Another Stealth NASA Spinoff

I was fortunate to have a sneak peek at Spinoff 2009, and the On-Cue technology is one of the featured spinoffs in that issue. (I'm told the issue will be available in November.) That said, I find it hard to agree with your apparent opinion, in this post and others, that NASA drops the ball on tracking and publicizing spinoff technologies. Spinoff is an annual publication; for you to "discover" a spinoff yet to appear in its pages or database--before this year's issue has even been published--and then trumpet what you perceive to be delinquent efforts on NASA's part to publicize a new spinoff strikes me as grandstanding on your part. NASA's efforts lead to many spinoff technologies every year, only 50 or so of which appear in Spinoff (there has to be some kind of cutoff; significant technologies not covered one year are sure to be targeted the next). In the meantime, the Innovative Partnerships Program offices at each of NASA's field centers continuously record and publicize successful spinoffs connected to their respective centers. I appreciate your efforts to follow NASA and point out areas for improvement, but I don't see the need for you to manufacture deficiencies that don't exist.

bobschwinn: WRT "I was fortunate to have a sneak peek at Spinoff 2009, and the On-Cue technology is one of the featured spinoffs in that issue. (I'm told the issue will be available in November.)" and "I don't see the need for you to manufacture deficiencies that don't exist." Please tell me what is not factual about my post? I do not have access to that document - nor does anyone else except you and a few others, so how am I supposed to know what is in there? And are you implying that only spinoffs that are in these annual documents are in the online database - and that they only get there after the paper version of the document is created?. Moreover, NASA constantly makes claims that it has a database cataloging all of its spinoffs yet time and time again when you go and look for them they are either not listed, misidentified, or exaggerated in their importance or relevance. The sad thing about this is that NASA has true spinoff success but NASA blows their impact totally out of proportion to what they really are.

Spinoff 2009 is at the printers and will be available in about three weeks. This latest issue contains an article on the On-Cue software.

You are correct that the Spinoff Database contains only technologies that have been featured in the annual Spinoff report, 1662 to date since the publication's inception in 1976. The very first line at the top of the Spinoff Database website explains this.

It is incorrect, however, to suggest that the database content is misidentified or exaggerated. Each entry is accompanied by a full article explaining the exact connection between the commercial technology and NASA's original work, as well as the method by which the technology was transferred to the public sector. I encourage you to take another look at this resource: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/spinoff/database

"Please tell me what is not factual about my post?" Gladly. You write "It is curious how NASA thumps its chest over old spinoffs but when new ones make the news NASA hasn't a clue that it has even happened." You looked at the Spinoff database, which only contains technologies that have been featured in the publication (I don't need to "imply" this; it is stated on the web page), and didn't see the On-Cue technology there, so you assumed NASA did not know about it. Yet the Agency is clearly aware of the On-Cue technology, as it will be featured in the upcoming Spinoff issue. An assumption is not factual. While I obviously don't expect you to have knowledge of the content of a publication you haven't seen, I also don't expect you--as a source of information and commentary that many people turn to--to make assumptions and then negative, damaging pronouncements without a legitimate inquiry. When you come across mention in the media of a technology that seems like a NASA spinoff but that doesn't appear in any NASA source, why not contact the Spinoff office or the relevant center Innovative Partnerships Program office and ask if they are aware of it, instead of jumping the gun and making assumptions that NASA is clueless? It seems to me that would be a more beneficial and responsible approach.