This, in turn, deflects the majority of criticisms aimed at NASA’s state funding. The benefits of NASA’s spinoff reports become evident when one observes that numerous libertarian authors are forced to admit the many technological benefits of NASA. These attacks come in the form of various commentaries from The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) such as “NASA Shouldn’t Be Funded” and the Cato Institute “Time to Privatize NASA” (Hudgins n.d.).
Various libertarian foundations and think tanks seek to influence public policy and often target NASA. As a political ideology, libertarianism has been growing in influence over the years, thanks in part to generous funding from wealthy libertarian patrons the likes of the Koch brothers. Another group are libertarians who advocate for a small government. The general public and lawmakers appear to be one group. It could be argued that NASA’s spinoff reports have multiple target audiences. While research has been conducted on the empirical relationship between public opinion and NASA’s governmental funding, nothing has been written about ancient historical antecedents (more on this shortly). One of the main objectives of the spinoff reports is to shape a positive public opinion thereby enabling NASA to maintain a steady stream of governmental funding by elected politicians who are sensitive to electoral moods. Since that time NASA has featured over 2000 spinoff products and services including satellite communications, space-based navigations systems, and medical technologies among other things (NASA, 2017). In 1976 NASA made the spinoff reports available to the general public in the form of glossy, color publications. However, as their products increased, NASA began publishing annual spinoff reports for presentation at congressional budget hearings (NASA, 2017). The first spinoff report was published in 1973. These are publications that list NASA technologies that have been transformed for use in the private sector (NASA, 2017). One of their methods involves the use of spinoff reports. While scholars debate the effectiveness of public opinion, NASA officials are busy raising public awareness. The third section provides a synthesis followed by policy recommendations.
The second section examines ancient Hellenic texts on natural philosophy with a special focus on astronomy that includes the works of Aesop, Aristophanes, Plato and Aristotle. The first section provides a background and analysis of NASA’s funding from its days of inception to the current administration, and a review of various studies measuring the link between American public opinion and space funding. The paper is divided into three sections. While it would be tempting to add that the comparison is also interesting because it highlights similarities that transcend time and place, limited evidence prevents such a bold assertion. The comparison between ancient Greek astronomers and NASA is interesting because it is a historical discussion that shifts the dialog in a novel direction, namely, the use of analogies with ancient astronomy/science. Rather, this paper provides an interpretation that draws from an empirical and a normative framework alike. Many of NASA’s technologies have improved our lives for the better. Granted that the link between public opinion and NASA funding is opaque at best, nonetheless, spinoff reports exemplify the essence of the spirit that one observes in Aristotle’s apocryphal tale involving the proto-astronomer, Thales of Miletus (more on this shortly).Īt the risk of misunderstanding, this paper is not arguing that NASA should not be providing practical results as a result of its scientific endeavors. Namely, I suggest that spinoff reports-which list the practical outputs of NASA’s scientific endeavors to the general public-seek to influence public opinion. I also argue that, in regard to NASA, the same pressures manifest themselves in state funding. In this paper, I argue that ancient astronomers were perceived as lacking practical wisdom by the general public and were pressured to demonstrate concrete outcomes.
0 kommentar(er)
