NASA hired mike rowe.

[Headless hula]

 

[Uncle Dave]

Pretty great!

Can somebody help me understand why we needed to pay for this?

UD

 

[DrunkenSailor]

Fuck yeah! That gave me a semi.

 

[DrunkenSailor]

Pretty great!

Can somebody help me understand why we needed to pay for this?

UD

Out of all the crap that the government spend money on i don't mind it going to nasa. The human race stagnates when it sits still too long.

 

[Uncle Dave]

Out of all the crap that the government spend money on i don't mind it going to nasa. The human race stagnates when it sits still too long.

They need to work on spending the money they get better - why did a private company kick their ass in the re-use department? WTF?!??!?

They fill every reasonable opening, and its considered a prestigious place to work - so there is no need for PR.

This is pride instilling no doubt - and a perfect example of government mis spending.

UD

 

[DrunkenSailor]

They need to work on spending the money they get better - why did a private company kick their ass in the re-use department? WTF?!??!?

They fill every reasonable opening, and its considered a prestigious place to work - so there is no need for PR.

This is pride instilling no doubt - and a perfect example of government mis spending.

UD

i disagree but not completely. I think nasa is embattled for the reasons you just laid out. The dems would love to take NASA's budget and give it to universal healthcare or social security or welfare. The millenials would love that money to go to a universal wage. The war hawks would love that money to go to military spending. Nasa once an almost sacred institution is in danger. They need public support hence the ad.

 

[SBMech]

I was disappointed in the flag shaming. Is there nothing to be proud of in America anymore?

Fucking NASA is as American as baseball and apple pie if you asked me.

 

[Sleek-Jet]

Pretty great!

Can somebody help me understand why we needed to pay for this?

UD

Because Elon and Bezos needs another gov't contract.

 

[Shlbyntro]

I don't mind Nasa as much as many of the other government expenditures. Science and converting theory to reality is expensive. Nasa's annual budget makes up only about 0.5% of the federal governments annual budget. Nasa is actually one of best ran government funded agencies we have spending wise.

To put this in perspective a little more than 15% of our GDP is military and defense spending and the big cookie which is medicare, medicade, social security, welfare, etc. Makes up almost an even 50% of the annual budget.

Where do y'all really think the fat needs to be trimmed?

 

[HALLETT BOY]

I don't mind Nasa as much as many of the other government expenditures. Science and converting theory to reality is expensive. Nasa's annual budget makes up only about 0.5% of the federal governments annual budget. Nasa is actually one of best ran government funded agencies we have spending wise.

To put this in perspective a little more than 15% of our GDP is military and defense spending and the big cookie which is medicare, medicade, social security, welfare, etc. Makes up almost an even 50% of the annual budget.

Where do y'all really think the fat needs to be trimmed?

Govt saleries and pensions !

 

[rrrr]

They need to work on spending the money they get better - why did a private company kick their ass in the re-use department? WTF?!??!?

Because they made a decision years ago to issue contracts for space vehicles instead of building them.

Space X chose to build reusable rockets on their own. ULA and Orbital Sciences use conventional rockets. They believe the reusable rockets will be like the space shuttle. Yeah, you can fly them again, but the cost doesn't justify it.

 

[Shlbyntro]

Govt saleries and pensions !

A private sector employee and a government employee are sitting at a bar and strike up some small talk. The private sector employee picks up his glass and asks his counterpart, "What are we drinking to today?" The government employee releases a sorrowful sigh and replies, "They're trying to take away my pension." The private sector employee has kind of a puzzled look on his face and eventually expresses the reason for his confusion. "What's a pension?!"

 

[Tank]

Pretty great!

Can somebody help me understand why we needed to pay for this?

UD

I think the simple answer is, it's for the betterment and advancement of human evolution, not to mention NASA research and development has assisted in and developed some of the worlds most amazing inventions and technology.

Now, just like EVERY other area of the federal budget, it needs better oversight. But that's a blanket term.

And yea, I agree, ads like this are because of the negative opinion of NASA and their budget. And like others stated, I'd be quicker to whack other portions of the fed budget before NASA all day long!!

But I get where you're coming from, seems NASA has been missing the target for a long time now. I'd like to see them get back on target of say the 60's era of kickin' ass.

 

[rrrr]

It's Obama's fault.

How Barack Obama ruined NASA space exploration

One of the tasks that President Donald Trump has before him, along with revamping immigration and trade, repealing and replacing ObamaCare, and rebuilding the military, is restoring America’s space exploration program to its former glory. Press reports suggest that the administration is looking at an early return to the moon, using commercial partnerships.

To understand the task that the president and whomever he chooses as NASA administrator have before them, it is useful to look back on how profoundly and adroitly President Barack Obama crippled the space agency’s efforts to send astronauts beyond low Earth orbit.

...

Obama wasted eight years that might have been spent getting Americans beyond low Earth orbit. The Journey to Mars has been the ObamaCare of space exploration--expensive, unsustainable, and not designed to do what it is alleged to do. Part of the mandate of the current president to make America great again will be to turn that situation around and America back toward the stars.


https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-...ow-barack-obama-ruined-nasa-space-exploration

 

[mjc]

Remember Obama had to have NASA make Muslims feel good about themselves.

 

[Spudsbud]

People dont believe this... I do ,....
There is a planet in our solar system, inhabitted entirely by alien robots !

Been told I'm nuts by more than 1 voting democrat !!

 

[Uncle Dave]

Because they made a decision years ago to issue contracts for space vehicles instead of building them.

Space X chose to build reusable rockets on their own. ULA and Orbital Sciences use conventional rockets. They believe the reusable rockets will be like the space shuttle. Yeah, you can fly them again, but the cost doesn't justify it.

Except for when they dont.
NASA did the design and contracted Boeing for the core - so maybe that counts as a contract vehicle. Diff than a full contract to ULA (russia RD180).

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html

Nasa you and I are very much in the rocket business today - late again, and overbudget - but thats the gov.....

https://www.space.com/42092-nasa-sls-rocket-delays-overruns-oig-report.html


Paying for the blue angels and thunderbirds makes sense to me - to get people interested in an all-volunteer military.

Nasa has a lineup at the door of people wanting in.

UD

 

[rrrr]

Your statement:

They need to work on spending the money they get better - why did a private company kick their ass in the re-use department? WTF?

Your post indicated that NASA had somehow lost a competition. That's not accurate. There is no "re-use department", and there never was a specific mandate or RFQ for a reusable low earth orbit vehicle. Space X submitted a bid to build and operate ISS resupply vehicles, just like ULA and Orbital Sciences did.

Space X made the decision to build a reusable vehicle. It had nothing to do with NASA and how they spend their budget. Everything in both of my posts is accurate.

 

[Uncle Dave]

Your statement:

They need to work on spending the money they get better - why did a private company kick their ass in the re-use department? WTF?

Your post indicated that NASA had somehow lost a competition. That's not accurate. There is no "re-use department", and there never was a specific mandate or RFQ for a reusable low earth orbit vehicle. Space X submitted a bid to build and operate ISS resupply vehicles, just like ULA and Orbital Sciences did.

Space X made the decision to build a reusable vehicle. It had nothing to do with NASA and how they spend their budget. Everything in both of my posts is accurate.

Ill re-word - Not so much "reusable" per se - more whatever it took to win in the cost per launch per pound formula.

In terms of cost per launch, Spacex is now cheaper than even an RD-180 based lifter. They can beat anyone's price - and make money doing it.

This should have been NASA's market - not some start ups.

Make more sense?

UD

 

[rrrr]

In terms of cost per launch, Spacex is now cheaper than even an RD-180 based lifter. They can beat anyone's price - and make money doing it.

This should have been NASA's market - not some start ups.

Make more sense?

UD

If they're cheaper, NASA should benefit because of the bidding process. However, just like Elon Musk's other big venture, Space X isn't making money.

Wall all Street Journal spills the beans on SpaceX

In a detailed, multi-page expose, the Journal revealed last month that it has come into possession of a treasure trove of internal financial documents from SpaceX. Combined with interviews of ex-SpaceX staff, the Journal was able to put together a pretty good picture of SpaceX's finances.

It isn't a pretty picture. Here's what we know.

SpaceX likes to portray itself as a growing rival to space incumbents such as Boeing and Lockheed, Airbus and Orbital ATK. But in fact, SpaceX's revenue growth halted -- temporarily, we hope -- in 2014. Two failed space launches in the past two years curtailed launch activity at the space start-up, with the result that revenue actually peaked in 2014, at roughly $1 billion.

SpaceX's sales then declined to just $945 million in 2015, when the company conducted only six launches. (Revenue may have grown again in 2016, or it may not have. The documents the Journal obtained apparently didn't extend into 2016.)

What the documents do show, though -- and show quite clearly -- is that no matter how much revenue SpaceX records, it's not earning much profit from that revenue.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/05/how-profitable-is-spacex-really.aspx

 

[Uncle Dave]

I think the simple answer is, it's for the betterment and advancement of human evolution, not to mention NASA research and development has assisted in and developed some of the worlds most amazing inventions and technology.

Now, just like EVERY other area of the federal budget, it needs better oversight. But that's a blanket term.

And yea, I agree, ads like this are because of the negative opinion of NASA and their budget. And like others stated, I'd be quicker to whack other portions of the fed budget before NASA all day long!!

But I get where you're coming from, seems NASA has been missing the target for a long time now. I'd like to see them get back on target of say the 60's era of kickin' ass.

Love Nasa and the money was the source of much of what we have today - especially in my industry.

Doesnt make sense to me for them to be making commercials with Hollywood voice-over talent.


UD

 

[Uncle Dave]

If they're cheaper, NASA should benefit because of the bidding process. However, just like Elon Musk's other big venture, Space X isn't making money.

Wall all Street Journal spills the beans on SpaceX

In a detailed, multi-page expose, the Journal revealed last month that it has come into possession of a treasure trove of internal financial documents from SpaceX. Combined with interviews of ex-SpaceX staff, the Journal was able to put together a pretty good picture of SpaceX's finances.

It isn't a pretty picture. Here's what we know.

SpaceX likes to portray itself as a growing rival to space incumbents such as Boeing and Lockheed, Airbus and Orbital ATK. But in fact, SpaceX's revenue growth halted -- temporarily, we hope -- in 2014. Two failed space launches in the past two years curtailed launch activity at the space start-up, with the result that revenue actually peaked in 2014, at roughly $1 billion.

SpaceX's sales then declined to just $945 million in 2015, when the company conducted only six launches. (Revenue may have grown again in 2016, or it may not have. The documents the Journal obtained apparently didn't extend into 2016.)

What the documents do show, though -- and show quite clearly -- is that no matter how much revenue SpaceX records, it's not earning much profit from that revenue.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/05/how-profitable-is-spacex-really.aspx

The technology should have been NASA's to capitalize on- not Musks or Bezos.

- but if they have a launch that needs it maybe they can bid as well.

As of 2018 The Falcons 9 standings are beyond most governments.
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/log2018.html#stats

Making money - counting out Q3 he sure didn't, Telsa knocked out of the the park in Q3 -well see how that goes in Q4

SpaceX being private who really knows?

UD

 

[Tank]

Love Nasa and the money was the source of much of what we have today - especially in my industry.

Doenst make sense to me for them to be making commercials with Hollywood voice-over talent.


UD

I think they've been getting a bad wrap the past...10-20 years, their popularity is declining and their reputation has been tarnished (whether justified or not). Thus the PR. Unfavorable with the masses, their budget WILL shrink. And as we all know, peoples memory is very short term, sometimes it helps to remind those nay-sayers of the accomplishments NASA has had an where it's taken us and their goals of where they'd like to take us in the future.

It's a good conversation though Dave. A little budget oversight and better direction maybe they can pull themselves out of the rut and get some shit done.

And while we're on the topic, I think it's interesting to return to the moon and establish a base (as suggested in the video) instead of attempting to go straight from earth to Mars. Baby steps. I think they got overzeulus and missed that important step. Bit off a bit more than they could chew so to speak by shooting directly for Mars. Hopefully they can peak new interest and get the country (and the world really) re-energized. But it'll take something really spectacular happening. Not just what's been going on lately with space-x and their landing rockets which is amazing but isn't exciting to the average joe. That's the foundation stuff for great things to come. When those great things do come, like a manned mission to mars, then I think the resurgence will come. But they need the money to lay that foundation to get to that exciting time and that's where this type of PR and video come from.

 

[lbhsbz]

I had a lot more respect for Mike Rowe when he was doing “Dirty Jobs” and narrating for Discovery...he never looked too sharp, but he’d get dirty...which was was all he’s really good for, because he seems to suck at hard word work and he acted like he wasn’t sharp enough to understand relatively simple jobs without lots of help.

As a TV commercial figure, he’s proved that he’s a money chasing dipshit like the rest of ‘em.

All he has to do is throw down the occasional “working class jobs are good” rhetoric and the masses love him.

I doubt he’s put in a hard day’s work for more than a 30 minute period of time in his life...

 

[jpf091959]

America dominated the world when we emphasized Science and Technology. It is time we do that again. The world is on the cusp of so many break throughs, I would like America to be apart of it.

If I know our politicians they would rather invest in free needles and safe injection sites than science.

 

[DLow]

I had a lot more respect for Mike Rowe when he was doing “Dirty Jobs” and narrating for Discovery...he never looked too sharp, but he’d get dirty...which was was all he’s really good for, because he seems to suck at hard word work and he acted like he wasn’t sharp enough to understand relatively simple jobs without lots of help.

As a TV commercial figure, he’s proved that he’s a money chasing dipshit like the rest of ‘em.

All he has to do is throw down the occasional “working class jobs are good” rhetoric and the masses love him.

I doubt he’s put in a hard day’s work for more than a 30 minute period of time in his life...

Have you seen Mike Rowe’s lectures? The guy is about as far from a “dipshit” as you’ll ever get. Ever think he was simply doing a job?

 

[DLow]

Pretty great!

Can somebody help me understand why we needed to pay for this?

UD

You are hilarious. You bitch and moan about NASA spending a few thousand tax payer dollars on advertisement, but you are more than excited that the government is spending millions upon millions of dollars to help fund your precious Elon’s Tesla and other hybrid technology. What a joke.

 

[lbhsbz]

Have you seen Mike Rowe’s lectures? The guy is about as far from a “dipshit” as you’ll ever get. Ever think he was simply doing a job?

Yup, he’s a spokesman...that’s it. He’ll do whatever he gets paid to do. Morals seem to take a back seat.

 

[Tank]

America dominated the world when we emphasized Science and Technology. It is time we do that again. The world is on the cusp of so many break throughs, I would like America to be apart of it.

We just need some more smart Germans to be forced to come up with all the science and tech and then steal it from them to pave the next phase like we did the first! LOL

kidding, kidding

Kinda

 

[Uncle Dave]

You are hilarious. You bitch and moan about NASA spending a few thousand tax payer dollars on advertisement, but you are more than excited that the government is spending millions upon millions of dollars to help fund your precious Elon’s Tesla and other hybrid technology. What a joke.

What hilarious is you don't know where each gets their money and have it wrong.

Elon doesn't have any gov loans and only gets "government" money from being an employer - like any other employer.
The other place the gets it is external investors.

Nasa gets your tax dollar directly.
These tax dollars just bought ANOTHER round of Russian made RD 180's for yesterdays NASA launch - how American.

UD

 

[Tank]

These tax dollars just bought ANOTHER round of Russian made RD 180's for yesterdays NASA launch - how American.

UD

Yea, see that's BULLSHIT!

But I'm guessing, like most issues, this is just the tip of the true problem which to me looks to be NASA has been stifled for the past 15 years and hasn't really poured money into R&D and hasn't had proper direction. Now, because they fluffed off on the fundamentals of R&D they are behind the curve and most likely it's easier and cheaper to outsource rockets even if they're from Russia. The money they saved by not doing R&D they're now spending to buy and outsource. It's that SHIT that needs to be remedied. Get back to basics. But then again, the basics and R&D doesn't create awe in the public and keep interest and keep the funding rolling in. It's a vicious circle!

 

[Sleek-Jet]

Yup, he’s a spokesman...that’s it. He’ll do whatever he gets paid to do. Morals seem to take a back seat.

You seem to have a real hard on for Mr. Rowe, care to share any examples?

 

[Old Texan]

I've worked on done numerous projects with NASA here and they are a very talented group that must deal with the up and downs of who's in office. Their success has shown over the years in technological advances and the revenues those created for the nation's overall economy.

They can do it better over all if the bureaucracy is kept in check. And it is the world's future at stake to go out into the galaxies. Frankly, do we want the first communication to come from a Chicon or an American?

 

[Tank]

You seem to have a real hard on for Mr. Rowe, care to share any examples?

Yea, I was a little loss at the hatred for Rowe. Seems decent enough to me.

 

[DrunkenSailor]

Rowe is an advocate for trades and is a proponent of reducing the student debt load of the youth of this country. I respect that.

 

[rrrr]

These tax dollars just bought ANOTHER round of Russian made RD 180's for yesterdays NASA launch - how American.

Elon doesn't have any gov loans and only gets "government" money from being an employer - like any other employer.
The other place the gets it is external investors.

We wouldn't be using RD-180s if NASA and Congress wouldn't have abandoned pretty much all other activities except the space shuttle for forty years. The shuttle was a chimera*. It sucked up every dollar that was appropriated for decades, and then one day it was kicked aside because it became clear it was a dead end.

Tens of billions spent, fourteen lives lost, and now they are museum displays. It can be argued the shuttle was worthwhile because it provided a means to build the ISS, but then I have to ask what benefits and knowledge the ISS is producing for the money it cost.

Regarding Tesla and government money, all I have to say is YGBSM. Taxpayers have shelled out $7,500 federal tax credits and $1,500 California tax credits for every Tesla sold. Those credits effectively reduced the price of a Model S or X by 10%, and have cost taxpayers almost $2,000,000,000. In case you had trouble with the zeros, that's two billion dollars.


*Chimera definition: "a thing that is hoped or wished for but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve."

 

[DLow]

Regarding Tesla and government money, all I have to say is YGBSM. Taxpayers have shelled out $7,500 federal tax credits and $1,500 California tax credits for every Tesla sold. Those credits effectively reduced the price of a Model S or X by 10%, and have cost taxpayers almost $2,000,000,000. In case you had trouble with the zeros, that's two billion dollars.
"

Wait just one second here. You mean to tell me Tesla (and the other qualifying manufacturers/vehicles) sells a car for 100 large and the gov pays for $7500 worth of tax credits to the consumer? But Tesla never borrowed a dime from the government, so that makes it all ok. This in no way, shape, or form was a benefit to Tesla. Again, what a joke.

 

[was thatguy]

Elon can shoot up a rocket and recover the boosters...Cool.

Call me when he lands on the moon...

 

[was thatguy]

We just need some more smart Germans to be forced to come up with all the science and tech and then steal it from them to pave the next phase like we did the first! LOL

kidding, kidding

Kinda

It’s true.

Werner Von Braun and his buddies basically slipped the noose and put us on the moon.

 

[Universal Elements]

Elon can shoot up a rocket and recover the boosters...Cool.

Call me when he lands on the moon...

Per a lot of conspiracy professors landing on the moon was fake news lol

By the way, when Ofuckface cut the shuttle program, where do you think a lot of those NASA employees ended up?

 

[DLow]

Per a lot of conspiracy professors landing on the moon was fake news lol

By the way, when Ofuckface cut the shuttle program, where do you think a lot of those NASA employees ended up?

On the moon?

 

[was thatguy]

Per a lot of conspiracy professors landing on the moon was fake news lol

By the way, when Ofuckface cut the shuttle program, where do you think a lot of those NASA employees ended up?

Bolivia?

J/K....point is that Elon has a LONG way to go to think about matching what NASA has accomplished.
Granted, NASA had a lot of help from “outside” sources.

 

[Uncle Dave]

Wait just one second here. You mean to tell me Tesla (and the other qualifying manufacturers/vehicles) sells a car for 100 large and the gov pays for $7500 worth of tax credits to the consumer? But Tesla never borrowed a dime from the government, so that makes it all ok. This in no way, shape, or form was a benefit to Tesla. Again, what a joke.

Seem like selective whining about Tesla for the EV credit that everyone else gets as well (even foreign car companies) , while simultaneously getting amnesia over the numbers racked up by the big 3 bail out.

A joke indeed.

Since you brought up Gov subsidies see if you can get our money back a little quicker from Ford - they actually formally owe us - not Tesla.



UD

 

[Uncle Dave]

We wouldn't be using RD-180s if NASA and Congress wouldn't have abandoned pretty much all other activities except the space shuttle for forty years. The shuttle was a chimera*. It sucked up every dollar that was appropriated for decades, and then one day it was kicked aside because it became clear it was a dead end.

Tens of billions spent, fourteen lives lost, and now they are museum displays. It can be argued the shuttle was worthwhile because it provided a means to build the ISS, but then I have to ask what benefits and knowledge the ISS is producing for the money it cost.

Regarding Tesla and government money, all I have to say is YGBSM. Taxpayers have shelled out $7,500 federal tax credits and $1,500 California tax credits for every Tesla sold. Those credits effectively reduced the price of a Model S or X by 10%, and have cost taxpayers almost $2,000,000,000. In case you had trouble with the zeros, that's two billion dollars.


*Chimera definition: "a thing that is hoped or wished for but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve."

We are using 180's because of gov shortsightedness we agree there.
This problem was spotted along way out and just ignored.
I agree with your post on Obama hobbling NASA, but that isnt the whole story for sure.

An Atlas as a lifter is a complete sub out.
Isn't the SLS " in house" design?
How is the SLS isnt any different than Rocketdyne building the F1 for the Saturn 5?
NASA writes spec / 3rd parties design and build the rocket.

Bitch I have here is we already paid for super heavy lift design and capability when we bought the F1 which was supposed to be modular and take us all way to mars.
We shouldn't need the Rd-180 because we funded the F1 which was a scalable core - abandoned and now we cant even rebuild what we had because we aren't skilled enough anymore - its a national embarrassment. We had it - we lost it.

Seems like the 3rd parties can do more with less and that if we invested in the other guy a small % of what we gave nasa and we'd have gone a lot further.

EV credits -
Gm has also gotten the same tax credit on 196K autos - not a peep about that from anyone here.
The EV credit is a pool of money open to anyone that can snag it GM/ Ford/ Toyota/Nissan - so piling on Tesla is selective- especially after the Ford outright loan, and government motors scandals - but this place loves to put on blinders when it comes to that and talk about Tesla.

We lent GM 30.1 Billion just to get through June and July of 09.
In case you have trouble with the zeros that's 15X the 2 billion in EV credits- for 2 months.
What'd we get for that money?

This thread is about NASA.

How does hiring Mike Rowe (who I actually like) help them get back on schedule and budget?

I guess when it comes to that part - Mike Rowe took the day off.



UD

 

[was thatguy]

why did a private company kick their ass in the re-use department? WTF?!??!?


UD

Easy, Elon got a hold of 9 year old Sheldon Cooper’s notebook!!

 

[Uncle Dave]

Thats pretty funny!

Haven't seen any young sheldon.
I tuned out of big bang 3 years in after nobody had gotten laid (except the chick they all wanted to bang)


UD

 

[was thatguy]

Thats pretty funny!

UD

Yeah, I laughed my ass off when I watched that episode.
Musks cameo was funny as hell.

 

[Sleek-Jet]

I don't see why we couldn't build F1 engines again. There would be some growing pains but we did it once. We just need to decide to do go, (with appologies to Al Reinhart and Jim Lovell).

What is interesting about SpaceX is they are doing this without an RFP. If NASA gets a usable man rated booster out of this it will be quite the win for private space industry.

 

[Ricks raft]

Wait just one second here. You mean to tell me Tesla (and the other qualifying manufacturers/vehicles) sells a car for 100 large and the gov pays for $7500 worth of tax credits to the consumer? But Tesla never borrowed a dime from the government, so that makes it all ok. This in no way, shape, or form was a benefit to Tesla. Again, what a joke.

It's a big benefit to all the manufactures when they sell more vehicles because of the discounted prices funded by the taxpayers.
Those prices are artificially reduced all the way through production with tax write offs and grants etc.. For "green" technologies. I believe the original Volt actually would have cost well over $100k but ended up half that to the end user.

 

[DLow]

Seem like selective whining about Tesla for the EV credit that everyone else gets as well (even foreign car companies) , while simultaneously getting amnesia over the numbers racked up by the big 3 bail out.

A joke indeed.

Since you brought up Gov subsidies see if you can get our money back a little quicker from Ford - they actually formally owe us - not Tesla.



UD

Um, I specifically stated “and other qualifying manufacturers/vehicles as well” in another post. But, you may have skipped that part. I mentioned Tesla by name to get your attention because I know you like to fly that flag, but yes, all manufacturers are getting that credit on eligible vehicles. Is that what makes it ok for you? Again, those billions are ok to help with EVs but a few thousands on advertising by NASA is an issue? Lighten up.