I enjoy learning about the projects going on at NASA, without a doubt. However, I'd like to learn more about the tangible benefits that we (meaning U.S. citizens) receive from NASA. I know there are benefits, as I had a conversation with some of my colleagues about this a few years ago, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
i think people have a distorted view of how much money nasa actually gets. back during the days of project apollo, they were getting just over 4% of the entire federal budget. now, however, they are getting more like 0.5%. considering the kind of work they do i don't have a problem with that kind of funding. remember, through the 60's and 70's they were on the frontier of exploration and the moon landings were the one real positive thing this country had going for it in the late 60's/early 70's. however, if you're more interested in tangible benefits than knowledge (i don't mean that in a condescending way) then all i can really think of is duct tape and velcro.
The NASA federal contract labs at UCLA, Stanford, Cal Tech, USC, UC Berkeley, UCSB, UCSD, etc. are still doing very well for NASA, DOE, NIST, Health, DOD. I don't know how NASA itself is doing ?
The research they're doing usually has no obvious, immediate applications, which means that private companies won't do it. But there's no way of telling what that research is going to lead to. I believe it's paid off pretty well.
A Google search shows various things coming from NASA:
"
1. CAT scanner: this cancer-detecting technology was first used to find imperfections in space components.
2. Computer microchip: modern microchips descend from integrated circuits used in the Apollo Guidance Computer.
3. Cordless tools: power drills and vacuum cleaners use technology designed to drill for moon samples.
4. Ear thermometer: a camera-like lens that detects infrared energy we feel as heat was originally used to monitor the birth of stars.
5. Freeze-dried food: this reduces food weight and increases shelf life without sacrificing nutritional value.
6. Insulation: home insulation uses reflective material that protects spacecraft from radiation.
7. Invisible braces: teeth-straightening is less embarrassing thanks to transparent ceramic brace brackets made from spacecraft materials.
8. Joystick: this computer gaming device was first used on the Apollo Lunar Rover.
9. Memory foam: created for aircraft seats to soften landing, this foam, which returns to its original shape, is found in mattresses and shock absorbing helmets.
10. Satellite television: technology used to fix errors in spacecraft signals helps reduce scrambled pictures and sound in satellite television signals.
11. Scratch resistant lenses: astronaut helmet visor coating makes our spectacles ten times more scratch resistant.
12. Shoe insoles: athletic shoe companies adapted space boot designs to lessen impact by adding spring and ventilation.
13. Smoke detector: Nasa invented the first adjustable smoke detector with sensitivity levels to prevent false alarms.
14. Swimsuit: Nasa used the same principles that reduce drag in space to help create the world’s fastest swimsuit for Speedo, rejected by some professionals for giving an unfair advantage.
15. Water filter: domestic versions borrow a technique Nasa pioneered to kill bacteria in water taken into space."
Outstanding. Thanks!
They do a lot of research in climatology, astronomy, and physics that can help us set national policy, and discover new technologies.
It's hard to predict how valuable that stuff will be.
UsedToBeKnowItAII wrote:
They do a lot of research in climatology, astronomy, and physics that can help us set national policy, and discover new technologies.
It's hard to predict how valuable that stuff will be.
Translation...this stuff has no practical application until we find one. Otherwise, we're just doing research on public money to support government applications without any accountability.
It's a debate between applied science and basic science. Both are important, but basic science can be more wasteful at times, IMO.
asdfasdf wrote:
It's a debate between applied science and basic science. Both are important, but basic science can be more wasteful at times, IMO.
There's nothing basic about any NASA project. I would agree if you said it was a debate between applied science and theoretical/research science.
You're right...theoretical science is a better term for it.
That's the nature of research. Often times people do wild things just to see what will happen. The aim in the end is that mankind benefits from the results. But you don't know which research project is going to make the big find or is anything productive will come of it. Just like T&F teams at Unis don't know which kid in the entering freshman class will become Oly/WC medalists. Statistically you know the medalists will be coming from UCLA, USC, Stanford, UT Austin, ... but which kid exactly ? and other schools produce phenomenal athletes too ?
Much of what they do is PR fluff.