NASA - value for money ?

[Fleet 500]

Moved from the Tesla thread http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...delivered.html

Space exploration can be done later in the future when and if we eradicate the problems we have on Earth first. I think that the money spent on these programs were spent on infrastructure or international aid the world would be a much better place - instead we are in space and for what reason?

Many, many discoveries and inventions, both medical and other, have come about from space exploration and NASA.

[Kitdy]

Many, many discoveries and inventions, both medical and other, have come about from space exploration and NASA.

Undoubtedly, but those breakthroughs probably could have been made otherwise and for a lower price if the money was allocated in different ways.

Hell, you Americans could even have universal health care instead - something far superior to the quality of life of the citizens of the US than any of the advancements made from the space race.

[Matra et Alpine]

How much?

Still billions and billions to provide ALL the energy.
But no need to have such a massive one-step plan and so it'll likley start small in the Abu Dhabi initiative.
Figures talked about is that current methods can deliver electricity power equal to the energy in a barrel of oil for nearly HALF the cost.
I'm guessing that getting it from the deserts to the major consumers woudl be a problem that hasn't been addressed yet

[Fleet 500]

m

Undoubtedly, but those breakthroughs probably could have been made otherwise and for a lower price if the money was allocated in different ways.

"Probably" isn't good enough for some things.
For instance, some of the things invented have been:
- Medical imaging. NASA developed ways to process signals from spacecraft to produce clearer images. This led the way to MRI scans... a very useful medcial advance. Do you think we should have waited until it was "probably" discovered by another way... while in the meantime, many patients could have been diagnosed and treated for various illnesses?

- Firefighter equipment. Fire fighters wear suits made of fire resistant fabric developed for use in space suits.

- Fire detectors. First used in the Earth orbiting space station Skylab (launched back in 1973) to help detect toxic vapors. Now used in most homes and most other buildings to warn people of fire. It has saved many lives.

- Kidney dialysis machines were developed as a result of a NASA developed chemical process that could remove toxic waste from used dialysis fluid.

- CAT scanner. Searches the human body for tumors or other abnormalities.

[Kitdy]

"Probably" isn't good enough for some things.
For instance, some of the things invented have been:
- Medical imaging. NASA developed ways to process signals from spacecraft to produce clearer images. This led the way to MRI scans... a very useful medcial advance. Do you think we should have waited until it was "probably" discovered by another way... while in the meantime, many patients could have been diagnosed and treated for various illnesses?

- Firefighter equipment. Fire fighters wear suits made of fire resistant fabric developed for use in space suits.

- Fire detectors. First used in the Earth orbiting space station Skylab (launched back in 1973) to help detect toxic vapors. Now used in most homes and most other buildings to warn people of fire. It has saved any lives.

- Kidney dialysis machines were developed as a result of a NASA developed chemical process that could remove toxic waste from used dialysis fluid.

- CAT scanner. Searches the human body for tumors or other abnormalities.

Fair enough. That is significant. I was just saying that if that money was directly filtered to for example there may well have been similar breakthroughs or different breakthroughs - possibly even more signifigant. Since it's exception, NASA has spent more than 360 billion dollars (1996 dollars that is) - of that money, how much actually benefited mankind directly? Cost effectiveness is what I'm arguing here. A lot of that money went into developing technology that is useful - but not useful in a widescale way to humanity - imagine all the rocket money alone used - what do rockets do to help us in day to day activities? Pretty extraneous I think.

[Fleet 500]

Fair enough. That is significant. I was just saying that if that money was directly filtered to for example there may well have been similar breakthroughs or different breakthroughs - possibly even more signifigant. Since it's exception, NASA has spent more than 360 billion dollars (1996 dollars that is) - of that money, how much actually benefited mankind directly? Cost effectiveness is what I'm arguing here. A lot of that money went into developing technology that is useful - but not useful in a widescale way to humanity - imagine all the rocket money alone used - what do rockets do to help us in day to day activities? Pretty extraneous I think.

I've read that the cost of NASA is only 0.5% of the federal budget.
Again, "may have" isn't a very convincing claim.

BTW, do you listen to CDs? Yet another NASA invention.

[Matra et Alpine]

- Medical imaging. NASA developed ways to process signals from spacecraft to produce clearer images

Odd, MRI scans pre-dated all of that.
The US Navy DID highlight the possibility of using nuclear resonance to view body internals.
It's an interesting study as I remember the controversy when the Nobel prize was given to a Brit and an American and missed out one of the private industry key developers

- Firefighter equipment. Fire fighters wear suits made of fire resistant fabric developed for use in space suits.

Fire resistant fabric existed before space program
Yes, modern suits use materials developed in space program, but DID exist before and the need was there anyway and COULD have been developed.

- Fire detectors. First used in the Earth orbiting space station Skylab (launched back in 1973)

Wow, took a long time for George Darby invention in the early 1900s to get there
Granted, ionisation detection .. but again there was a patent in 1969 for HOIME USE ... so another pre-dating "first" use.

- Kidney dialysis machines were developed as a result of a NASA developed chemical process that could remove toxic waste from used dialysis fluid.

Wow, so the Glaswegian Thomas Graham description of how to perform dialysis in 1854 took even LONGER than the smoke detector ?

- CAT scanner. Searches the human body for tumors or other abnormalities.

Oops, an Italian engineers proposal in the 1930s and then South African physicist published proposals in 1960s at the same time as British electronics engineer Godfrey Newbold Hounsfield, unaware of Cormack's idea or papers, also imagined combining multiple X-ray measurements to obtain a detailed, three-dimensional image of the body's internal organs and in 1967 developed his own mathematics to work out the principles of the CT scanner. When computer technology had advanced far enough to implement Hounsfield's idea, EMI, the electrical company where he worked, built a prototype CT scanner. In 1972, EMI introduced a commercial version, which was hailed by the radiological community as a giant leap forward in medical imaging.


Not knocking NASA or the many advances it funded and improvements.
BUT making claims that ignore the facts that these were all advancing elsewhere in the world NOT funded by NASA is not very balanced.

In the modern world of "image matters" all companies and organsiations claim "they developed" when in most cases they "improved" or "funded"

CD

BBC NEWS | Technology | How the CD was developed

Gave me a laugh Fleet.

Please, NOT knocking NASA ... only deflating the "it was all down to NASA" mindset that pervaded the PR

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinfaq.htm Thankfully some of it being corrected !!

Are Tang, Teflon, and Velcro NASA spinoffs?

Tang, Teflon, and Velcro, are not spinoffs of the Space Program. General Foods developed Tang in 1957, and it has been on supermarket shelves since 1959. In 1962, when astronaut John Glenn performed eating experiments in orbit, Tang was selected for the menu, launching the powdered drink’s heightened public awareness. NASA also raised the celebrity status of Teflon, a material invented for DuPont in 1938, when the Agency applied it to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners. Velcro was used during the Apollo missions to anchor equipment for astronauts’ convenience in zero gravity situations. Although it is a Swiss invention from the 1940s, it has since been associated with the Space Program.

Did NASA invent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)?

No, NASA did not invent MRI technology, but it has contributed to its advances over the years

So can we put NASA aside now ? If anyeon REALLY wants to find out if they did do something then Spinoff Database is a good search tool

[Kitdy]

I've read that the cost of NASA is only 0.5% of the federal budget.
Again, "may have" isn't a very convincing claim.

BTW, do you listen to CDs? Yet another NASA invention.

That money would have probably gone leaps and bounds further it it was applied directly to the fields mentioned. If 360 billion dollars more in research was given to universities across the States over 50 years, imagine the breakthroughs that could have been made.

I'm sure warfare is responsible for many technological advances but I don't approve of the development and maintenance of a military for these advances.

[Fleet 500]

That money would have probably gone leaps and bounds further it it was applied directly to the fields mentioned. If 360 billion dollars more in research was given to universities across the States over 50 years, imagine the breakthroughs that could have been made.

I'm sure warfare is responsible for many technological advances but I don't approve of the development and maintenance of a military for these advances.

Again with the "probably."
Since 1976, there have been 1,400 documented NASA inventions which have benefited the U.S. industry and quality of life. Do you really think all of those inventions would have come about if the money was directed to other fields?

[henk4]

Again with the "probably."
Since 1976, there have been 1,400 documented NASA inventions which have benefited the U.S. industry and quality of life. Do you really think all of those inventions would have come about if the money was directed to other fields?

It is not about money bein g directed to other fields. The question you have to answer is whether the "problems" that were solved through the NASA inventions could also have been successfully addressed in other ways....It is all about efficiency...

[Fleet 500]

Odd, MRI scans pre-dated all of that.
The US Navy DID highlight the possibility of using nuclear resonance to view body internals.
It's an interesting study as I remember the controversy when the Nobel prize was given to a Brit and an American and missed out one of the private industry key developers

Fire resistant fabric existed before space program
Yes, modern suits use materials developed in space program, but DID exist before and the need was there anyway and COULD have been developed.

Wow, took a long time for George Darby invention in the early 1900s to get there
Granted, ionisation detection .. but again there was a patent in 1969 for HOIME USE ... so another pre-dating "first" use.


Wow, so the Glaswegian Thomas Graham description of how to perform dialysis in 1854 took even LONGER than the smoke detector ?

Oops, an Italian engineers proposal in the 1930s and then South African physicist published proposals in 1960s at the same time as British electronics engineer Godfrey Newbold Hounsfield, unaware of Cormack's idea or papers, also imagined combining multiple X-ray measurements to obtain a detailed, three-dimensional image of the body's internal organs and in 1967 developed his own mathematics to work out the principles of the CT scanner. When computer technology had advanced far enough to implement Hounsfield's idea, EMI, the electrical company where he worked, built a prototype CT scanner. In 1972, EMI introduced a commercial version, which was hailed by the radiological community as a giant leap forward in medical imaging.


Not knocking NASA or the many advances it funded and improvements.
BUT making claims that ignore the facts that these were all advancing elsewhere in the world NOT funded by NASA is not very balanced.

In the modern world of "image matters" all companies and organsiations claim "they developed" when in most cases they "improved" or "funded"

BBC NEWS | Technology | How the CD was developed

Gave me a laugh Fleet.

Please, NOT knocking NASA ... only deflating the "it was all down to NASA" mindset that pervaded the PR

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinfaq.htm Thankfully some of it being corrected !!


So can we put NASA aside now ? If anyeon REALLY wants to find out if they did do something then Spinoff Database is a good search tool

I suggest you take it up from the message board I was at...
Scrap NASA (Iraq, weapons, Kennedy, military) - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 4 - City-Data Forum
(Posts #31 and #38.)

[Kitdy]

Again with the "probably."
Since 1976, there have been 1,400 documented NASA inventions which have benefited the U.S. industry and quality of life. Do you really think all of those inventions would have come about if the money was directed to other fields?

They may not have made the same discoveries, but they may have made other ones that are comparable in degree of impact on human life, and quite possibly more as there would probably be more efficiency as they are directly in the fields as opposed to obtusely when it comes to space.

It is not about money bein g directed to other fields. The question you have to answer is whether the "problems" that were solved through the NASA inventions could also have been successfully addressed in other ways....It is all about efficiency...

Well, I was just saying if that money had been put elsewhere what may have happened, I think it isn't unreasonable to say you;d get more bang for your buck and more bang in general.

[Fleet 500]

They may not have made the same discoveries, but they may have made other ones that are comparable in degree of impact on human life, and quite possibly more as there would probably be more efficiency as they are directly in the fields as opposed to obtusely when it comes to space.

Well, I was just saying if that money had been put elsewhere what may have happened, I think it isn't unreasonable to say you;d get more bang for your buck and more bang in general.

Sorry, "may have" is not the same as "would have."
Don't forget that there are some experiments that can be done in space with can't be done on Earth.

[Kitdy]

Sorry, "may have" is not the same as "would have."
Don't forget that there are some experiments that can be done in space with can't be done on Earth.

I can't say for certain, but you can't say for certain that more progress would have been made if the money was spent elsewhere.

This is only speculation I admit based on educated guesses and extrapolation - unfortunately with any sort of alternate history/reality scenario, we are bound by what actually happened; the alternate scenario exists only as a vague cloud of possibility.

That's not to say that based on some suppositions that we can't draw reasonable conclusions.

[Matra et Alpine]

I suggest you take it up from the message board I was at...
Scrap NASA (Iraq, weapons, Kennedy, military) - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 4 - City-Data Forum
(Posts #31 and #38.)

No thanks Fleet.
I didn't take their post and put it here, you did.
It's mostly wrong, you can take it up with them as we've clearly shwon it's BS.

Oh and to take another example "ear thermometer" -- MORE BS ... the steel industry has been using that technique since the 60s ( possibly earlier, but I saw one at Ravenscraig when I was a kid in the 60s !!

So, please let's not get other forums involved. Either stand up for what you posted with facts or accept that the post in the other forumj is in the main erroneous.

IN fact I did look at a few other posts and you've got the whoel range there from "NASA is wonderful, applie pie and mom's home cooking, luv America. yo it's the best" (NOT a direct quotation) to "NASA is great because large government spending in large government bodies is good for America" - phew not even us Euro-lefties would buy into that one