SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Should U.S. attempt manned missions to the Moon?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Edscharp who wrote (16)1/12/2004 3:17:55 PM
From: Fangorn  Read Replies (1) of 41
 
Ed,
re>But, some questions beg to be asked. Did NASA actually hold patents on any of these
advancements? Did they ever benefit financially from discoveries they made? Did they
receive royalties or license fees? And, if they did what was the total sum of remuneration
they received for developing these devices?

I started this thread with an open mind. If it can be demonstrated that NASA has paid
it's own way, or even defrayed the lion's share of it's costs I would be willing to
reconsider my skeptical views of manned missions.<

You have set up an impossible test. The questions in the first paragraph are beside the point. It is easily demonstrated that "NASA has paid it's own way". If you are really "willing to reconsider my skeptical views of manned missions" you will be very busy reconsidering after reading the rest of this post.

NASA is not now a profit venture and never has been. The various companies that developed the technology with NASA's help hold the patents and have paid taxes on the profits made, they have employed thousands at least commercializing products based on that tech. The employees have paid taxes on their wages and created thousands of more jobs to build the houses and cars and whatever else those workers bought with the wages earned at jobs created by the technology developed to go to the moon. The stockholders have paid cap gains on the profits from increased share prices. NASA has paid huge profits in terms of increased tax revenue from enterprise based on the developed technology, add it all up honestly and NASA has produced an endless avalanche of revenue to the federal budget. A permanent return to the moon would have a similar economic impact. To argue otherwise is to ignore history.

Should NIH make a profit? Do the huge advances against cancer and other diseases that NIH has contributed to mean nothing because NIH has cost the government money. The only government program that would meet your criteria of paying its own way directly that I know of is the tobacco subsidy which has a history of actually covering its own expenses. Can you think of any other program that does that?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News