# The Onion on NASA: Funny AND true? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 25, 2002, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-on-nasa-funny-and-true/105501 "2002-04-25T05:23:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![partly\_warmer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@partly\_warmer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/partly_warmer)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-on-nasa-funny-and-true/105501/21 "2002-04-26T07:31:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > **In an absolutely brilliant [Point-Counterpoint](http://www.theonion.com/onion3815/counterpoint_space_program.html) this week, the gleeful madcaps at the Onion state the following: > … > NASA exists largely to provide an economic boost to the American aerospace industry, particularly Boeing. > … > Anyone with more knowledge than me: To what extent is this true** I like the Onion. But people don’t just support NASA for one reason. I worked there for many years. There are a _huge_ number of dedicated and visionary people, employees and contractors. Including Boeing contractors. Never, in any pursuit, have I met so many people who felt that what they were doing was worthwhile, sometimes regardless of what they got out of it, personally. Naturally, there’s money involved. Careers to be made. But it’s the only job I’ve had which I don’t feel I would ever need to apologize for. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-on-nasa-funny-and-true/105501/22 "2002-04-26T14:12:29Z")
The issues are how we, as society allocate resources, and how researchers in the space sciences get a share of those resources. Exploring space is basic science. No basic science research can say what kind of applied science will come of it, but often it does … eventually. The motivation is just the drive to understand the universe around us; technologic innovations are side effects. Within the space sciences researchers debate priorities, heck even within subdisciplines they don’t agree. For example, here are some snippets from Science about how infighting among planetary scientists threaten funding: [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5552/32](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5552/32) > [@](#): > > The stark message from the black box on the conference table left many of the dozen or so scientists visibly shaken. “It would be very easy for this Administration to walk away from the planetary program,” said the voice from Washington, D.C. The speaker was Steve Isakowitz, who oversees space and science programs at the powerful White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The stunned audience members were part of a National Research Council (NRC) team working on the first long-term science plan for solar system exploration. “The planetary community is fractured, and we don’t have a clear vision,” chimed in fellow budgeteer Brant Sponberg during the 15 November teleconference. “And that makes you guys very, very vulnerable.” > … > The ultimate audience, however, won’t be researchers: “The prime customers are NASA, OMB, and Congress,” he adds. It’s an audience that scientists can’t afford to ignore, Hartman warned the panel: “We’re in a fight for scarce resources, a fight we are currently poised to lose.” And that audience must satisfy the audience of the public that monies are being wisely spent. For that pitch you need some high publicity, catch the public imagination, programs. Looking for “life”, humans in space, are just more likely to do that, _even if_ they are a less efficient way of spending the money. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-on-nasa-funny-and-true/105501/23 "2002-04-26T17:01:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*\ > > Although space that isn’t in direct sunlight is indeed “cold” (only a few degrees above absolute zero in some cases), this coldness is not transmitted to any warm objects in space very rapidly. > > \ \*\* \ I never said absolute zero, I said “deep cold”. Where did the ‘sulky’ reside during it’s transit to the moon? In a closed compartment in the base of the LEM. _Protected from the sun_. _Plenty_ of time for the tires to radiate their latent heat down to a value that would freeze yer buns off. Then, shortly after landing, they were placed in direct radiant sunlight and exposed to already heated soil and rock, and were expect to perform up to snuff. \ ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-on-nasa-funny-and-true/105501/24 "2002-04-26T18:09:56Z")
Sofa King wrote: > [@](#): > > This year, our groundling Administration [has seen fit](http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/bud27.html) to cut manned space down to a mere six billion dollars. (_Ahem_, perhaps it’s time to switch them rockets on over to kerosene…) Why not? The first stage of the Saturn V rocket used in the Apollo program burned kerosene. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-onion-on-nasa-funny-and-true/105501.md?page=1)