ISS to be privatized

are you trying to be a retard or does it just come naturally?

the budget proposal and committee hearings are free to view by anyone. Or is the entire US government also a CGI trick?

>how to trigger Veeky Forums with one word

see:

> the budget proposal and committee hearings are free to view by anyone.
And you have to be the most retarded soychugging brainlet imaginable to think that those proposals have anything to do with what is actually going to happen. It's fiction put out for public consumption while the real decisions all happen behind closed doors. But go right ahead and keep believing the shit that the MSM is shoveling in your mouth like a good goy.

explain to me how privatization is a bad thing. the private sector is always more efficient than the government

> republicans are anti-science
> meanwhile the dims still deny the mountains of evidence that show how huge racial differences are in favor of their politically correct fantasies of "equality"

says the brainlet while simultaneously choking on Elon Musk's cock.

so it's gonna be the Trump Orbital Hotel now?

hol' up, so you actually think that the whole US government is a sham front for a deep state network of evil globalists? holy shit, I thought you guys were just trolls but you sound genuine. please get help.

oh and,

>>/pol/

kekistan is overtaking the universe!
Hail KeK

> muh /pol/ boogieman

where else should one be >>'d to if they think that video'd senate hearings, budget propositions, and an article by Jeff fucking' Foust are fake news?

seriously. It's just dumb and (oh I've always wanted to use this word) "slides" the thread to blanket the sources proved as bogus.

>so you actually think that the whole US government is a sham front for a deep state network of evil globalists?
nice strawman you got there freindo. All he said was was that decisions happen behind closed doors. Do you really think that the discourse for the budget only takes place during publicly broadcasted meetings?

uh yes, that's the whole point. When's the last time a NASA budget ≠ the NASA budget shown to the world through the public hearings and such?

and no, "muh Rickover" is not a valid answer.

why the hell do you think this news is fake anyways? ISS has been tentatively planned to be phased out in exchange for commercial stations for over a decade. Trump or no Trump this was going to happen.

>be ISS
>old as fuck shitbox
>absolutely every part is rundown and outdated
>significant amounts of astronaut time is dedicated to maintenance
>get sold to private businesses for billions anyway
anyone that complains about this is a retard
the ISS has outrun it's usefulness, and should be replaced with a new station with modern equipment

That's cute but half of the station belongs to Russia and 6 out of 10 modules in "American" sector are owned by ESA and JAXA

not to mention the quarter of a billion a year we spend to maintain it's stupid orbit choice. It should be 4x higher up in a 28 degree orbit, not a 51 degree one.

>the dims
>politicized science
average redneck iq desu

>Muh dims
>Statistics=science
Off the internet and back to your caravan, trash

Can you read?
BUDGET IS NEGOTIATED PRIOR TO THE MEETING. THE MEETING IS A CONFIRMATION OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.

Why should I be mad? Let some rich people have fun with it before it will end up as a huge shooting star in the nightsky.

...and? you stated that the real decisions are made behind closed doors. but then you state that these decisions are made public in the meeting. What are you arguing for? all I'm saying is that it's grade-a stupidity to not believe a SpaceNews article about future plans for the ISS, as that article got it's information from a combination of primary government sources and public hearings.

this is a good thing

ISS is outdated and by 2025 we will have much better and cheaper commercial stations

bigelowaerospace.com/

axiomspace.com/

bagel is announcing something cool soon too. thread about it up right now

>posts strawmen cartoons
Yep, definitely from /pol/.

it's easy to find actual pol boogymen because they post about how pol boogymen don't exist. Pretty funny

>immediately replying with the pseudo shit about race

So fucking predictable, unironically kill yourself

you're not helping your case

did anyone even read the article? its a good idea that has probably been planned for a long time now, trump is just giving the final approval.

this was mentioned in the 3rd post, and by a few people thereafter.

Politics get in the way of everything nowadays due to ol' trumpy

republicans deny this too.

>the private sector is always more efficient than the government
no

Space has nothing to do with science and everything to do with engineering and capitalism.

space allowed us to:

1)discover most of the technological materials that we use in the modern day including blood removing machines and medical tehcnology of all kinds

2)understand how the universe works in telescopes and stuff, and when the universe was forme,d ravitational waves and all

3)confirmation of hte relativity was confirmed via satellites gps which slow down time because of speed of light

shall i go on humillating you or you done enoguh?

Since it was originally going to be deorbited, due to funding, this is a good thing.

>implying he has enough self awareness to feel humiliated

i've never seen such a true and correct statement put in such a retarded and autistic way

>after 2024
These plans have been around since at least 2014-15 since I remember reading about it (and about how russians want to keep their central modules in a new smaller station) way before the 2016 presiential campaign began.
I'm also pretty sure the station was planned to be deorbited by around that time since it's getting way too old.

Here's my counterpoint:

youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY

>hehe if i deny that language can be used to refer to particular partitions of humanity in any academic setting no one will be able to make me face facts i don't like
>this won't prevent me from using those those same partitions at any other time, including when advocating for preferential treatment on the basis of statistics, though
are you seriously this intellectually dishonest or just retarded?

Explain. Things like this are only efficient if they need to be efficient. Does the government need to spend money effectively? No, of course not. What are you going to do, stop paying them? Have you ever tried boycotting the government? Because that is a felony. Public opinion is valuable in politics, but it isn't that fucking valuable. The government only needs to do thing well to the extent that we don't revolt, which isn't a high bar for excellence at all.

A few examples. ISS would have never been built by private industry cause it would never be profitable. Govt is more efficient at delivering clean drinking water, while private industry is more efficient at delivering mountain dew

I guess will should nationalize the Ivy league if only governmental institutions can contribute to science.

so basically trump will sell out a space station to the jews correct ?
cant say im surprised

>Republicans was to preserve the ISS
>Dems was to destroy it in a blaze of fire by letting it burn up in the atmosphere

FWIW, the end of the planned life of ISS predates Trump, as does the idea that somebody else might want to take it and keep it going.

I thought we were talking about efficiency here. The government does things that wouldn't happen without government. Yes, good job, this is why we have government. But we don't typically ask for government to do things that industry is capable of doing, because we all know (or at least we should know) that government would do a really shit job at doing those things and it wouldn't make sense. When it comes to space it isn't totally black or white: industry can and does invest a lot of money in real research, just not all kinds. And there certainly is incentive for industry to do science in space, just not all the kinds of science we want and not enough to justify building the rockets. So if you don't like the idea of giving away the ISS maybe name the research project you are sad isn't going to happen anymore. Don't talk about efficiency because the fact that government wastes resources isn't up for debate.

First off this is probably fake lol. But second the ISS was going to be defunded anyways by 2024 so why not make some profit off of it in its last few years. Republicans are not antiscience, they are the ones that keep funding NASA. They also allow private space companies.

The ISS is getting old, we maybe can get a few extra years from it, but I belive it would be better if we retired it and retrived as much as we can from it for study back to earth and simply build a new station.

It can still be useful if we bring it or atleast parts back to earth so we can study it.

The worst part about the kind of social "science" that attempts to prove equality is that it first tries to find excuses for those who are traditionally viewed in an unfavorable light.
It assumes equality, then attempts to find reasons to justify phenomena, when real science is about observing a phenomena, then investigate why it happened.
Therein lies the infallibility that has inflated what would traditionally be considered social commentary into the realm of academic value. By collectively agreeing on crockpot hypotheses regarding what cannot be replicated and experimented upon, it feigns a legitimacy reminiscent of theological explanations for the physical world. The worst part of all this isn't some misappropriation of resources from some kind of ubermensch project, but rather that these ideals fail even to achieve its own goal of elevating those they view as oppressed.
Which is fine. Whatever the value of these attempts at integrated society are, they'll be evaluated real fucking soon against the homogeneous does-not-give-a-fuck state known as china. We'll see how it goes - as real science goes.

That would be true if there wasn't any doubt we could build a replacement. As it is, a replacement station probably isn't coming - when the ISS shuts down then Tiangong-2 will be the only human presence in orbit. That makes it important to try to keep the lights on in the ISS for as long as possible.

I actually work in science, and espousing this kind of view will get you fired because a) it's bullshit, and b) it's awful.

The only reason you think there's 'mounds of evidence' and some kind of scientific consensus is because you browse this website, when in reality the majority of people who post on this board have no scientific background.

>being this retarded

our federal government endows the ivy league with approximately double the amount of money that NASA gets

and NASA wastes every penny they get

real quick question - literally what do you know about anything that makes you equipped to say that?

>maybe name the research project you are sad isn't going to happen anymore
basically all of them. private industry has no incentive to do research on a space station. turning over the ISS to them would be a huge clusterfuck to accomplish and it would be awful to turn over taxpayer property (worth billions or trillions) to private companies. if they want to contact out more ISS operations then fine go for it, but it would probably be easier to just have them create a new one eventually
>Don't talk about efficiency because the fact that government wastes resources isn't up for debate.
just depends on your defition of efficiency. and don't forget private sector wastes insane amounts of resources on bullshit (junk food, advertising, transformers movies, etc). they are really great at being efficient at doing shit that is worthless in the first place

research on a space station is a fucking meme, and nothing they've gotten is worth shit

oh, so you're a pleb, nevermind

An important question to ask though is whether or not they need public money in order to have incentive to fund science. So the schools found a way to raid the public treasury without upsetting people like you. Great, but don't those schools actually have a real incentive to keep their reputation? And aren't these rich as fuck institutions more than capable of covering the cost themselves? Realistically, how much research do you think would actually lose funding if the government stopped giving away money to schools? The schools still need most of that research to happen one way or another. They can afford it and it's in their best interest. You don't need to be a libertarian for this one, it really is the textbook case of when the free market can actually do something right.

Are there any concepts of replacements of the ISS? Like a really fucking big space station.

>>>
> Anonymous 02/11/18(Sun)14:20:08 No.9508255▶
> (OP)
go back to /pol/ cunt

>An important question to ask though is whether or not they need public money in order to have incentive to fund science

Yes, 100%, because science is rarely profitable and the discoveries that do produce hundred-billion-dollar industries are the product of a long line of decades and decades of grant-funded research that never made it to market.

Your libertarian 'give it to the free market' approach would mean that transistors, MRI machines, DNA sequencing, and a whole host of other extremely-profitable technologies just straight-up wouldn't exist. Private entities do not fund research that takes 70 years to harvest profit from.

>Realistically, how much research do you think would actually lose funding if the government stopped giving away money to schools?

My lab would disappear, along with most of the other ones in my building. I don't know your background in science, but public grants are a really big deal. Barring that, erasing the federal endowment system means essentially a complete hiring freeze on tenure-track faculty and probably massive layoffs.

In other words, killing public funding would be literally the worst thing in the history of American scientific research. It would singlehandedly propel China and Japan to the forefront of technological innovation within less than a decade, and signal the destruction of American innovation and ingenuity, and I mean that in the least hyperbolic terms possible.

good post is good

retard
that's its primary function, literally no other reason to make one if you're not using it for research.

> private industry won't use space station for research
Then exactly what do you think they would be purchasing it for? It doesn't have other uses. It's a research vessel. If what you say is true, then no one will buy it and you can relax knowing that the station will instead burn up in the atmosphere. Let's stick to speculating on the outcome that someone does end up purchasing it, shall we? In which case, you should assume that a company wanting a research station in space is planning on using it for research, or more likely, facilitating it. Likely what will end up happening is it will get rented out to scientists from around the globe.
> depends on how you define efficiency
I define it the way everyone defines it: bang for buck. Ranting about how lame consumer culture is, which by the way is subjective, doesn't mean anything to me. Government gets very little bang for buck, because it doesn't have to. It can do the same job for 10 million, 100 million, doesn't matter because all it needs is a loan from the FED or charge more to the taxpayer. When a business overspends and has to raises prices, it loses business. But when government overspends and has to raise taxes, the government loses no business because not paying taxes is illegal. So no matter what the government does, even if it's useful, will be done at a high cost. Whereas business, even if it's producing something you consider worthless (again, subjective), it does it at a relatively low cost.

> science is rarely profitable
Ok so you didn't actually read my comment at all did you? Schools have a reputation to keep. Them conducting the amount of research that they do is the reason people consider them good investments. So it is profitable, which was the point of my original comment that you ignored. Will I need to make that point a third time or can you try to not write an essay about things I never said?
I will make the point again just in case: (1) yes, a shit ton of research is funded by the government. (2) schools make a fuck ton of money. (3) schools make a fuck ton of money because people pay them for education. (4) people go to those schools for an education because they have attracted excellent faculty with their research opportunities. (5) the reason schools get a shit ton of money is from their research (6) schools could make a profit funding their own research to the same degree they do now and there is no need for government.

nobody is going to purchase it because that would be the worst investment of all time. the only way it would come under private ownership is if it was given away for basically pennies

>bang for buck
how much bang are we getting with the junk food and advertising industries?
i agree that govt is typically higher cost and industry is lower cost, although there are exceptions like drinking water. my main point is that government typically focuses on doing shit that is actually important while industry wastes huge amounts of money on total bullshit that gives no real benefit to society. when govt wastes its inefficiency but when industry wastes its by design

>I define it the way everyone defines it: bang for buck.
That's not even a definition, that's a motivation.

>Them conducting the amount of research that they do is the reason people consider them good investments.

'People' isn't the private sector. Businesses do not shell out hundred-million-dollar research grants for PR purposes - any CEO that does that will be immediately expunged by the board of directors. Sure, Harvard is a highly respectable institution, but can you think of any businesses that will line up to shell out $33bil to support their research, most of which is irrelevant to industry?

>So it is profitable, which was the point of my original comment that you ignored.

I work in research. 99%+ of the papers published by my institution will result in exactly $0.00 of added market productivity. The purpose of scientific research is to gain more knowledge, not to turn a profit, and the industries that do come from science need decades of what's essentially welfare payments before you get a golden egg from the process.

>schools make a fuck ton of money
>schools make a fuck ton of money because people pay them for education

Not at all compared to their endowments. Tuition and fundraising are generally less than a quarter of what major research schools receive from the government.

For instance, student population of MIT is about 11,000. Total fees for a typical undergrad with no stipends (which isn't the typical MIT student), is $58k/yr. That works out to $638m, which is only 4.3% of what MIT receives from the government.

I'll repeat that - 4.3 percent.

Keep in mind that the students and research who come from this school have created economic productivity equal to that of a country ranked #7 in the world by GDP. That's a small fraction of the economic damages you'd cause by privatizing science.

>the reason schools get a shit ton of money is from their research

Again, not really. When's the last time you purchased a computer that has a university's sticker on it? Or a drug that has the discoverer's lab logo on the bottle?

>Again, not really. When's the last time you purchased a computer that has a university's sticker on it? Or a drug that has the discoverer's lab logo on the bottle?

Let me rephrase that last bit for clarity - I ran out of characters towards the end. University research /is/ where their money comes from, but that's largely from the government and partially from private donors.

But it's not like MIT keeps all the intellectual property that comes from their research - when one of their labs comes up with a new way to treat a disease or build a microchip, that information is generally used by a business completely separate from the institution that discovered it.

The reason the US government likes to fund universities is because these spin-off industries are highly lucrative and keep Americans employed. But it's not a closed-loop process. The colleges do not reap the benefits from research - society does. The government exists as the missing piece in the loop, whereby taxes paid by people who benefit from scientific research is funneled partially back into the process.

That's not even remotely the point. The Ivy League is privately owned and managed, and yet they are able to use their private resources in combination with government funding and incentivization to make unparalleled scientific achievements.

They're a shining example of why REGULATED privatization of scientific resources is not inherently detrimental to science or anti-science policy.

>They're a shining example of why REGULATED privatization of scientific resources is not inherently detrimental to science or anti-science policy.

I do agree with that - but people in this thread seem to hold a way less moderate view of 'privatization'.

> government mostly spends money on important things
> when government wastes it's just inefficiency
So this is perhaps off topic but just for fun why don't you make a list of things that you think it's ok for the government to do. Then look at what the US government does and tell me if even half the lists match. It seems like everyone I talk to has a million things they hate about how the government works and what it is doing but everyone says the same thing you do. Historically, it just doesn't make any sense. The government has routinely stomped on its citizens and it still does. It's illegal to feed the homeless in most cities for Christ sake, and if the police think you own a plant they will raid your house, shoot your dog, and are legally allowed to steal all your shit even if they don't find anything. This behavior is encouraged in most states. Prisoners are often put in solitary confinement, something every expert agrees is a very cruel torture. It's kind of funny, we used to justify entire wars against countries that tortured their people on labor camps. So, all of this is just waste right? Not by design? Speaking of Wars, that's ultimately what most of the money actually gets used for. Since you insisted that the government tends to spend on mostly important things, unlike the private sector, I thought it would be useful to point out that most of it is used for war. Again, this is off topic and I'm not taking about research spending anymore. I just don't understand this optimism people have in their government. The government does a lot more harm for both our society and societies elsewhere than McDonald's. McDonald's doesn't bomb people, or demand that 1/4 of all jobs require a license, or execute black people in the middle of the street. The evil shit government's do, and get away with, is just on a whole other level compared to what you are complaining that companies do. Advertising and junk food? Come on...

>> The Trump administration wants to turn the International Space Station into a kind of orbiting real estate venture run not by the government, but by private industry.
This is a good idea.

>We warned you the republicans are anti-science.
Democracts are anti-science because they DON'T want to privatize the space station.

>We warned you the republicans are anti-science.
K I L L

Y O U R
S E L F
Privatizing space is the ONLY solution. It will rapidly increase scientific discoveries and space exploration. Privatization is the fucking best.
Fuck monopolies.
Fuck leftists.

>no
But it's objectively true though.
Are you a leftist?

>Govt is more efficient at delivering clean drinking water, while private industry is more efficient at delivering mountain dew
Private industry is banned from providing drinking water you idiot.

>just depends on your defition of efficiency. and don't forget private sector wastes insane amounts of resources on bullshit (junk food, advertising, transformers movies, etc). they are really great at being efficient at doing shit that is worthless in the first place
without the private sector you would be living in a mud hut and make 100 dollars a year.

This most is extremely underrated.
Libtards/leftists are basically violent psychopaths masquerading as noble intellectuals.

I know this is sci and I shouldn't assume people have a science background but "bang for buck" is a pretty good description of what efficiency literally means in a scientific context, so I have no idea what you are in about. What do you mean when you talk about efficiency? Is it anything remotely similar to what the rest of the English speaking world mean? Because the rest of us are talking about the fraction of your input you get back out of whatever the context is.

>trying to argue with a leftist

>Privatization is the fucking best.
>Fuck monopolies.
yeah privatization and monopolies never go hand in hand, stupid leftists xD

>It's illegal to feed the homeless in most cities for Christ sake
u wot?
Around here it's illegal to give them money if they're beggin in the streets, yeah, but that's precisely because you should be giving money to some shelter that will actually use it to buy food.

Giving money to hobos is dumb, they'll just use it to sabotage themselves with cheap booze.

>yeah privatization and monopolies never go hand in hand
They don't.
Oh BOY would I love to destroy you shit eating leftists on this subject.
Name one monopoly that has not been the result of government intervention.

inb4 standard oil or debeers

leftists are brainlets and brainwashed

Sorry, but how many people are dying/dead from the opioid or obesity epidemic in America?

Sure, I mean the Government are partly to blame too but most of the responsibility lies in the hands of corporations.

Was it lack of Government intervention which caused it? Probably. You don't see the opioid epidemic in countries with better medical regulations.

Leftists are brainwashed?

Need I remind you which party's supporters believe in sky daddies?

>corporashuns are to blame for what some humans will do naturally
you're an idiot

>Was it lack of Government intervention which caused it? >Probably.
No, somehumans will naturally do shit like this.
A free market would have support groups and a competent medical system to deal with this.

The government ALREADY bans opiods you stupid idiot.
Clearly their policies aren't working.

What is your solution?
Being more aggressive with the war on drugs?
Liberals are legit fascists.

>Need I remind you which party's supporters believe in sky daddies?
Yes.
Leftists do. Their daddy is Karl Marx.
Leftists don't even believe in evolution and thinks all humans are exactly the same.

also
*tips fedora*

>guys SpaceX is amazing, literally going to take humanity to the stars
>what, DRUMPF wants to make the ISS more like SpaceX thumbs DOWN