Re: Why is NASA still giving away flights on its own vomit comet?

In article <1152804127.419292.180200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Atelus" <dax.garner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yes the experience that the original KC-135 and now the C-9 provides is
once in a lifetime, but that does not mean that the students that fly
get to fly for free. In order for a student to even be considered to
fly one must submit a formal proposal for an original experiment that
will actually advance science.

I understand that designing a plausible experiment is part of the
contest, but I'm highly skeptical that the experiments done actually
advance science. The goal, I imagine, is to inspire students and
generate some good PR for NASA -- not actually to refine or discover any
new laws of physics.

While your point of making NASA go through a private company would or
could be more efficient is a good point.

Actually, I didn't make any point about efficiency. Only about
supporting the commercial space-related industry. Of course there must
be some limit as to how much more NASA should pay for commercial service
over what its own costs are (even assuming those are honestly
calculated), but unless the commercial service comes out markedly more
expensive -- which seems unlikely -- NASA should use it.

I wanted to point out that the
NASA program does not just throw random people on an aircraft to give
them joyrides. It is a year long process with many possibilities of
even the hardest working student not being able to fly.

Not random people, no. It throws winners of a competition (that
features the trappingsn of science) on an aircraft to give them
joyrides. That's how I see it, anyway. But note that I have nothing
against joyrides, nor even against NASA paying for them -- I just think
that the money for said rides should ultimately go into the private
market, rather than mainly to NASA employees.

Best,
- Joe
.

Relevant Pages