|
|
| Post Number: 91
|
Bozeman 
Guardian
Group: Members
Posts: 762
Joined: Jun. 2000
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 13 2002,05:45 |
|
   |
| Quote (CatKnight @ 12 June 2002,20:39) | | some examples of out performing a private company: getting more/better results with LESS money (remember cr0bar's old editorial on the voodoo 5?), higher efficiency, driving a private company out of buisness by competitive means (NOT regulation or monopolozing), etc. |
NASA outperforms other space programs. They spend money. Efficiency? I'd call going to the moon, exploring every planetary body (yes, even Pluto, they have pictures) putting sattleites in orbit, creating the most useful space telescope (the hubble) and soon to have worked with Russia and a few other suppliers to create the first international space station efficient. NASA has more money than private companies. You cannot say "they don't count because they have more money." I'd say that, for what LITTLE we pay for NASA (a fraction of the budget compared to other programs, with constant cutbacks) we get our money's worth in scientific data and research. I don't think NASA is being outperformed, but if they are, could it be because Republicans cut back on funding?
You said NASA is inefficient because they had more accidents. To say NASA is inefficient because of Challenger or Apollo 13 or Apollo 1 or any other accident is foolish. NASA has made great strides in technological advancement. Due to the extreme volume of missions flown ever since their inception, statistically there are going to be accidents. How long have private space compaines been around? How many launches have they done? I'd bet that they'd have as many accidents, if not more, if they would come even remotely close to NASA's volume. I just don't see how with all these accomplishments why you say NASA is not "outperforming" private companies.
I also have a question for you, CK, where do government weapons contractors fall? Are they government or private? The government runs, pays for, and supplies specifications and previous research. The generals call the shots, they get whatever they want. However, the company creates the weapon, gets the results, and supplies personnel. Is this government? Private? They obviously get results, look at footage of smart bombs crashing through one wall and blowing up another one behind it. Look at stealth technology. Computer guided bombs. These are results to be proud of. Paid for, and started by the government, but worked on by private companies. What category do they fall under?
--------------
It's the pop-o-matic bubble, motherfucker!
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 92
|
Wiley
©0®ÞØ®4+3 whØ®3
Group: Members
Posts: 1268
Joined: Oct. 2001
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 13 2002,18:14 |
|
 |
Why ask a question if you aren't going to accept an answer?
You: Bet you can't give me a number between 1 and 5
Me: 4
You: The number must be less then 4
Me: 3
You: The number must have two digits
Me: um ...there aren't any
You: Ha!! See ...I told you
I mean, we all know it is impossible to compare the successfulness of a government agency to a private company in terms of how money is taken in or spent because they have different rules. The government agency doesn't have to show profit or worry about not having enough capital to operate; it's just given to them. Their worth also doesn't change with the opinions of the equities market as private companies do. Government agencies are also allowed to show failure without consumer recourse. Ford puts some bad tires on an SUV and every consumer group sues. The Air Force tests out a new jet that crashes on take-off and it's just whoops. So how can you use these two ideas as grounds for comparing performance? Trying to make an objective comparison I'm rating the performance of NASA and ILS on only the success of putting equipment into space and not the many, many other facettes of NASA or the financial responsibilities of ILS. For the comparison I look at volume of launches, reliability of technology used and the efficiency of deployment/maintenance. I score NASA as being way ahead of ILS in those categories. (I'll show data if you need it) Thus, I feel I have pointed out an instance where a Federal program has outperformed a private industry. It can happen.
--------------
There's a sucker born every minute ...but swallowers are hard to find.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 93
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 13 2002,20:02 |
|
|
| Quote | | The government agency doesn't have to show profit or worry about not having enough capital to operate; it's just given to them. |
that's not true at all. scientists who work for the government don't get free money. they have to compete for research grants.
| Quote | | Trying to make an objective comparison I'm rating the performance of NASA and ILS on only the success of putting equipment into space and not the many, many other facettes of NASA or the financial responsibilities of ILS. |
you are completely missing the point of this whole challenge to begin with. you can't use one facet for comparison, this is exactly my point. you could say public schools graduate more students then private schools, but this comparison is meaningless because of a) the quality of education (or lack there of), b) the number of students who go to each, c) the kinds of students who go to each. you can't say public schools are better just because more students go there. by the same logic, you can't say nasa is better then ILS just because they launch more or less sattellites.
| Quote | | I'd bet that they'd have as many accidents, if not more, if they would come even remotely close to NASA's volume. |
would you bet $5?
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 94
|
Wiley
©0®ÞØ®4+3 whØ®3
Group: Members
Posts: 1268
Joined: Oct. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 13 2002,22:31 |
|
|
| Quote (CatKnight @ 13 June 2002,12:02) | | Quote | | The government agency doesn't have to show profit or worry about not having enough capital to operate; it's just given to them. |
that's not true at all. scientists who work for the government don't get free money. they have to compete for research grants. |
1) I'm talking about Federal employees ...not people who don't work for the government and are doing contract work. (ie Scientists who work for NASA as opposed to scientists who got grant money to work on a project directed by NASA ...big difference)
2) By saying that my statment is not true at all you are saying that government agencies have to show profit and worry about operating costs? Have you ever worked for a government agency? I remember having a budget that was just given to us without having to publish an annual report showing where all the money went like a corporation is required to do ...operating costs such as computers and vehicles was given to us and didn't come out of monies we collected ...but that's just real-world experience and not as valid as your opinion I guess.
| Quote | CK: Name me ONE government program that has ever outperformed a private program, and I will pay pal you $5.
Wiley: NASA
CK: NASA what? What private company has NASA outperformed?
Wiley: And are you saying that no private company has ever put a rocket into space?"
CK: btw I never responded to the statement "And are you saying that no private company has ever put a rocket into space?" because that was not the question. Wiley somehow fooled himself into thinking that it was, that is why he hasn't won $5 yet. |
Yeah ...I'm way off base there. How could I possibly get that far from your original question? Oh yeah ...because you put me there!!
| Quote | | some examples of out performing a private company: getting more/better results with LESS money (remember cr0bar's old editorial on the voodoo 5?), higher efficiency, driving a private company out of business by competitive means (NOT regulation or monopolozing), etc. |
NASA gets $0 from venture capital firms ...talk about huge results with less money!! How do they do it? Oh yeah, they some how convinced the US government to give them money without having to pester investors ...genius!! I wish I had thought of that.
But seriously ...if I could get a Wall St. Analyst to say that he would recommend the purchase of NASA's stock over ILS because he puts more value on the performance of NASA would you concede the point that NASA out performs at least one of it's private competitors? Keep in mind that these are the same analysts that are used to compare the performance of two private companies and determine who is ahead of who.
--------------
There's a sucker born every minute ...but swallowers are hard to find.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 95
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 13 2002,23:16 |
|
|
nasa doesn't have stock you moron
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 96
|
rit
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: Jun. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 14 2002,00:28 |
|
|
that's a bit much to read. i do aplogize, but i have other thing i need to do. i would like to add this though.
i went to private school until 8th grade. at thaty point, i transfered to a public school in the woods. once i got there, and got over the shell shock, i realized that i was at least two grades ahead of 90% of my class.
i can't help but think that private schools do a better job of teaching children. so my question is this: why aren't all schools privatel owned?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 97
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 14 2002,00:55 |
|
|
you're right on rit. that's a good question. it's a combination of the department of education gaining more and more power, bureaucrats who don't want to lose their jobs, and the teacher's unions.
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 98
|
TheTaxMan
Controversial Thug
Group: Members
Posts: 874
Joined: Apr. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 14 2002,02:09 |
|
|
| Quote (rit @ 13 June 2002,16:28) | that's a bit much to read. i do aplogize, but i have other thing i need to do. i would like to add this though.
i went to private school until 8th grade. at thaty point, i transfered to a public school in the woods. once i got there, and got over the shell shock, i realized that i was at least two grades ahead of 90% of my class.
i can't help but think that private schools do a better job of teaching children. so my question is this: why aren't all schools privatel owned? |
I was abused as a child by my step-father.
All step-fathers must be abusive.
(btw, my parents are still married and this has no factual base in reality)
--------------
Four billion years of evolution and this is all we have to show for it?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 99
|
Wiley
©0®ÞØ®4+3 whØ®3
Group: Members
Posts: 1268
Joined: Oct. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 14 2002,02:19 |
|
|
| Quote (CatKnight @ 13 June 2002,15:16) | | nasa doesn't have stock you moron |
No shit dumbass we coved the lack of stock in government departments earlier in the thread, neither does ILS BYW ...it's a hypothetical.
If I can get a well published analyst to review the two and give a recommendation (assuming they were both private companies) on which one performed better in his expert opinion (since that's what a Wall Street analyst does) would that be an acceptable performance comparison?
--------------
There's a sucker born every minute ...but swallowers are hard to find.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 100
|
demonk
The other white meat
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 14 2002,02:22 |
|
|
| Quote (rit @ 13 June 2002,16:28) | | i went to private school until 8th grade. at thaty point, i transfered to a public school in the woods. once i got there, and got over the shell shock, i realized that i was at least two grades ahead of 90% of my class. |
Maybe you were just smart. Or maybe you were with a bunch or morons going out to school in the woods. If we are to do a decent comparison, we need to have two schools geographicly similar (ie, middle of suburbia) and relatively the same size (there is a big difference between a 1,000 person school and an 8,000 person school). And we also need to compare all the students, not just a few, and not with standardized tests. As we have already discussed, those just fuck up the teaching style.
--------------
I'm just two people short of a threesome!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
