Slashdot Mirror


NASA Knows How To Party

doug141 writes "NASA spends between $400,000 and $1.3 million on a party at every shuttle launch, according to CBS. Select personnel are treated to 5 days at a 4 star hotel. This year alone, they've spent $4 million on parties. NASA asked for, and was given, $1 billion more from the Senate this year. NASA proponents argue it makes more sense to give money to talented, productive people in exchange for scientific knowledge, than spend in on unproductive people in the form of straight welfare."

26 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing to see here... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nothing to see here, please move along Great. Another party to which I'm not invited...
    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  2. Morale booster? by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While expensive, keeping the morale high at NASA means keeping the even more expensive astronauts alive.

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:Morale booster? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, the people at NASA could easily be outdone at their own job by a crowd of slashdot reading armchair-rocket-scientists, right? This armchair-rocket you speak of seems like an interesting concept. Could you tell me more about it?
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Morale booster? by s4m7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I had NASAs track record, I wouldn't be talking about rewarding smart people, because they've proven pretty well that they're not.

      Quite the contrary. Getting that bucket of bolts off the pad without a fireball is enough of a miracle to warrant a million-dollar party.

      There's no funding for a new shuttle design. A billion goes missing in Iraq and that announcement barely lasts a single news cycle. Spend it on NASA and you'll hear people bitching about it for years and years.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    3. Re:Morale booster? by sarahbau · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Two accidents out of 120 flights is half of the time? I also don't see how either accident proves that the NASA engineers aren't smart. Neither accident was really a design failure.

  3. And this is news why? by Sosetta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They spend less than one tenth of 1% of their budget celebrating their continued technological successes. That's probably less than ANY private company anywhere. It's not like they're not getting stuff done. Sosetta

    1. Re:And this is news why? by batkiwi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's like saying the average household could save money by cutting down on postage stamp usage.

      While technically true it would have no bearing.

  4. Re:The truth hurts. by apparently · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The real problem is, Congress can get more votes by paying Welfare than paying for celebrations for people taking our country forward


    Yes, taking care of citizens surely is the antithesis of "forward" progress. Oh, that silly congress!

  5. Re:The truth hurts. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The real problem is, Congress can get more votes by paying Welfare than paying for celebrations for people taking our country forward.

    The real problem is that corrupt Republican congressmen like Ney and Cunningham received millions of dollars in bribes while kicking hundreds of millions of dollars of business to their corrupt contractor friends.

    And part of the reason it went on so long is the fact that Bush's Attorney General Gonzalez sacked the Federal Prosecutors who brought prosecutions against corrupt GOP pols (some were sacked for not bringing trumped up charges against Democrats).

    And that is just the illegal corruption, there is also the legal corruption of billions of dollars wasted on 'defense' projects like the Osprey that simply do not work.

    That said, the whole shuttle program is a farce at this point. The space station is pointless and should be shut immediately. Put the money in robotic exploration. Hubbel is worth the money and the risk, the ISS is not.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  6. Otoh by Arthur+B. · · Score: 5, Funny

    There are probably no girls at the party

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
    1. Re:Otoh by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yea, we at the more mature stage in our lives call them "Women". I know the term scares you in a deep and profound way, but some day you will come to actually appreciate them, until you marry one, and then you will move from "Women" to "Bloodsucking Demons". It's all part of the natural order of thing.

      --
      I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
  7. Re:The truth hurts. by nharmon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Should the government spend $1 million patting the backs of those already more "valuable", or should it use that money to make those who are less "valuable" more "valuable"?

  8. Re:The truth hurts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's see your contributions.

  9. Vaild for NASA, not so for TSA by bxwatso · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's a valid business tactic to give valuable employees a party or vacation. It forces them to relax and savor their accomplishments, which money does not. I have known a couple of NASA engineers, and they were smart and dedicated.

    On the other hand, the TSA hosted a $500K party for its top employees a few years ago. I interact with TSA employees about 100 times per year, and they are generally lazy, sloth like goons. They are a disaster that does nothing to improve air safety.

    In the real world, a company run like the TSA wouldn't have a spare $500K to throw a party because they would be out of business, replaced by a more efficient contractor that does a better job. There is no mechanism for rewarding achievement and punishing failure in the government. Nearly all programs (yes, even under Bush) live on and expand despite proven failure.

    The problem with NASA throwing parties for its deserving employees is that it justifies throwing parties for the far more typical ineffective government hack that should really be let go.

  10. Automatic disqualification by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great. Another party to which I'm not invited.. Well, they did say that they were spending it on "...talented, productive people...", and you're posting on slashdot.
  11. Honestly by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The cost to launch a shuttle is somewhere between 0.5 billion and 1 billion. That is one launch. The cost of a week at war is between 2-3 billion. The additional burden placed on local taxpayers for standardized testing, testing that was based on fabricated data during Bush's first education secretary's tenure at HISD, is immeasurable. And the head of heads of major private firms receive hundred of millions of dollars for borking the company to nearly bankruptcy.

    I add this last bit because if the wisdom of the free market indicates that a little money thrown away is a good investment, how can those low life in government be so arrogant as not follow suite.

    I certainly agree that it would be good if everyone would be deny themselves every available luxury. My food would be cheaper if the owner of my local restaurant would not own a hummer, not to mention my tax bill. My city could afford better education if they did not pay for downtown luxury offices and did not subsidize luxury sports arenas. School taxes would be much lower if we did not have luxury classrooms with lights and air conditioning. But everyone of us knows human nature is to do better work when on is appreciated, and when the environment is conformable. And if it takes .1% of the project budget to encourage the people to do a better a job, that might be a good investment. I would sooner see the parasites that leech off the education and military budget cut off than a single nasa party be canceled.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  12. Don't you love sensational summaries by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, I just RTFA, and here's the real scoop:

    There is an awards banquet for flight safety held, apparently, at each launch, which occurs about three times a year. The awards cover 750 of what is likely tens of thousands of employees working for NASA and the contractors in the shuttle program. We're talking about a 1.5M awards banquet for an $8B/yr operation, or somewhere in the 0.01% range. Now I'm not saying that it's not a waste, though I'm curious where the seating costs of $20,000 for the shuttle launch come from, but the costs are not all that outlandish. Remember that one shuttle launch can really mean 4-16 different payloads, so there are a lot of people involved.

    Go figure out what a similar party costs just about anywhere. Flying someone in coach is going to run about $300-500, minimum, if you book in advance and choose non-refundable. 4 nights hotel (we assume you are travelling on day 1 and day 5, day 2 is the banquet, day 3 is the launch, day four is a cape tour and the show), $120/night is bare minimum in a metro area unless you like sleeping with roaches. You get a night banquet at a banquet hall - nice dinner, dessert, a little entertainment. Hell, my high school reunion was $80 a head, and it was pretty basic. $150 is probably more reasonable for the service. One night you get a free show. Wow. Somebody call the fun police. Cirque tickets are $200; a broadway production in an off town is $80. Transportation to/from/between - you aren't going to walk to the cape from Orlando - would you have preferred we rented them a car for $300?

    Where am I?...$300 plane + $480 hotel + $150 banquet and awards + nice show $120 + $300/2 for the car (we'll make them share) = $1200. Now, they came up with 400k-500k per banquet with 750 people...that's only $675 a person. I'd say they got a pretty good deal. $675 for 5 days and 4 nights plus a shuttle launch, dinner, and show? That's a freakin' bargain if you ask me.

    Anyway...you go find out what the budget is for the awards banquet of any 10,000 person company. Go find out what just the CEO and his/her spouse spend. This really will look like chump change.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Don't you love sensational summaries by cyclone96 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well stated.

      Full disclosure. I'm a low level NASA manager. I also have been a recipient of the award in question (it's called the Space Flight Awareness, or SFA). I won it years ago when I was a line engineer for a contractor (managers usually cannot get these awards).

      The article is unfairly one sided. NASA overall has very little "morale money", which is used to reward outstanding employees or significant contributions - things that are commonplace in the private sector. When we have an office party, or I bring in dinner for my guys that have to work on Christmas, it's out of my pocket. All my colleagues do the same. I can assure you that the sum total of this across the agency is a lot more than what the SFAs cost.

      They also made it out like some extravagant party - it really isn't. They pay for the flight (you have to cover your spouse, though), get you a hotel at the Day's Inn Cocoa Beach (or similar) for a few days, they drive you around on a tour, and feed you a few nice meals and let you meet some astronauts and agency officials.

      The reason why most of the recipients are contractors is that most of NASA employees are contractors. The way most contracts are billed with NASA is cost plus, and employee expenses (including the small awards that are given out) are billed back to the government. The contractors also do spend on some other awards out of their profits (which are relatively small on NASA contracts, in all fairness).

      While you may have some negative opinions about how well NASA is doing as an agency, we've got a lot of really outstanding line employees who do great work, and in any enterprise you need to reward that. When I got my SFA, I was 28 years old and had spent a year of 60+ hour weeks getting an avionics package on the Space Station working. I didn't get paid overtime for that...the SFA was a nice token from my management. Another guy on the trip won his for finding a problem that saved the government $12 million dollars. As a percentage of the overall workforce, very few people ever win this award (where I work, maybe 1 out of 50 has gotten this in the last 10 years, you have to do something exceptional). It's definitely worth the tax dollars that are spent on it - and I hope other federal agencies are using my tax dollars in similar ways.

      --
      Worst...sig...ever!
  13. Re:Morale booster? No, contractor pleaser. by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful


    While expensive, keeping the morale high at NASA means keeping the even more expensive astronauts alive.

    Yah, except if the article is correct, most of the people at this party are NASA contractors. Why NASA is spending money on wining and dining contractors instead of the other way around, I don't really understand.

    On the other hand I'm not sure I just immediately accept the truth of this article. It's written in a rather sensationalist tone, and presents NASA's side of the argument as a one sentence reply, no doubt taken out of context. That doesn't mean this isn't accurate of course, it's just a bit suspicious.

    --
    AccountKiller
  14. They deserve a party by amightywind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sad that Slashdot chooses to be relentlessly negative about NASA, while touting the lilliputian efforts of Russia and China. The STS-120 repair mission on the ISS I saw last week was about the most amazing thing I have ever seen. Russia or China won't be able to build something like that for 50 years! NASA deserves a party.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  15. My father attended one of these 'parties' by Firemeboy44 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My father has worked on the booster rockets for 30 years as an engineer. This summer he was flown to Florida to watch a launch. They put him up in a hotel, had a receptions (where there were a hundred or so other folks), and in a small way showed their appreciation for the work he and the others had done. As I mentioned, he has worked there 30 years, and this was the first time he has been invited. There are hundreds of thousands of people who work on the shuttle program. I think it's a nice gesture.

  16. Re:The editiorial! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is this nonsense?

    NASA proponents argue it makes more sense to give money to talented, productive people in exchange for scientific knowledge, than spend in on unproductive people in the form of straight welfare


    It's the usual nonsense. Propaganda masquerading as journalism. It's a rather transparent ploy, usually the work of rank amateurs. Say, for example, Department X is doing scientific research on a vaccine for [disease] that involves testing on rabbits. In order to make them look as bad as possible you say the following:

    "Dept X kills baby bunnies!"

    Then, in order to give the appearance of fairness, you find (or just fabricate) some kooks who generally support the works of Dept X who will assert something fun, like the following:

    "Supporters of Dept X argue that killing baby bunnies is often quite pleasurable, especially if it is done slowly."

    See? Both sides have been presented, and it's obvious that Dept X is the spawn of Satan. Surely you're not on THEIR side, right?
    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  17. Re:Morale booster? No, contractor pleaser. by teridon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why NASA is spending money on wining and dining contractors instead of the other way around, I don't really understand.

    Contractors wining and dining federal employees is illegal.

    --
    I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
  18. Re:Morale booster? No, contractor pleaser. by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful


    It's fairly routine for key consultants to be treated exactly like the true employees when it comes to celebrations.

    Maybe. That doesn't mean they should be spending a million bucks on a celebration, airfare, etc.

    If the real issue was fiscal responsibility, the reporters would be sorting the budget by largest to smallest amounts, and then examining each line.

    I agree completely. This article isn't about fiscal responsibility, it's about "look at those guys that have a great big party and you don't! They used "your" money for it!" That's what all that "coconut fried shrimp, spring rolls, shrimp wrapped with bacon, 5-6 desserts" was all about, even though those big "luxuries" likely only cost a few thousand dollars, if that.

    That's kind of a sad attitude, and I'm a bit sick of it. Do I think this is a waste? Sure. Do I think this is something to be really concerned about and start rolling heads and instituting dumb reforms? Hell no. In any organization there's always a certain amount of "waste", i.e. money spent on something that's not easy to justify, and might have been better spent elsewhere. Just keep those percentages low, and I'm happy.

    --
    AccountKiller
  19. Re:Morale booster? No, contractor pleaser. by rokkaku · · Score: 4, Informative

    NASA has very few actual employees -- most everybody is a contractor. When I worked at Ames, we had a small handful of NASA employees in the building, with several hundred contractors. I'm not sure why NASA works this way (it seems less efficient to me), but I suppose it is easier to hire and fire and this way they don't have to deal with complicated government employment rules.

  20. Re:The truth hurts. by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a genetic cap on how valuable an individual can become The complete and proper reply to such a comment is as follows: Bullshit. I'm sure your genetic cap is thought the roof; genetic determinists always have the best genes, funny how that works.. Seriously, read a sociology book or something. Maybe a black history book, too; people said that every black person who accomplished something great was 'genetically inferior' too. And the Mismeasure of Man, read that one. That genetic cap stuff makes no more sense than divine right of monarchs. Its elitist, classist (and usually racist/sexist), harmful to society, and scientifically unfounded. Besides, there are exceptions on every level; are you really trying to tell me we shouldn't even give people the chance to make something of themselves because some genetic deterministic asshole deemed them inferior; are you seriously saying we should just form a caste system to replace trying to give everyone a fair chance? Because that is one fucked up ideology you've got, and as an intelligent 'genetically challenged' person myself, shit like that is the stuff of nightmares.