GOP is NOT selling off NASA!

[Duppers]

The rethugs are just not funding it.

NASA has always sold their patents. These sales benefit of the Amer. taxpayers.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Reagan really screwed over NASA. Trying to make it "self-supporting." nt

[fascisthunter]

2. yes he did.... forcing NASA into a Position where it must sell it's assets

just like everything else in this country.

[Duppers]

4. the assets they are selling are intellectual properties

which has benefited NASA and can benefit society in general.

To sell them does NOT diminish NASA in any way.

If say a NASA researcher has a patent that can be applied to turbines in private power/electrical companies, should that knowledge just be retained at NASA and not applied to help save resources?

Should NASA just give that info away or sell it as they do?

[fascisthunter]

5. Republicans Should Stop forcing our Commons to Sell what is OURS COLLECTIVELY

when thse things get into privative hands it does not necessarily benefit anyone but their investors. You seem delluded into thinking it does automatically benefit everyone when you already have plenty examples of private companies screwing people.

[Duppers]

6. how does society then benefit in general IF

NASA does not fully implement ALL aspects of any given technology.

You're against ALL private companies? Then you're saying that all companies should be owned by the govt.?????
Who is being 'delluded' (your spelling) here?

And...

As I posted to you in another thread on this subject:

These companies HAVE to pay for licensing these patents; PLUS they must pay royalties on their profits.

The payments go to the US Treasury! Those royalties supplement your tax dollars.

You prefer that TU sit on shelves and not be used?

Sir, you are the one being delusional!



If you cannot follow the logic here, then consider yourself on ignore fr me.

[David Zephyr]

3. Cheney wanted to turn NASA over to the Pentagon.

After the unfortunate failed Mars mission, Cheney wanted to fold NASA into a department within the Pentagon.

The concept did not get far and the successful Rover program followed up and Bush's poll numbers had collapsed. And now the Phoenix also has performed beautifully on Mars as well.

[pnutbutr]

7. private competition

for NASA may be a good thing. I like what I'm seeing from Virgin Galactic.

[Duppers]

8. To late to edit my OP

But I need to amend it to state:


NASA has always licensed their patents.
Because companies must pay, these transactions benefit all of us, the American taxpayers.


NASA has many developments which can be applied to many places in our society.

Five years ago, the bushies wanted to GIVE, yes give, NASA technology away to companies. Some how, thankfully, that notion was discarded.

IF NASA did NOT license their TU projects, then how would these technologies would reach our general society?

And IF NASA did not patent their researchers' technologies in the begin with, who would benefit?

Should these technologies just be published in open literature for other countries to use too?
Or left "in house" so as not to be applied in other ways, other places?

Or should they be licensed and the companies, which making a profit from them, pay royalties to NASA, i.e. our govt. and thereby supplementing our tax dollars?




(I do not intend to insult every one's intelligence here. This is posted for the logically challenged here and in the other similarly titled thread.)