The latest episode of Penn and Teller: BULL ----- ! deals with NASA and the two magician/comedians’ conflicted views on whether NASA is good or bad in the modern sense of space travel. Penn expresses that he loves NASA, even though they are the epitome of big government, but deplores their bureaucratic policies toward safety and efficiency. Penn (who he himself flew in space in a sub-orbital Vomit Comet mission; naked at that) declares that he was a fan as a child of NASA, and is still today. They even went to far as to delve into privatized space travel in the form of Richard Branson and Virgin’s private space tourism program. Penn feels that privatized space programs are a good thing, and I’m with him, because I’m TIRED of paying for NASA.
Even if I could push past the Challenger and Columbia incidents, I
would still think that NASA is a waste of my money. I know
that a lot of people mist-up hardcore when they see shuttles taking
off and the tired-as-heck: “one small step for
man…” speech. I, however, don’t really
care that much. I look at space the way I look at ocean
exploration: MONEY PLEASE. Money is the all-powerful
driver of new business and innovations, which makes it KING when it
comes to these sort of adventures. Grainy videos of space
missions just don’t get me that excited, and if they do get
YOU excited; PAY FOR THEM. Just leave Jason out, Jason finds
space boring and inaccessible at the moment.
The truth about all government programs, is that is how it should
be any way. I have no problem with things like NASA,
universal health care, and welfare; so long as YOU are the ones
paying for them and not me. There are, and should be, private
alternatives that can function as plus-standards upon those
government programs that private citizens can buy into if they feel
the necessity. Think about it, if U.S. government bonds
pay out at around 6% annually on their return, that makes stocks
REQUIRE a pay out of at least 7% to make you want to invest
, on-average. That’s because the U.S. dollar is
rock-solid (well, used to be) and will generate 6% no matter
what. So, if you are GUARANTEED 6% return, then, in order to
be competitive, stocks
dealt with private corporate entities MUST be better. This is
a perfect example of private business competing against government
in the free market and the citizen being the benefactor.
So why not NASA, what’s the difference? The difference,
my friends, is that you DON’T HAVE A CHOICE IF YOU PAY FOR
NASA. No matter how many rockets
they blow up, how bureaucratic they become, you are still bound to
pay taxes
for them. My idea is that if you really feel that government
can handle this sort of thing better than a private corporation,
then YOU should have to agree to pay for it on your taxes every
year. People like me, that HATE the government’s
competence record, really would prefer that YOUR
money
go toward such stupid adventures in financing
.
Penn says in the episode that he isn’t sure just HOW both
Russian and the U.S. got astronauts into space with such botched
bureaucracies in place. For that, I have an easy
answer: SCIENCE. Science isn’t necessarily built
around capitalism, which is apparent in such videos as this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5yRan-aIyc. The vision of the
mad scientist may seem like fantasy to some, but people like Dr.
Mengele prove that he’s very real, and doesn’t require
capital so much as tools. So, I’m not surprised that
they got people in space, failed in such big ways, or that they
wasted so much money in the process. Capitalism might be good
at money, but science
is good at science; both are for their own sakes and can truly be
separate. Had space-exploration been left up to private
entities, it wouldn’t be off of the ground yet; which really
isn’t a bad thing in my opinion.
Now, don’t start rambling off to me about microwaves, foam
pillows, and other crap that NASA supposedly
‘invented’. In fact, all of those achievements
were made by scientists that were PAID to do so, and probably would
have happened anyway as corporate entities competed to get said
technologies in our homes for profit. Technology in a
capital-based society is driven by CAPITAL, not arbitrary
science. I’m not taking anything away from the
astronauts as scientists, engineers, or explorers; but they simply
CAN’T just spend our money to go up into space, hop around,
and take pictures. Space IS really cool, but it’s much
more accessible and faster-moving if people like Richard Branson
are involved and not the president.
So, how could we get people like you and me into space during our
lifetime? Branson is on the right path; for the moment.
Tourism is what you do when natural resources are
unavailable. What really will push us into space is someone
finding gold, uranium, or some other precious asset somewhere in
space. The best way to do this is get people up there touring
and preparing for others to tour. Once resources are found,
the greatest human migration in history so far can begin.
Resources lead to settling, which leads to nationality, which leads
to standardized capital-flow. Man finds capital; and both
follow.
So where does this leave us? I know that Penn is a big fan of
Ayn Rand, and I’m with her in thinking that NASA is BULL
----- . Ayn opposed the landing on the moon
back when it was new and pretty, and I’m sure she would
oppose what we have for a space program today. When
government meets private ventures, it opens itself up for all sorts
of bureaucracy and mistakes. If the Challenger wasn’t
enough for you, consider that there simply won’t be ANY
space
shuttles
from 2010 to 2015 because NASA simply DIDN’T PLAN FOR
IT. Why not? Because the assumption of science is that
the money will simply be there. HOW do they get
money
? Blank out. NASA depends on OUR checks to make
mistakes, I say, since they are spending MY money, that the program
should be disbanded and auctioned off to private industry.
Space will open up when you can travel, mine, colonize, and go
suit-swimming; all things the government, simply CAN’T do
properly.
/Jason
more like this @ http://mediacondom.com
