Is privatistion a bad idea?. .. All of these old versions of logos on a Space Shuttle.
Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Is privatistion a bad idea?

Views: 25591
Favorited: 13
Submitted: 12/07/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to youngcheese E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend



Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - breakfastlunch (12/08/2012) [+] (1 reply)
All of these old versions of logos on a Space Shuttle.
#9 - infested (12/08/2012) [-]
Then we'd have the money to go to space OP
#12 - mynameislego ONLINE (12/08/2012) [+] (2 replies)
<-----One day kids will remember this. Instead of one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
User avatar #11 - robots (12/08/2012) [+] (2 replies)
If it means getting into space earlier, who gives a **** about a few logos?
#15 - electricsheep **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [+] (1 reply)
#30 - eyeballfrog (12/08/2012) [-]
If it gets us into space, then sure.

pic unrelated
#29 - thefasrdog (12/08/2012) [+] (2 replies)
I mean whatever gets us to the colonization of planets faster.

#36 - Warang (12/08/2012) [+] (1 reply)
Not sure if it's still relevant today, but I heard that painting the outside of the rocket with certain color would make it much much harder to launch because of the additionnal weight of the paint.

And the fact that just adding some random weight that could have been something actually useful (like food or any other science material) meant much more than logos

Also, here is a pic of Stephen Hawkins in zero gravity.
User avatar #31 - mvainer (12/08/2012) [-]
but boeing already makes rockets for NASA, like the deltas
User avatar #27 - umaya (12/08/2012) [-]
If it's the only way people will actually give a **** about space then go ahead.
#20 - slimcswagga **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #16 - roflstorm (12/08/2012) [+] (1 reply)
No red bull?
User avatar #14 - andalitemadness (12/08/2012) [+] (1 reply)
So what if there are logos on it, it's still going into space.
#5 - DweebyTwonkyHead (12/08/2012) [-]
#40 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #23 - blergle ONLINE (12/08/2012) [-]
Right, because SpaceX getting more funding would be such a bad thing.

Who the hell cares what the logo is?! Whether it's anything from disaster relief to rocket science, I couldn't give two ***** whether it had the Snuggie logo on it! I just care if they do a good job!

In fact it would be better if it was, because then they wouldn't have had to steal your money to get it done, but instead got their money from making products people voluntarily bought.

Of course NASA's budget isn't that big, but the principle is pretty important. For example, NASA and the guy who built the multi-billion dollar space pen will never be held fiscally responsible for that.
#22 - xxxsonic fanxxx (12/08/2012) [-]
Letting Microsoft touch that kind of thing is the same as dooming it from the start, isn't it?
#13 - connorbeyond (12/08/2012) [-]
Privatization: Turning NASA into NASCAR since it's government involvement.   
Gif unrelated
Privatization: Turning NASA into NASCAR since it's government involvement.

Gif unrelated
#10 - xxxsonic fanxxx (12/08/2012) [-]
I think a Mc donald wouldn't sell verry much in space.
User avatar #2 - thelastamerican (12/08/2012) [+] (4 replies)
Because we can't fund our own lift vehicle. It cost every tax payer $10 to put Curiosity on Mars, but we can't have out own lift vehicle. That would cost too much.
I'll go away now.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)