need something for humans to do. Walk outside the ship to fix dangerous stuff? Great; and even better if a few float away or get eaten by space monsters.
Irrelvant space aggency (Score:1)
Irrelevant space agency that needs to get abandoned in the cold-war era where it belongs.. (FIRE SALE)
seriously though, even in Star Trek it was a privately run thing with a really interested scientist trying to create a warp engine (and that's how it will happen)
people working at nasa are just doing their job, they don't care what they're doing as long as they get a frigging paycheck at the end of the month (jaded old workers)
Re: (Score:2)
Not it wont happen. a "warp engine" can not be made by some guys in their garage. it will take experiments on the billion dollar and trillion dollar scales to even hope to come up with anything that can do a significant % of C.
You watch far to many movies, Movies are not reality. Bill gates will not dump all of his wealth into ONE experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The only thing NASA should be involved in are basic science missions. And even there I think they should spin off their mission specialists/researchers to a university consortium. Mission control/operation services also could be spun off and offered as a service to any group.
I would also ask - why are there not any standardized delivery systems? IE, small, medium large to which instrument(s) can be readily attached? Why must NASA reinvent the wheel on every mission? Doing so could greatly reduc
Awesome trailer... (Score:4)
Problem is War is more profitable and more desirable to human kind. We prefer to kill each other in the name of god, peace, and love.
Please build more telescopes than spaceships (Score:4, Insightful)
What excites me more than shuttle missions are satellites and probes NASA has been sending out all these years.
MRO and to a lesser extent MSL are worth 20 round trip human mars missions as far as I'm concerned. New telescopes like JWST are likely to be as priceless as HST and WMAP have proven to be.
It is simply cheaper and more productive to push technology without having to worry about earthly things like human safety.
My only problem with the video other than being slightly cheezy is the video is all rockets and no science.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with NASA is that its a relic of the cold war. There is this manned mission thing that quite frankly is a waste of money. It does *not* even achieve anything that the space enthusiasts want. It has awful return on investment and stops the entire space program for years every time something goes wrong.
Some push manned missions because of inspiration and exploration spirit.. Shesh for the billions it costs you can make a lot of full length movies and rele
Re: (Score:3)
In defense of NASA (and I'm a huge NASA critic), they seem to do better than most other government agencies in terms of returning value for tax dollars spent. At the very least the manned spaceflight missions provided some amazing entertainment and thousands of hours of programming for the major television networks at modest prices that would be comparable to Hollywood budgets.
I think using the "scientific inquiry" argument is about as lame as it gets and that doesn't even remotely touch what NASA actually
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't see anything they are currently doing which even comes close to the boundary pushing NASA was doing in the 1960's when things were really happening.
This may be a fair assessment, but I'd also argue that the unmanned exploration missions have been incredibly successful and relatively efficient, and a more sustainable future for NASA. Science and technology don't always need to be "boundary pushing" - sometimes iterative refinement and incremental advances are just as important. Sure, the rov
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather that NASA become much more like how the NACA (the predecessor agency to NASA) operated: They performed R&D to develop concepts and ideas, then turned those ideas over to private industry to make them into practical products. This happened in the aviation industry and it has benefited not just America (with a very strong aviation industry that is still around), but also everybody else in the world as well.
The James Webb Space Telescope simply needs to be cancelled though. It is an albatross
Tired of Ads? (Score:1)
"Tired of seeing ads for cars and soda before the films you watch at the theater?"
A long time ago. I stopped paying $10 to then watch a commercial.. but I'm old fashion that way.
Wrong movie (Score:3)
What's the point of showing a NASA promotional video before a Star Trek movie? Everyone who watches that movie is already a fan of space exploration. The video should be shown in front of something completely different, like The Great Gatsby.
I would have sponsored the funding campaign on Indiegogo if that had been their goal. Instead, it's just preaching to the choir. What a waste.
The trip to mars. (Score:2)
This is all about NASA making a scientifically correct movie how to fly some astronouts to mars and back. They will use real life models of rockets and gear. And it will cost the budget of NASA a lot. THey might even make it *** an international co-production ***. Minimal CGI, and not those fake moon-landing minitures and errors like a waving flag.
It will be premiered on the news, and not in some MPAA controlled screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Comments like this (serious or not) make me wonder just how many people out there truly believe we never landed on the moon, sent those probes to mars, etc.
Space provides significant profits (Score:2)
for corporations suckling on the government teat: "Created by the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) of America" Want to know more?
Nerd test? (Score:2)
Is this some kind of Nerd Test? The movie is called "Star Trek Into Darkness" (no colon).
Re: (Score:2)
Noo it's "Star Trek into Darkness" (note the capitalization) http://xkcd.com/1167/ [xkcd.com]
Should used actual Optimus Prime voice actor (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the fine article (yeah, right), it states that it actually is Peter Cullen. I presume he sounds like he does because he's not actually trying to do the low Optimus Prime voice we all know so well.
now they only need to figure out the "space" part (Score:2)
For example, they're kicking around the idea of a Europa ice drill. Why only one such mission? There are plenty of other icy Moon and asteroids out there. The same drill could be used on Saturn's moon Enceladus (which has similar liquid water activities). It c
Re: (Score:2)
Funding and continuity of mission as dictated by Congress is needed for what you describe, and that's been lacking since well before the end of the Apollo program. NASA has struggled just to manage to do what they're doing now.
Re: (Score:2)
Can they supply a working space ship? (Score:1)
By Grabthar's Hammer ... what a space program.
NASA Logo (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad the video is bad... (Score:2)
Could have been a lot more convincing if... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The fundamental principle of Capitalism [...]
Because we know how well it works with humans in command, right[U+2e2e]
Re:Bureacracy (Score:5, Informative)
bzzt wrong...nasa can't spend money on a commercial - this was funded by donations
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes yes, damn the government. Too bad your far flung accusations have no basis in this case, as it's a crowdfunded campaign. But don't let facts get in the way of your derp. Wear it proudly.
Re:Bureacracy (Score:5, Informative)
1. It isn't your capital, it's the taxes that an elected legislature empowered by the Constitution collects.
2. Don't wreck a perfectly good economic system with Libertarian nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
And if my aunt were a man she'd be my uncle. This is a ridiculous statement. Grow up.
A lot of grown ups figure out how not to pay their taxes.
Libertarianism would never get us to the moon, would never cure a disease (treatment is much more profitable) and wouldn't do shit in the face of a Panzer division, but hell, let's keep flogging the dead horse that is this infantile religion.
That's not its job. It's to create a sustainable society which is capable of doing those things.
Re: (Score:2)
Each person is only concerned with his own profit and his own survival.
Why would that be the case? Are you only concerned about your profit and survival? What makes you so different from the libertarian?
My favorite example is from the media. The scene in the original Total Recall movie where Cohaagan turns off the air machines because they belong to him. You do know that's fiction and didn't really happen, don't you?
Re: (Score:1)
This commercial was not paid for by NASA. As a Federal Agency, it is illegal for NASA to advertise. The commercial was privately organized and funded by aerospace lobbyists.
Re: (Score:2)
More like funded by NASA fans and not really lobbyists. The distinction is a bit important to note, although I'm sure some lobbyists were involved as well.
The U.S. military is allowed to advertise (heck, they have a NASCAR team they sponsor and have run Super Bowl ads). The U.S. Postal Service was the primary sponsor of Lance Armstrong for more than one Tour de France race. Just because they are a federal agency doesn't prohibit them from running promotional advertising, but NASA is explicitly prohibited
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, 'cause capitalists never screw up.
Or screw us.
Re: (Score:2)
While your dogmatic assertions have some merit to them unmitigated capitalism is not what civilisation is supposed to be; The betterment of us all and those that come after us. Short term gain and long term goals do not mix very well. NASA has been spanning three generations and counting and none of them were
Re:Bureacracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a non-American, NASA is one of the few things I find myself admiring about the USA, and certainly one of the most worthy.
Your government clearly underestimates the high esteem in which NASA is held around the world, otherwise it would fund the bejesus out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as a non-American, NASA is one of the few things I find myself admiring about the USA, and certainly one of the most worthy.
Your government clearly underestimates the high esteem in which NASA is held around the world, otherwise it would fund the bejesus out of it.
Speaking as a non-American, NASA is one of the few things I find myself admiring about the USA, and certainly one of the most worthy.
Your government clearly underestimates the high esteem in which NASA is held around the world, otherwise it would fund the bejesus out of it.
Speaking as an European, ...EXACTLY!!!
NASA is probably the greatest (still-)standing achievement of the United States when comprehended as a whole.
It is a representation of back when the USA was at its finest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fsck "our nation's" space agency; there's nothing "our" about it—the government just took my money and wasted it on a commercial.
I don't trust bureaucrats to allocate my capital properly, and this ridiculous propaganda campaign is proof of the validity of this distrust. The fundamental principle of Capitalism is that capital is best allocated by those who accumulated said capital in the first place; the bureaucrat has no idea what he's doing.
Given that this was funded by an NGO through IndieGoGo, you should re-assess your remarks given that you are railing against something that didn't happen. Other than that, well done.