NASA Knows How To Party 341
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."
Contractors? (Score:4, Interesting)
But in the big picture, it's not that big a deal.
Well, yes (Score:3, Interesting)
ME as manager at NASA: What do you engineers say about the launch of this mission.
Engineers who know what they are doing because that is what they been trained for AND are required to stand behind if they want those letters after their name: We say X.
ME as manager at NASA: Okay, we do X.
Doesn't sound too hard, can I have my fat salary and golden parachute and parties now?
The two disasters were warned against by NASA owns personel, had the managers listened to their rocket-scientists then those 'accidents' would not have happened.
Do you want to know what I think about especially the first 'accident'? Do the math, cancel the mission and you get some bad press from an audience that doesn't care. If it goes wrong, you get massive public sympathy and can hopefully call it an accident with a straight face.
My father attended one of these 'parties' (Score:4, Interesting)
Tip of the iceberg (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Honestly (Score:3, Interesting)
Even when its right in front of you, on the evening news of a major network?
And what am I going to do about it? Call up my representative and waste his/her time on this minor waste, when there's much larger waste going on? So what if it's on the evening news. That doesn't make it any less of a distraction to the larger problems.
If you let those things that are right in front of you go, then you teach people thats its ok to waste and then it gets bigger and bigger.
Huh? We've already wasted a trillion dollars on this stupid war. What stage of the game do you really think we're at here? We're waaaay past the "little waste teaches some people some waste is OK" stage. These aren't jaywalking 6th graders and we think we can set a good example for obeying the law.
Yes, $4 million is tons of money, just ask what a NASA scientist/engineer could do with it, besides partying.
I'd rather ask him what he could do with a billion dollars. How many days in Iraq is a billion dollars? One? Two? Try to step out of the box you've constructed and the limitations of scope you're talking about. I want my legislators focused on the big picture, not little sums of money.
Many Parties? (Score:2, Interesting)
Money versus Value (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't you love sensational summaries (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Everybody has an Entertainment Budget (Score:3, Interesting)
If your total budget is in the billions, and you spend just one percent on entertainment, your entertainment budget is in the tens-of-millions.
People are people, for cryin' out loud. At companies I've been that don't have an entertainment budget, executives understand that and pay out of their own pockets for parties. It boosts morale. It also switches people into a different mode of thought where little nuggets of ideas come from. You might spend 95% of your time there just BS'ing, but then somebody comes up with an idea that they wouldn't have come up with if they had just been sitting in a cube or a regular meeting.
Nevermind that though. Even if you never discuss a single aspect of the business at a party, you are a human being. As such, you have certain needs, like eating and seeing other human beings. It has to be paid for, one way or another.
Re:And this is news why? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the Constitution refers to a different kind of welfare than the one the NASA Party Proponents are talking about. Anyway, I doubt they're changing, so assume the party submission position and give up your tax dollars.
I'm all for NASA having a nice party every once in a while, as it most likely increases their production. I mean, these "parties" aren't a "let's all get drunk, hook up with the secretaries and hope we don't ruin our future at this company"-type events, they're all about maintaining a good relationship with contractors and increasing employee morale. Look at Google, an incredibly successful company - they require employees spend 20% of paid work time on non-Google "projects that interest them." I'm not a Google insider (and I don't want to look up fiscal reports), but I'd imagine that the money spent on these projects (in paid non-work time) accounts for more than 0.1% of operating costs. Or maybe the sand volleyball courts, gym and swimming pools in the Googleplex? They don't directly increase productivity, but they keep the employees happy. And happy employees means more production at higher quality.
Re:The truth hurts. (Score:1, Interesting)
i bet if we made everyone pay with an hour of their time for an hour of the healthcare system's time, everyone could afford full medical (in fact, you could bank hours when you're young)
as for the welfare comments, the truth is many, many wealthy people actually contribute far less to the system and take far more from it
in actual fact, most welfare criticism is akin to looking like you're better by demeaning others lower, it's not real progress nor is it accurate
Welfare, the gift that keeps on killing. (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't fix broken people. Some people are losers and always will be no matter what you say or do. These people are a very small minority. Then you have other people who have the potential to be something other than losers, but only when environmental and cultural factors are sufficiently good. There are a fair number of people like this. Welfare, and the culture of dependency that it creates, locks these people into being losers. People who might otherwise live modest but productive and happy lives are stuck in a syndrome of idleness and dependency from which no good can come. As I said before, this is entirely intentional. Creating losers whose existence can then be blamed on the larger society gives the left a powerful propaganda tool that they then use to attack capitalism and the liberal democracy upon which it is founded.
Of all the things that this nation lacks, opportunity is not one of them. Poverty is a temporary condition for those who are willing to work hard and make wise decisions. Wealth is not assured, but economic security in a safe and sane community is all but guaranteed.
That being said, what NASA is doing needs to be looked at. There are times when it is necessary to schmooze various people. NASA pays private companies for a lot of the things that it needs to function. Being able to schmooze some of the heads of those companies can make a difference when it comes to the terms of contracts. If spending a million entertaining some people saves 30 million on contracts, then that is money well spent.
However, if this money is being wasted, then that needs to stop. Wasting tax money hurts the country twice over. First when the money is taken out of the economy, and second when it is not put to good use.
Re:The truth hurts. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about you, but I've done the maths. My "tax burden" in Norway was about the same as it is for me now in the UK, and both of them are pretty much the same as what it would cost me to live in areas in the US I'd be willing to consider when adding in private medical insurance and private pensions. In fact, many areas in the US would end up being more expensive for me. Why? Because what you consider "pickpocketing" is nothing more than insurance paying out. Insurance that you'd be paying for regardless if living in a country like the US unless you're too poor to afford it.
The difference is that really rich people are worse of in Norway (as in, you need to make well over a million kroner before it makes much of a difference) and really poor people are pretty much screwed in the US. For average earners and up to upper middle class, the differences aren't all that great.
Re:And this is news why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly why doesn't this have any bearing? Isn't it the small things that generates bigger rewards. Isn't Recycling movement based on this? Isn't micro-loan banks like Grameen Bank, another example? Also, NASA own programs need money (see below).
What is the issue here is the question of is this a wise and responsible use of NASA's budget within its mandate? Its your taxpayer's money so its a valid question. "It doesn't matter" is an answer only government contractor sales people love to hear.
The argument that its such a small amount of money doesn't really hold up because for that $4 million NASA could have created 2-4 more Centennial Challenges.
http://centennialchallenges.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]
Re:The truth hurts. (Score:1, Interesting)
The medical industry has such high prices that for someone who is already sick it makes more sense to go on welfare then it does to struggle with a 9 to 5 minimum wage job to pay insurance. They aren't going to magically get better, but now the bills are taken care of by the state. As with everything else, follow the money.
A few people on welfare are scamming the system, holding jobs on the side or breaking other rules. More people, though, do follow the system and are there because they have no where else to fall. The amount of money most people get is enough to cover their rent, groceries, and extra medical bills. Any money left over can't be saved up, that's actually in most state's welfare rules. The person / family can not save more then a set amount, in my state it's 2grand for a single person, like 4500 for a family for 3 or 4. This is actually important, since what it amounts to is forced spending. All of the welfare money has to go back into the community, through business or other things. When you figure out what all of that does for local economies, it seems to be pretty useful. Then figure out what would happen to the small local systems should all of that income suddenly disappear. Welfare is a scam, but not always by the people you would think.
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:3, Interesting)
I work in a large multisite NIH-funded research project. There are regular all-hands meetings which involve well over a hundred people, designed for sharing information. These are typically catered events on college campuses that last for almost a week. The block rates for hotels are generally booked in hotels that are around $200 a night. There are typically a couple minor dinners and usually one major event. This event could be, for example, the reservation of an entire aquarium with dinner served there, or whatnot.
I find this, while enjoyable, to be a waste of money. Especially the hotels; there's no reason why we need to be spending that kind of money on hotels. Want to have it cheaper? Don't host the conference in such expensive locations.
Now, that said, there are a few things I have to say in defense of these sorts of events. First of all, these meetings are typically very productive. Everyone is together in the same place, rapidly exchanging ideas directly, and everyone almost feels compelled to volunteer for tasks (which, when they get back, will almost invariably result in a few "Oh, god, what did I get myself into?"s). Sometimes things get produced even in the few days we're there. Secondly, while there are things that would be considered parties, and there often is alcohol, there is a distinct separation between alcohol and everything else. Alcohol is never funded by the NIH. It may be provided by a company trying to earn goodwill (such as Sun Microsystems, or whatnot), or be on a separate bill that anyone who has some must pay on their own. Lastly, there are some pretty significant figures involved in the project, doctors with doctor-style incomes and doctor-style expectations on standards. There's a very reasonable desire to try and retain these people. While someone like me may simply enjoy a chance to get out on someone else's dime at all, even if it's just to a $50 a night motel, spend $5 a meal, and attend conference held in a hotel lobby, some of these types of people wouldn't agree with my standards.
So, I'd cautiously support these sorts of events.
Re:Morale booster? No, contractor pleaser. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well mainly it's because contractors wining and dining government agencies is illegal. It's called kickbacks and bribery.
I used to plan conferences and although $400,000 to $600,000 sounds like a lot, isn't really for meetings of a few hundred people (although it's definately first-class). These meetings are called "parties" in the article, but I'm sure there is a lot of technical information being spread around and contractor interaction that would not otherwise take place. That is very valuable for NASA and I don't see any other way to effectively do it than meetings.
What really bothers me though, is the last paragraph of the OP! There was nothing in the article along those lines (a jab comparing useful, productive people to useless, unproductive people who receive government assistance.) That was pure editorial propaganda by the OP.