In the sense of a business being some establishment of an enterprise - commercial, social, whatever - NASA is business; but the idea-driven enterprise comes first; its accommodation into monetary cycles comes next, and is necessary for the enterprise to survive: it has to be of some value to society, commonly expressed through money.
Which makes NASA a good example, for the form of ownership, organisation or ways to get at the money needed for the enterprise are irrelevant in this context.
--shmem
_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo. G°\ /
/\_¯/(q /
---------------------------- \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}
| [reply] |
It has to be of some value to society, commonly expressed through money.
I think that it is very difficult to put a monetary value on pure research, and a huge amount of what NASA does is pure research. It is valuable. And in the long term, it can create wealth. But that research is usually spun off to private companies to develop and market. It is they rather than NASA that earns the wealth, as well as bearing some risk.
Take Mars Global Explorer. $247m, for 240,000 pictures. A cool $1m a pop. Is that good value? Will they ever pay for themselves? Human error and a faulty software upgrade prevented it from operating for another 2 or 5 or 10 years? Another 25,000 or 50,000 or quarter of a million more pictures. Would that have made the pictures value for money?
The rewards of NASA discoveries and developments, as value to the US economy over 40 odd years, is probably huge. But is it calculable? Did they make a profit?
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |