So by that logic, if the government charters a bus to carry some government scientists and their government-funded research projects to a conference that the government has partially funded, and the bus crashes on the way to the conference, then the government is responsible for the bad brakes on the bus? How does that make sense?
A government-funded project, carrying a government-funded payload, launched by a government-funded rocket.
bUt ItS pRiVaTe
So by that logic, if the government charters a bus to carry some government scientists and their government-funded research projects to a conference that the government has partially funded, and the bus crashes on the way to the conference, then the government is responsible for the bad brakes on the bus? How does that make sense?
The government has given at least one direct or indirect subsidy to OP, so therefore anything OP does wrong can be blamed on the government! Hooray!
If the bus manufacturer and bus operator is funded by the government, absolutely.
Yeah because the government is responsible for road saftey…
In that scenario, the road was fine, it was the brakes that were broken :-)
Which is not allowed and should have more oversight to prevent.
Put some in front of each of those for actual accuracy. NASA does have projects it exclusively funds and controls.
Those are not without failure either, of course, the Challenger disaster being a classic example. Details are important, at any rate.
More whaling for capital. “Won’t someone think of the shareholders!”
The part that broke was built by a private company that took taxpayer dollars soo…. Seems like the free market is what failed here
Yes, yes it is pRiVaTe. Any other non logical statements you want to make?