Author Topic: Here's something you Yanks should understand (Read 4043 times)

Dowding · « **Reply #120 on:** May 14, 2003, 04:36:13 PM »

Oh my. Always the pathetic slights. Like a broken N-sync record through a smashed PC speaker.

That there were spin-offs has never been in doubt - it's the quantitative profitability of them compared to the investment needed for their development is what interests me. No big deal though.

Rude · « **Reply #121 on:** May 14, 2003, 04:41:17 PM »

Here's another example....

Quote

Dave Drachlis
Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, Ala.
(Phone: 205/544-0034)

Release No.: 95-27

MARSHALL CENTER'S EXPENDITURES IN ALABAMA TOTAL $837 MILLION IN FISCAL YEAR 1994

NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville contributed $837 million to Alabama's economy during the fiscal year 1994 that ended last September. This figure includes $234 million in salaries for personnel and related costs, and $603 million spent on locally procured services, contractor support, and local construction. In addition, retirement annuities were paid to the approximately 2,400 Marshall Center retirees who currently reside in Alabama, adding about $57 million more to the state and local economies.

The $600-million-plus in program funds Marshall Center spent in Alabama was more than its expenditures in any other state. Additional NASA funding (approximately $156 million) was spent locally for International Space Station hardware development done by Boeing/Huntsville. California received $400 million, $400 million was spent in Utah, $200 million was spent in Louisiana and $200 million was spent in Florida. Smaller sums were dispersed among other states.

During fiscal year 1994 the Marshall Center received almost 20 percent of NASA's total budget of $14.55 billion. Of Marshall's $2.84 billion allocation from NASA, $1.89 billion was spent for human space flight activities, $519 million went for science and technology, and the balance -- $433 million -- was spent on mission and institutional support at Marshall Center and other sites across the country.

Since it was established in 1960, the Marshall Center has received a total of $52.7 billion. If these dollars are adjusted for inflation, this total is equivalent to more than $130 billion in 1994 money.

The Marshall Center has paid $3.9 billion in federal salaries during the past 34 years.

At the end of September 1994, the Marshall Center had a total of 3,377 Civil Service permanent and temporary employees, including employees at resident offices at prime contractors' facilities and at component facilities such as the Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana.

Of Marshall's total Civil Service workforce last year, 2,654 were college graduates, with 1,947 holding baccalaureate degrees. There were 160 employees at the doctoral level and 547 with master's degrees in fields of engineering, science (predominantly mathematics and physics), and other disciplines, predominantly business administration.

During the past fiscal year, the center had approximately 5,469 institutional and mission service contractor employees working in support of center activities, and about 21,717 prime contractor employees (including subcontractors and vendors), of which 3,199 live in Alabama.

It is estimated that locally employed Marshall Center civil service and contractor personnel and their families comprise about 16 percent (approximately 27,200 people) of the total Huntsville population of 166,900. (As in the case of funding figures, these contractor workforce numbers do not include Boeing's Space Station work, since management of that program is not the responsibility of Marshall Center. About 1,800 Boeing personnel are involved.)

The Huntsville International Airport is supported in some measure by the Center, servicing commercial air service needs. Marshall employees used the airport to make 4,852 business trips at a cost of approximately $1.85 million.

During fiscal year 1994, the Marshall Center purchased $9.6 million in electricity and spent $2.6 million for steam heat and burner fuel, $200,000 for water and $500,000 for sewage treatment. An additional $13.8 million was spent for communications services including line usage and equipment.

In fiscal year 1994, 294,012 individuals toured the Marshall center including educators; civic, conference and symposia visitors; and news media. Of these visitors, 265,000 toured the center as part of the Space and Rocket Center's bus tour program.

In support of our nation's higher education institutions, the Marshall Center in the past fiscal year had 110 active research grants valued at $12.6 million to seven universities and colleges in Alabama: Alabama A&M, Auburn, Tuskegee, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, and the University of South Alabama.

Marshall supported the Graduate Student Researchers Program with 56 fellowships given to science and engineering students in fiscal year 1994. Sixteen of these fellowships were granted to participants from universities in Alabama.

The Marshall Center's Cooperative Education Program included 71 graduate and undergraduate students representing 33 colleges and universities in 18 states. Some 62 participants came from 10 different Alabama colleges and universities.

The center supported a Summer Faculty Program with 49 participants spending part of their summer performing research at many of Marshall's laboratories.

The Alabama Space Grant Consortium continued in fiscal year 1994 with $400,000 in Center funding. Five Alabama universities participated in the year's activities.

In 1994, more than 200,000 students and 50,000 teachers and faculty were reached through the operation of Marshall's education programs. Marshall employees and retirees volunteered to participate in the NASA Project LASER (Learning About Science, Engineering and Research) Program, serving locally as speakers, tutors, consultants, and science fair judges. Through Project LASER, 375 instances were recorded of Marshall Center volunteers making presentations, holding workshops, serving as science fair judges, leading tours of center facilities, being "study buddies" and mentors for students with special needs or interests.

Marshall's employees pledged $455,609 to the Combined Federal Campaign in 1994, with $306,992 designated for agencies in northern Alabama. These figures do not include contributions from Marshall Center retirees or from any of the center's contractor employees who contributed directly to the United Way Campaign.

Marshall employees paid $6.7 million in Alabama state income taxes in fiscal year 1994.

In this last decade of the 20th Century, the center remains committed to excellence and continuous improvements in its wide range of current and future endeavors.

Marshall Center continues to be one of the most diverse of NASA's field centers. Space Shuttle-related programs under way in the past fiscal year included the Space Shuttle Main Engines, the Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters, Redesigned Solid Rocket Motors and External Tank projects, plus Systems Analysis/Test and Integration. Other major programs and efforts include the Reusable Launch Vehicle technology program; providing contributions to the International Space Station; the Global Hydrology and Climate Center; Spacelab Operations and Payload Mission Management; microgravity experiments; flight experiment science and applications; upper stage vehicles; the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility; the Tethered Satellite System; the Small Expendable Deployer System; Gravity Probe-B payload development; the Optical Transient Detector/Lightning Imaging Sensor; and supporting research and technology.

Another major thrust at the center is to take technology developed for the space program and make it available to U.S. industry, through a wide range of initiatives managed by its Technology Transfer Office.

Throughout 1995 and well into the future, the Marshall Center will remain a vital contributor to America's future in space and to the economy of Huntsville and the state of Alabama.

In closing....if you cannot begin to see the economic benefits of the US Space Program over the years, then there is simply no hope for you.

Remember, we are profit driven in the United States...you know, Capitalist? The ROI of monies spent over time is evident to anyone humble enough to see it.

Later Professor!

Curval · « **Reply #122 on:** May 14, 2003, 04:41:27 PM »

Those are all known as "intangibles" to us accountants Rude.

I was sitting in on a closing of the sale of an aircraft a few months ago....in fact the company which held the aircraft was being sold. Somehow the purchase price missed a bank account with about $7,000 (in Stirling though) in it and therefore was understated by that much. The buyer had done a quick calculation and insisted the price was $7,000 too low (this on a multi-million dollar deal). One of the principals on the sellers side came up with a great explanation for why and told the purchasor it was essentially an intangible asset in that amount that he was purchasing.

I'll never forget it...the guy looked over from the top of his glasses and very calmly stated, "I don't buy intangible assets."

Show me NASA's balance sheet Rude, and then point out all those wonderful products that should logically be included according to your argument. They should still be there, even at a nominal value.

I'll help you...you can't.

The fact of the matter is that you are arguing that the space program had value but that Concorde was a British/French chest thumping exercise. Were all those spin-off products considered in the decision to put a spacecraft into space? No. Why did the US do it? Because the Russians did it...first. It wasn't even a chest thumping exercise...it was "catch-up".

Dowding · « **Reply #123 on:** May 14, 2003, 04:51:45 PM »

Do you enjoy being an accountant Curval? I have a friend who's just about to become chartered and he always wanted to be one, but now hates it. He wants to move into consultancy.

I've got a good numerate degree so I should be able to start the training if I wanted to. But if he had his heart set on that career and hates it, I wonder how I would do considering I'm not exactly enthused by the idea...

To be honest, it's the money and the chartered status that appeals the most. But, no offence, is it really as boring as people make out?

X2Lee · « **Reply #124 on:** May 14, 2003, 04:55:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seeker
"Has Briton or France ever put anyone in orbit?"

Regularly. Don't you read squad mail?

hehehe seeker

Curval · « **Reply #125 on:** May 14, 2003, 05:01:12 PM »

Dowding, if I didn't live where I do, and get involved in some of the more "cool" aspects of off-shore business I think I would slit my wrists. I couldn't imagine working in a firm in the UK, Canada or the US. It would bore me to tears.

Consultancy is the way to go...more interesting work, you get to actually help a company to operate and grow (rather than telling them what they did wrong based on historic information), and the money is much, much better.

Having said that though an accounting designation, be it a CA or CPA is something that would hold you in good stead no matter what you do in life. If you run your own business it is very difficult for a partner or employee to rip you off, for example.

Rude · « **Reply #126 on:** May 14, 2003, 05:02:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
Those are all known as "intangibles" to us accountants Rude.

I was sitting in on a closing of the sale of an aircraft a few months ago....in fact the company which held the aircraft was being sold. Somehow the purchase price missed a bank account with about $7,000 (in Stirling though) in it and therefore was understated by that much. The buyer had done a quick calculation and insisted the price was $7,000 too low (this on a multi-million dollar deal). One of the principals on the sellers side came up with a great explanation for why and told the purchasor it was essentially an intangible asset in that amount that he was purchasing.

I'll never forget it...the guy looked over from the top of his glasses and very calmly stated, "I don't buy intangible assets."

Show me NASA's balance sheet Rude, and then point out all those wonderful products that should logically be included according to your argument. They should still be there, even at a nominal value.

I'll help you...you can't.

The fact of the matter is that you are arguing that the space program had value but that Concorde was a British/French chest thumping exercise. Were all those spin-off products considered in the decision to put a spacecraft into space? No. Why did the US do it? Because the Russians did it...first. It wasn't even a chest thumping exercise...it was "catch-up".

Curval....

So what your saying is that by the advent of the US space program, a program funded by US tax dollars, provided by US tax payers, never contributed to private tax payer owned business in this country by generating new and increased profits in those businesses?

I hire CPA's....not smart enough nor do I have the patience required to ever pretend to be one, however, I do know how to make money.

Through many new innovations, be it in any industry, the bottom line can be enhanced and in some cases immediately. If my cost of doing business is reduced, my profit increases.

For anyone to tell me that real dollar gains have not been realized through the investment in our space program and that only intangibles have been the result from the same, it's simply not the truth.

My point has been missed by you as well....I simply stated that the US space program was money well spent.

X2Lee · « **Reply #127 on:** May 14, 2003, 05:05:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Yeah but it was soooo long ago. We were arrogant. We were complacent. That won't happen again, old bean.

I bet your women's team is full of mooses anyway. So there.

Have you ever eaten any american moose?

midnight Target · « **Reply #128 on:** May 14, 2003, 05:10:55 PM »

Quote

Why did the US do it? Because the Russians did it...first. It wasn't even a chest thumping exercise...it was "catch-up".

Not entirely true Curval.

We had a planned space program, with an initial launch (unmanned) planned for 1957, (the international geophysical year), but something pushed the launch back into 1958. Sputnik (Oct. 1957) just made us look bad and freed up additional resources to accelerate the process.

Curval · « **Reply #129 on:** May 14, 2003, 05:16:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Not entirely true Curval.

We had a planned space program, with an initial launch (unmanned) planned for 1957, (the international geophysical year), but something pushed the launch back into 1958. Sputnik (Oct. 1957) just made us look bad and freed up additional resources to accelerate the process.

Okay...then it was a race. A big chest thumping race.

Gotta eat...Rude, I'll get back to ya.

X2Lee · « **Reply #130 on:** May 14, 2003, 05:35:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rude

Jeweler's Gem

Jewelers no longer have to worry about inhaling dangerous asbestos
fibers from the blocks they use as soldering bases. Space Shuttle
heat-shield tiles offer jewelers a safer soldering base with
temperature resistance far beyond the 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit
generated by the jeweler's torch.

I'm done.

I was at nasa a few years back and they demonstrated those tiles. I held on in my hand that was about a 1" 1/2 thick
put a blowtorch on the other side till it glowed orange,
I was still holding it in my hand...

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #131 on:** May 14, 2003, 05:48:44 PM »

It seems to me that this Dowding / Rude discussion can be ended peacefully if both would agree that neither the Shuttle nor Concord were intended to be profitable.

Airhead · « **Reply #132 on:** May 14, 2003, 08:28:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It seems to me that this Dowding / Rude discussion can be ended peacefully if both would agree that neither the Shuttle nor Concord were intended to be profitable.

Nah, they'll argue til the cows come home. The only thing that can stop this thread is a lock.

GrimCO · « **Reply #133 on:** May 14, 2003, 08:57:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Airhead
Nah, they'll argue til the cows come home. The only thing that can stop this thread is a lock.

I dunno, Blitz now has the On probation moniker attached to his name, and he seems to have slowed down a wee bit

Rude · « **Reply #134 on:** May 14, 2003, 11:51:00 PM »

My point is simply this....

If you compare two nationally underwritten programs, the Concorde vs. the Shuttle, the shuttle yielded a much higher return back to that nation, be it spin offs or intangibles.

What I was trying to get across was that the US space program has realized a massive ROI both in real dollars and intangibles, which can also lead to new innovation and increase US commerce.
It paid off for American tax payers and throughout the world as well.

Lastly, the Shuttle is still an active program...the Concorde is a bust.

Don't fret....I'll lock this thread myself.

Someday I'll learn not to have discussions with those of higher education....reality rarely lives in a book.