*NASA or NAACP? *

There is controversy as to whether or not space exploration is worthy of
federal (tax payer) funding. Space exploration has helped to create many
medical advances among other more common household products that we take
for granted. Project Mercury
<http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/history/mercury/mercury.htm> began
in 1958 and helped to develop blood pressure testers in order to make
sure that man's first orbit remained safe to his health. Scratch proof
eyeglass lenses were originally the glass coating for satellites to
protect them from floating space particles. Nitinol
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitinol>, the shape memory alloy, helps to
adhere braces to teeth. And we should not forget all of the things
telemetry has done for us; such as, allowing automatic monitoring for
alarm systems, oil rigs, chemical plants, cell phones, cameras, remote
radio broadcasts, and global positioning systems.

When most people wake up in the morning they will make something for
breakfast, pack a lunch, check their email and grab their Ipod, cell
phone or palm pilot. When they leave for work or school they will close
the garage door, pop in a CD and even look up maps on a screen in their
dash. All of this happens before even entering the technologically
enhanced office or school, thanks to NASA.

Yet some people have the gall to not appreciate NASA and ask, "What has
NASA done for me?" Well, the Tempur-Pedic
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEMPUR> bed you woke up on, the Tephlon
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon> coated pan you scrambled your eggs
in and the microwave you reheated your coffee in are direct results from
products invented by NASA. DuPont
<http://www1.dupont.com/NASApp/dupontglobal/corp/index.jsp?page=/content/US/en_US/news/product/2005/pn07_11_05a.html>
makes many of our daily used household products such as Ziploc bags,
refrigerants, oven mitts, bake ware, inhalers, and toothbrushes to name
very few of their products that were either derived from or used within
the space exploration programs. Even Velcro was first used in the space
shuttle and may be used to help save the current space expedition
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050803/NASA03/TPScience/>.


Without NASA your cable would not come in digital or satellite nor would
you be able to check the weather across the country. Your email would
never work and your cell phone would be pointless. The remote would not
lower your garage door, your CD would not hold more than a song or two
and your advanced never-get-lost system would never have been created.
Your sandwich would be stale by lunchtime, your soda would be in a cup
and your insulated <http://www.specprom.com/images/sm195/lnhsak.jpg>
lunch bag would be brown and paper. We haven't even gotten through the
day and I think I have made my point. What has NASA done for you? Must
you really ask?

Interenting commentary, but please check
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story068.htm. The microwave
oven did not come about because of NASA.

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI


BobGoFish wrote:
> *NASA or NAACP? *
>
> There is controversy as to whether or not space exploration is worthy of
> federal (tax payer) funding. Space exploration has helped to create many
> medical advances among other more common household products that we take
> for granted. Project Mercury
> <http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/history/mercury/mercury.htm> began
> in 1958 and helped to develop blood pressure testers in order to make
> sure that man's first orbit remained safe to his health. Scratch proof
> eyeglass lenses were originally the glass coating for satellites to
> protect them from floating space particles. Nitinol
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitinol>, the shape memory alloy, helps to
> adhere braces to teeth. And we should not forget all of the things
> telemetry has done for us; such as, allowing automatic monitoring for
> alarm systems, oil rigs, chemical plants, cell phones, cameras, remote
> radio broadcasts, and global positioning systems.
>
> When most people wake up in the morning they will make something for
> breakfast, pack a lunch, check their email and grab their Ipod, cell
> phone or palm pilot. When they leave for work or school they will close
> the garage door, pop in a CD and even look up maps on a screen in their
> dash. All of this happens before even entering the technologically
> enhanced office or school, thanks to NASA.
>
> Yet some people have the gall to not appreciate NASA and ask, "What has
> NASA done for me?" Well, the Tempur-Pedic
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEMPUR> bed you woke up on, the Tephlon
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon> coated pan you scrambled your eggs
> in and the microwave you reheated your coffee in are direct results from
> products invented by NASA. DuPont
> <http://www1.dupont.com/NASApp/dupontglobal/corp/index.jsp?page=/content/US/en_US/news/product/2005/pn07_11_05a.html>
> makes many of our daily used household products such as Ziploc bags,
> refrigerants, oven mitts, bake ware, inhalers, and toothbrushes to name
> very few of their products that were either derived from or used within
> the space exploration programs. Even Velcro was first used in the space
> shuttle and may be used to help save the current space expedition
> <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050803/NASA03/TPScience/>.
>
>
> Without NASA your cable would not come in digital or satellite nor would
> you be able to check the weather across the country. Your email would
> never work and your cell phone would be pointless. The remote would not
> lower your garage door, your CD would not hold more than a song or two
> and your advanced never-get-lost system would never have been created.
> Your sandwich would be stale by lunchtime, your soda would be in a cup
> and your insulated <http://www.specprom.com/images/sm195/lnhsak.jpg>
> lunch bag would be brown and paper. We haven't even gotten through the
> day and I think I have made my point. What has NASA done for you? Must
> you really ask?

In article >,
BobGoFish > wrote:

> *NASA or NAACP? *
>
> There is controversy as to whether or not space exploration is worthy of
> federal (tax payer) funding.

That is true, but there is considerably more controversy over whether
*manned* space exploration is worthy of taxpayer funding, and more
controversy still over whether taxpayers ought to continue to fund NASA.
These are three distinct questions, and ought not to be conflated.

[ List of cool things NASA has supposedly done snipped ]

FIrst, the attribution of some of the technologies in this list (like
email) to NASA is highly questionable. But more importantly, it is not
at all clear that these technological advances would not have happened
without NASA. And in recent years one could seriously ask what advances
we might have had if, for example, the space shuttle and space station
programs had not been sucking tens of billions of dollars into the
cosmic void with absolutely nothing to show for it. (Note that nearly
all of the technologies on the list of Cool Things NASA Has Done are
over twenty years old.)

NASA is, by and large, not about space exploration, it's about funneling
money to key Congressional districts and (recently) saving face in the
international community. The vast majority of NASA's budget goes to
shuttle and ISS, neither of which has ever "explored" anything except
the limits of the American public's tolerance for boondoggles. (It has
yet to find them.)

I support space exploration. I think the American public really gets
its money's worth from NASA's unmanned missions. And when Virgin
Spaceways starts selling tickets I'll be there with my checkbook. But
NASA's manned program (which is the vast majority of NASA) is nothing
but a great money-consuming black hole. It ought to be scrapped.

rg

In article >,
BobGoFish > wrote:

> There is controversy as to whether or not space exploration is worthy of
> federal (tax payer) funding.

The more specific questions on which more and more people have
(fortunately) been focusing are:

1) Have NASA's post-Apollo _manned_ space flight programs delivered
value for money for taxpayers' investment? Answer is NO.

2) Has the entire shuttle program been (in retrospect) worth what
taxpayer's have spent on it? Has the shuttle program delivered even a
small fraction of NASA promised it would deliver? Has it delivered ANY
major or important scientific discoveries or technical advances, that
could not have been achieved better and much more economically with an
unmanned space program (or even in some instances just back here on the
ground)? Answer to all of these is NO.

3) Given the laws of physics, the currently available level of space
technology, and any foreseeable near-term advances in that technology,
does it make any sense to spend equally large amounts of taxpayer money
attempting to send astronauts to the moon or -- God save us all! -- to
Mars, rather than focusing on further advances in unmanned space
technology? Answer is, it makes NO sense at all.

4) Should the Space Station at this point be abandoned and left to
rust? As the current shuttle mission shows all so vividly, for God's
sake, YES.

None of the above is intended in any way (a) to disparage the Apollo
program's accomplishments, which were pretty surely worth doing in their
time; or (b) to disparage or discourage bold and innovative Burt Rutan
style private efforts, which just might come up with something new and
unexpected (though it's very unlikely to be Man on Mars, or anything
approaching that).

Fortunately, NASA has recently floated some scale drawings of initial
conceptions for what their future manned and unmanned launch vehicles
might look like, alongside a scale drawing of the shuttle.

Given that this is a pilots' news group, I suspect the reality of those
drawings may begin to sink in. The unmanned vehicle is huge; the manned
vehicle is right back to 1960's era "spam in a can" methodology: shoot
'em up, let 'em maneuver the little capsule uselessly around for a
little while, and parachute 'em back down. I think the glamour will go
off that real fast.

Hey! NASA invented Tang - now that's 'real'!

"Gary G" > wrote in message
...
> Hey! NASA invented Tang - now that's 'real'!

Or was Tang invented for NASA?

Hmmm . . .well, did NASA have to exist to invent Tang (or
its equivalent)?

Don't forget they invented the Internet too...

NASA defines boondoggle.

BobGoFish wrote:

> There is controversy as to whether or not space exploration is worthy of
> federal (tax payer) funding....

As taxpayers, we should always hold government accountable for our
money. NASA has indeed contributed much to our nation's knowledge base.

But NASA is a vestigal organ of the cold war. Its raison d'etre was to
counter the Soviet threat. So the purpose for which it was created has
passed, and it has become a living example of "bureaucratic creep".

There now needs to be a reorganization of some sort in favor of a
smaller, less bureaucratic national space effort (if such a thing is
even possible), and along with it a hard look at modern national
priorities. I feel much work could be privatized, and public endowments
or prizes established for technological challenges - as was
accomplished by the Rutan effort.

There will remain some work that only public funding can accomplish, to
be sure, but taxpayers should always demand accountability from their
government.

Having looked again at the list of claimed NASA "accomplishments" that
started this thread, I'm now trying to decide if it was intended to be
taken seriously, or tongue in cheek.

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Interenting commentary, but please check
>http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story068.htm. The microwave
>oven did not come about because of NASA.
>


Neither did the CD.
But a lot of wing and aerodynamic study, that we all use in our flying
activities is attributable to NASA.

G Faris

Not mine, since my plane was built in 1953 and NASA probably wasn't around
at the time.


"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>
>>Interenting commentary, but please check
>>http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story068.htm. The microwave
>>oven did not come about because of NASA.
>>
>
>
> Neither did the CD.
> But a lot of wing and aerodynamic study, that we all use in our flying
> activities is attributable to NASA.
>
> G Faris
>

"Paul kgyy" > writes:

> Don't forget they invented the Internet too...

Um, no. That was DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> Much of which is still down

>>Don't forget they invented the Internet too...
>
> Um, no. That was DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects
> Agency.

No, that was Al Gore.

:) Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Terry Briggs" wrote:
> Not mine, since my plane was built in 1953 and NASA
probably wasn't around
> at the time.

True of even modern fiberglass designs. Search through
NASA's technical report server, and one will see they
basically stopped doing subsonic research (when it was NACA)
about 50+ years ago.

Fred F.

AES ) wrote:
: Having looked again at the list of claimed NASA "accomplishments" that
: started this thread, I'm now trying to decide if it was intended to be
: taken seriously, or tongue in cheek.
:

Here are some sites that document NASA spinoffs...

http://www.nasatech.com/Spinoff/spinoff2001/goddard_mill.html
Goddard Space Flight Center-Spinoff 1988

"Automotive Design

The accompanying photos show exterior and interior views of the 1987
Honda Acura Legend Coupe, which was designed with the aid of the
NASA-developed NASTRAN^® computer program. The Legend is among the
latest cars designed by Honda R&D Company, Ltd., Japan, a longtime
user of the NASTRAN program.

The program is an off-shoot of the computer design technique that
originated in aircraft/spacecraft development. Engineers create a
mathematical model of the vehicle and "fly" it on the ground by
computer simulation. This allows study of the performance and
structural behavior of a number of different designs before settling
on a final configuration..."


http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html#computer
NASA spinoffs, space benefits, space history, NASA space spinoffs,
NASA technology products


The following list of spinoffs is from:

http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/spinoff.html
THE BEST OF NASA'S SPINOFFS

Laser Angioplasty
Cardiac Imaging System
Advanced Pacemaker
Implantable Heart Aid
Body Imaging
Computer Reader for the Blind
Ocular Screening System
Advanced Wheelchair
Radiation-Blocking lenses
Collision Avoidance System (for aircraft)
Self-Righting life Raft
Weather Information Processing
Corrosion-Resistant Coating
Air/Wastewater Purification Systems
Heat Pipes for the Alaska Pipeline
Cordless Products
Stratch-Resistant Sunglass Coating
Structural Analysis (NASTRAN)
Clean Room Apparel


--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

Jose > writes:

> >>Don't forget they invented the Internet too...
> > Um, no. That was DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects
> > Agency.
>
> No, that was Al Gore.

That old lie again? I thought it was thoroughly exploded as political
propaganda years ago. He claimed to have been, and was, important in
getting the legislation making it public passed.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> Much of which is still down

>>No, that was Al Gore.
> That old lie again?

You mean it's not true?? It was said by a politician, and I read it in
print - it has to be true.

> He claimed to have been, and was, important in
> getting the legislation making it public passed.

Of course I never believed that he invented the internet. I never did
know what it was that connected him with it though (other than his
mouth). Thanks for the info.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Greg Farris wrote:
>
> But a lot of wing and aerodynamic study, that we all use in our flying
> activities is attributable to NASA.

Most of that was done well before NASA was born -- it's only been in the last
few years that NASA has been doing any sub-sonic research, and I haven't heard
that they actually have released anything new yet.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Jose wrote:
>
> Of course I never believed that he invented the internet. I never did
> know what it was that connected him with it though (other than his
> mouth). Thanks for the info.

The lie was that his mouth connected him to it. He never claimed to have had
anything to do with it other than voting for the original appropriation.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Dang,
I hate being the odd man out here, but when I was a boy I watched Neil
Armstrong take the first step on the moon. I was absolutely hooked on
anything that flew in the sky or space since. So I guess because of NASA I
became a fan of aviation, a structural mech, now a student sport pilot.
Because it affected my life it has also touched my son and he has a good
interest in aviation.
Yes NASA needs to do something! They need to spend money wisely..which
seems impossible for any government agency. And most important they need to
do something "FANTASTIC" ...after all there may be another young boy
watching........

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

..

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:vSVIe.563$rY.171@trndny03...
>
> The lie was that his mouth connected him to it. He never claimed to have
> had anything to do with it other than voting for the original
> appropriation.
>

Actually, he claimed quite a bit more than that:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in
creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range
of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic
growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational
system."

Al Gore, on CNN's "Late Edition" program March 9th, 1999.

"frankie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> BobGoFish wrote:
>
> > There is controversy as to whether or not space exploration is worthy of
> > federal (tax payer) funding....
>
> As taxpayers, we should always hold government accountable for our
> money. NASA has indeed contributed much to our nation's knowledge base.

True in the past but doubtful much of value has been produced recently.

In article >,
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:

> "frankie" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > BobGoFish wrote:
> >
> > > There is controversy as to whether or not space exploration is worthy of
> > > federal (tax payer) funding....
> >
> > As taxpayers, we should always hold government accountable for our
> > money. NASA has indeed contributed much to our nation's knowledge base.
>
> True in the past but doubtful much of value has been produced recently.

I think it's important to separate the manned and unmanned programs.
Certainly the manned program hasn't produced anything of value in 20-30
years, but the unmanned program (which is a tiny fraction of NASA's
budget) has produced and continues to produce a lot of new scientific
knowledge. Whether that knowledge has value is a different question,
but I think one should not throw out the robotic baby with the manned
bath water (if we should be so lucky).

rg

If you think the spin-off advances NASA has generated are important,
you might want to consider what might have been accomplished with the
money had it been devoted towards those kinds of advances directly.
NASA more than anything is pork barrel politics and a government jobs
program. Going to Mars contributes much less to our quality of life
than would investing the same money in say alternative energy sources.

Recently, Tony > posted:

> If you think the spin-off advances NASA has generated are important,
> you might want to consider what might have been accomplished with the
> money had it been devoted towards those kinds of advances directly.
> NASA more than anything is pork barrel politics and a government jobs
> program. Going to Mars contributes much less to our quality of life
> than would investing the same money in say alternative energy sources.
>
So, what's wrong with a "both/and" approach?

The problem that I have with these kinds of discussion is that it presumes
that our other expenditures -- many of which far outstrip the NASA
budget -- have more worthwhile returns. What has been the return for our
enormous investment in the "War On Drugs" and its appendages? What is the
return for this incredible fiasco of a "War On Terror"? Indeed, the world
would be better off if those monies were spent investing in positive
activities, and at least I would include NASA among those.

Regards,

Neil

In article >,
"W P Dixon" > wrote:

> Dang,
> I hate being the odd man out here, but ...

You aren't alone. But there isn't much point engaging in
a discussion of the merits of space flight (manned and unmanned)
with closed-minded people.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 10:33:10 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>::

>What has been the return for our
>enormous investment in the "War On Drugs" and its appendages? What is the
>return for this incredible fiasco of a "War On Terror"?

Why, further progress toward a police state, or course. :-)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>> The lie was that his mouth connected him to it. He never claimed to
>> have
>> had anything to do with it other than voting for the original
>> appropriation.
>>
>
> Actually, he claimed quite a bit more than that:
>
> "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
> initiative in
> creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole
> range
> of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's
> economic
> growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational
> system."

Yes, but what one typically heard from political commentators was that
"Gore claimed he invented the internet," a lie that is still being
repeated. Gore certainly never claimed that.

On the other hand, the man who *did* play a seminal role in the
development of the internet, Vincent Cerf, said "The Internet would not
be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to
it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role
and in his earlier role as Senator," which is what Gore was claiming in
the interview.

--

Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> On the other hand, the man who *did* play a seminal role in the
> development of the internet, Vincent Cerf, said "The Internet would not be
> where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it
> and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and
> in his earlier role as Senator," which is what Gore was claiming in the
> interview.
>

In the interview Gore claimed he "took the initiative in creating the
Internet." Gore entered Congress in January 1977, many of the components of
what we now call the Internet existed well before that time.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> In the interview Gore claimed he "took the initiative in creating the
> Internet." Gore entered Congress in January 1977, many of the
> components of what we now call the Internet existed well before that
> time.

Yes. That does not alter the fact that the charge that Gore claimed to
have invented the internet is false.

Gore claimed --perhaps clumsily, and certainly self servingly-- to have
been a leader in the Senate in matters related to internet technology.
Political opponents spun the statement to make it appear that Gore had
delusions of scientific grandeur.

--

Dan
C172RG at BFM

Let's add the temperature-sensitive foam that many of us sit/sleep on,
and keeps Oregon Aero in business.

Another bonus from NASA? Paid my salary (contractor) for 4 years
and got me a faculty fellowship for 2 (and I got to work on the
Mars programs doing that!!!!)

leslie wrote:


> http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html#computer
> NASA spinoffs, space benefits, space history, NASA space spinoffs,
> NASA technology products
>
>
> The following list of spinoffs is from:
>
> http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/spinoff.html
> THE BEST OF NASA'S SPINOFFS
>
> Laser Angioplasty
> Cardiac Imaging System
> Advanced Pacemaker
> Implantable Heart Aid
> Body Imaging
> Computer Reader for the Blind
> Ocular Screening System
> Advanced Wheelchair
> Radiation-Blocking lenses
> Collision Avoidance System (for aircraft)
> Self-Righting life Raft
> Weather Information Processing
> Corrosion-Resistant Coating
> Air/Wastewater Purification Systems
> Heat Pipes for the Alaska Pipeline
> Cordless Products
> Stratch-Resistant Sunglass Coating
> Structural Analysis (NASTRAN)
> Clean Room Apparel
>
>
> --Jerry Leslie
> Note: is invalid for email


The problem with the spinoff justification is that you cannot prove that
those things wouldn't have been invented in some other research project.
Indeed what we don't know is whether or not better and/or more numerous
spinoffs wouldn't have been discovered had the money been spent on some
other research.

In the interests of full disclosure, let me say that I work on a NASA
project:

I work at the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics as a software engineer on
the CHANDRA X-RAY orbiting observatory.

Now the interesting thing here is that one of the detectors on CHANDRA is a
spinoff from.......

the military.

The High Resolution Camera (HRC) uses a technology called "Micro Channel
Plates". This was developed by the military and was secret stuff for a
while. But it became declassified so we used it on CHANDRA.

So you see, spinoffs can come from anywhere. There's nothing sacred
special, or unusual about NASA generated spinoffs.

The other aspect of the discussion which is often overlooked is that if
funds are taken from NASA, they don't automatically get allocated to other
research projects. They might go towards building a bridge, a road (worthy
things), or some legislator's fave pork project. So you roll the dice if
you take funds FROM NASA. So from this standpoint, it's a bird in the hand
argument.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Ron Garret wrote:
>
> That is true, but there is considerably more controversy over whether
> *manned* space exploration is worthy of taxpayer funding, and more
> controversy still over whether taxpayers ought to continue to fund NASA.

This guy says it better than I can.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O5714629B

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes. That does not alter the fact that the charge that Gore claimed to
> have invented the internet is false.
>

Yes. That does not alter the fact that Gore claimed quite a bit more than
just voting for the original appropriation, which is the only point I made.