Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PyroDesu]

(Launching a mass drop sattelite into orbit would be the same as arming ballistic rockets. Both only need a short time to destroy a rather large area)

Didn't the USAF or someone commission the Thor project, where that was essentially the objective? Except, instead of satellites, it was telephone-pole sized tungsten rods with retrorockets? Rods From God, I believe it was also called.

[10ebbor10]

(Launching a mass drop sattelite into orbit would be the same as arming ballistic rockets. Both only need a short time to destroy a rather large area)

Didn't the USAF or someone commission the Thor project, where that was essentially the objective? Except, instead of satellites, it was telephone-pole sized tungsten rods with retrorockets? Rods From God, I believe it was also called.

That was what I intended to refer too. I believe, it never made it past the Theorethical phase.

[mainiac]

I still have trouble accepting any arguments against NASA's spending as when you look at the numbers, our defense spending makes NASA looks like the change under my couch cushion.

Just another reason to cut defense spending. Honestly, the US would be pretty safe even if the defense budget was shrunk to 50 billion (accounting for ends to the present US foreign military bases and wars).

Besides that, you guys do realize that NASA is basically just payrolling private companies to do its job these days, right? Either corporations and rich people go into space for fun and profit, or NASA gives piles of money to corporations and rich people to go into space for fun and profit.

How did you manage to post this message without electricity?  You seem to say that you don't benefit from NASA's activities.  It would follow that you can't be drawing electricity from the US power grid, which primarily is powered by fuel sources that NASA's geological surveys made much more affordable to survey.  Do you operate a hand crank or something?

[Sirus]

Not to mention that NASA's push for more compact computing is one of the big things that led to your phone having more computational power than Apollo 11.

[GreatJustice]

Besides that, you guys do realize that NASA is basically just payrolling private companies to do its job these days, right? Either corporations and rich people go into space for fun and profit, or NASA gives piles of money to corporations and rich people to go into space for fun and profit.

Oh of course, it isn't like NASA ever does any R&D or tries to make economic scramjets or produces thousands of spinoff technologies or has a rover less than 48 hours away from landing on Mars at this very second or anything.

Mind providing examples, then? There are a whole bunch of things that NASA is credited for creating that it had basically nothing to do with.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Mind providing examples, then? There are a whole bunch of things that NASA is credited for creating that it had basically nothing to do with.

The same way the first supercomputer had 'nothing to do with' modern day PC's, I guess.

There's literally hundreds of thousands of inventions/parts/discoveries that can be directly based upon Nasa's research. To point them out would be ridiculous; but for your pleasure here's an article on NASA's website about their general impact on the world of technology or if you're not up to the read, he's a quick ten-item list of just some of the things they've directly made.

To find your examples all you need to do is google. Something you seem to be adverse to.

Here's some fun ones for the environment, too.

[GreatJustice]

Mind providing examples, then? There are a whole bunch of things that NASA is credited for creating that it had basically nothing to do with.

The same way the first supercomputer had 'nothing to do with' modern day PC's, I guess.

There's literally hundreds of thousands of inventions/parts/discoveries that can be directly based upon Nasa's research. To point them out would be ridiculous; but for your pleasure here's an article on NASA's website about their general impact on the world of technology or if you're not up to the read, he's a quick ten-item list of just some of the things they've directly made.

To find your examples all you need to do is google. Something you seem to be adverse to.

Here's some fun ones for the environment, too.

Uh, well, scanning the "ten item list" shows a mixture of inventions that NASA didn't actually invent and merely improved upon, things that weren't terribly useful until someone other than NASA got their hands on them, and things that aren't really worth bragging about.

So lets see the bigger one...

As famed heart surgeon Dr. Michael DeBakey, who has collaborated with NASA on one of its most beneficial inventions, an artificial heart pump,

Heart pumps were not invented by NASA. This is not an invention, this is an improvement.

advanced breast cancer screening catches tumors in time for treatment, or when a heart defibrillator restores the proper rhythm of a patient’s heart….We see it when weather satellites warn us of coming hurricanes, or when satellites provide information critical to understanding our environment and the effects of climate change. We see it when we use an ATM or pay for gas at the pump with an immediate electronic response via satellite. Technologies developed for exploring space are being used to increase crop yields and to search for good fishing regions at sea.

I see a variety of things that fall under "improvements on already present technologies" and lots of "SATELLITES", which is a rather tenuous connection to the modern world and is non applicable since the Russians beat them to it (using technology and methods taken from Germany, so its not like satellites would never exist if not for NASA).

1978: Teflon-coated fiberglass developed in the 1970s as a new fabric for astronaut spacesuits has been used as a permanent roofing material for buildings and stadiums worldwide. (By the way, contrary to urban myth, NASA did not invent Teflon.)

Improvement.

1982: Astronauts working on the lunar surface wore liquid-cooled garments under their space suits to protect them from temperatures approaching 250 degrees Fahrenheit. These garments, further developed and refined by NASA’s Johnson Space Center, are among the agency’s most widely used spinoffs, with adaptations for portable cooling systems for treatment of medical ailments such as burning limb syndrome, multiple sclerosis, spinal injuries and sports injuries.

Improvement.

1986: A joint National Bureau of Standards/NASA project directed at the Johnson Space Center resulted in a lightweight breathing system for firefighters. Now widely used in breathing apparatuses, the NASA technology is credited with significant reductions in inhalation injuries to the people who protect us.

Improvement.

Look, do I need to go the whole way with this? NASA has invented and improved things, yes, but they ALSO crowd out people who would have otherwise invented other things. You see NASA's inventions (which, again, are mostly improvements that would have eventually occurred regardless), but you don't see what the people who ended up working for NASA would have done elsewhere.

Just compare the list of (practical) things invented by NASA to the list of things invented by, say, the private sector. Even compare it to the DoD and you'd find it outdone rather quickly!

[Jervill]

Wow, the market worship is strong with this one.

[GreatJustice]

Wow, the market worship is strong with this one.

Wow, the NASA worship is strong with this one.

Might I add that NASA also wastes money just like every other department. Remember Taurus? Not many companies would last long if they wasted a billion dollars on a failed project like that.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

NASA is both great for the public interest and private companies, and if you don't understand that at all, you're a lost cause.

Can't tell if you're trolling or simply ignoring realities of life and technological advances.

[alway]

http://spinoff.nasa.gov/back_issues_archives.html
They create enough that there is a magazine for it.

[GreatJustice]

NASA is both great for the public interest and private companies, and if you don't understand that at all, you're a lost cause.

Can't tell if you're trolling or simply ignoring realities of life and technological advances.

Again, want to make a list of things invented by NASA and compare it to a list of things invented by the DoD or private sector? It wouldn't look very balanced.

[alway]

Read through several editions of that magazine I linked. It's quite a lot.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Go for it, but make sure you don't include the advances based on already existing knowledge or technology, so good luck. Once again, you seriously don't know what you're talking about in this field. If you continue to claim the private sector is better at, well, everything, then I guess you're just going to continue doing so and I'll just assume you're trolling for the sake of fun. I can't see why you seriously seem to think that NASA contributes nothing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

http://spinoff.nasa.gov/back_issues_archives.html
They create enough that there is a magazine for it.

Enough that Wikipedia recognizes the need for an independent article about it.

Again, want to make a list of things invented by NASA and compare it to a list of things invented by the DoD or private sector? It wouldn't look very balanced.

The DoD gets more money than any other government department. They are afforded billions upon billions and can create black technology that is 20-30 years from being white technology. The DoD can throw 20 billion dollars at a project and scrap the whole thing in a day if they want to investigate something else, a similar fund would be more than NASA's yearly budget. Furthermore, the DoD's innovations are in war. NASA's innovations tend to be more of the "improve the lot of all humankind" type. The latter has more value than the former.

The "private sector" can refer to a large number of things which have nothing to do with NASA's activities at all. Obviously there are going to be more innovations in the private sector as a whole than in a single agency with a specific purpose and directive. It's like saying Microsoft's additions to computing aren't worthwhile because the private sector has more innovations as a whole. Or perhaps your precious DoD put up against the private sector as a whole. It's a meaningless comparison.

Furthermore, what kind of criticism is "just an improvement on older technology"? All new technology is an improvement on older technology in some way, even if it is a disruptive improvement that totally obsoletes the old method. That's what technological development is.