More NASA Spinoff Urban Myths

The spinoff marketing machine at NASA is a symptom of a great problem. NASA not knowing why NASA exists.

At some point in our lives we all ask ourselves "what is the point of all this?", and when NASA people did that, all they could think of was "spinoffs".

The Augustine review knows about this problem and explicitly put it to rest. They explicitly say that whatever value NASA has produced from spinoffs is NOT worth the money spent on NASA. Period.

NASA forgot what NASA was for a long time ago.

Wow! That is pretty naive of both Keith and RC to say. The reason why you don't know of all the "spinoffs" is because they are far too numerous to blurt in one sentence.

Read this, go back and do your homework, and try again with a more informed answer/response because right now you both seem very uninformed:

http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/spinoff.html

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2006/ct_5.html

http://ipp.nasa.gov/pdf/spinoff_top_20a.pdf

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2006/er_5.html

Editor's note: your cluster of links do not substantiate your claims. Please show me where all of the things mentioned by the two articles were developed specifically as a result of something NASA did. Also, please fund out what the precise royalty payments have been since - oh, 1958, and then contrast that with the total public funds spent on NASA since that time.

What I said isn't naive, it is the consensus of the best minds in the business.

From The Space Review:

In his House testimony, Augustine alluded to that lack of compelling reasons for human spaceflight. “Too often in the past we’ve said what destination do we want to go to rather than why do we want to go there. It’s a question that in our view we have probably not answered correctly in the past,” he said.

Augustine listed the various rationales for human spaceflight, from science and exploration to inspiration and spinoffs. “In our judgment, none of those, by themselves, can justify the cost of human spaceflight today.”

I see the claims relating to short-term benefits derived from our investments in manned spaceflight, whether specific examples be valid or myth, as promoting nothing more than political gimmicks meant to satiate the short-sighted. To me, it's about getting our eggs the hell out of one basket. Considering the likes of Stephen Hawking share my opinion, I consider myself to be in good company.

I know it's a tall order for our A.D.D. society, but let's direct our energy toward the real goal: The colonization of outer space for our own selfish good (the continuation of our species), and stop wasting time promoting these often debatable short-term benefits.

So there.

:)

See, that is the problem with America's attention span, Keith. You didn't even bother to open those links. They answer your question quite massively. The problem is that if they were posted here, you would run out of run on your Web site.

Keith: "please fund out what the precise royalty payments have been since - oh, 1958, and then contrast that with the total public funds spent on NASA since that time."

As a government entity, NASA doesn't collect royalty payment, however, the government does receive compensation through taxation when a given technology is commercialized by a private firm and sold.

As for your "payback" question, one only has to look at the declassification and usage of integrated circuits for the AGC and PCGNCS done by Charles Draper's team at MIT in the early 1960's. Given the stimulus that project provided for computing and IC's generally, one can say that Apollo has paid for itself twentyfold.

Not just it's attention span. But comprehension skills!

"NASA was a bit player - at best - in pushing technologies that contributed to - but certainly did not create these and many other things."

NASA generates highly specific solutions to even more highly specific problems. SOMETIMES these ideas/ technologies can be spun off to other private Companies that create a profitable product. There is no profitable mass market for NASA's 'end products': Spirit Rovers (More's the pity!) or Ares I. (Less so!) Unless you are building them out of LEGO.

To take one example:
A quick Google of Lasik and NASA reveals that whilst NASA approves of the surgical technique; it had nothing to do with its development! Unless there was a 'black' NASA program funding Northrop Corporation Research and Technology Center! Even then a more likely partner would have been the DoD. Star Wars Mk0.
A conflation of ideas vide LADARTracker may have lead to the idea that NASA 'invented' Lasik just as it failed to invent: "Teflon, Velcro, and Tang."

However, coreyde, I am neither a rocket scientist nor American and my knowledge may be at fault. Please correct my findings... I would love to be wrong.

brobof, Let's start with this misconception. Where in this sentence do you see the word "invent"?

"...what has the agency done to deserve nearly
$20 billion in funding every year? 'From the
medical devices, fetal monitors for babies, to
Lasik surgeries, MRI's, cell phones, the gps,'
says Mitchell.

You don't 'cause that was not the intent of what Mitchell was saying. So, let's start with NASA's GPS contribution. I believe it is really in reference to this:

"The Agency employs the band of GPS satellites for such functions as mapping Earth’s ionosphere and developing earthquake-prediction tools. Extending this worldly wisdom beyond Earth, NASA researchers are even discussing the possibility of developing global positioning satellites around Mars, in anticipation of future manned missions.

Despite all of its terrestrial accomplishments, traditional GPS still has its limitations. The Space Agency is working to address these with many new advances, including a “Global Differential GPS” technology that instantaneously provides a position to within 4 inches horizontally and 8 inches vertically, anywhere on Earth. According to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, no other related system provides the same combination of accuracy and coverage.

Furthermore, traditional GPS cannot communicate beyond latitudes of 75°. That means that most of Greenland and Antarctica cannot receive GPS signals. The Global Differential GPS technology approaches this area of the world using several different GPS signals. These signals overlap to compensate for the gaps in coverage. Now, scientists working in the extreme northernmost and southernmost areas of the world can have access to the same GPS technology that other scientists around the world rely on.

NASA partnered with private industry to address another GPS limitation and, therefore, enhance the technology for better surveying of urban areas prone to signal blockages. The result of this collaboration led to a new aerial mapping and targeting system with myriad benefits."

Now, to address Lasik, I believe that was really in reference to this:

"A Johnson Space Center-private industry Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) partnership to develop technology for autonomous rendezvous and docking of space vehicles to service satellites has resulted in a new eye-tracking device for LASIK surgery, called LADARTracker. Eye-tracking devices must be able to sample the eye’s position at a rate of at least 1,000 times per second to keep up with saccadic movements, which do not stop during LASIK surgery. LADARTracker measures eye movements at a rate of 4,000 times per second, 4 times the established safety margin. The device is manufactured by Alcon Laboratories, of Fort Worth, Texas, and is used in conjunction with the company’s LADARVision 4000 system for LASIK surgery, which is being used by eye surgeons across the country."

If you would have taken the time, you would have found both of those articles in the links I sent earlier.

This study from George Washington University in 1998, "Measuring the Returns To NASA Life Sciences Research and Development", says it all concerning measurable returns to government investments. It's very detailed but well worth the read, http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/lifesci.htm:

"There are definite and measurable returns to government investments. The problem is that the standard framework for economic analysis is based on a private enterprise that is in existence to make a profit. An investment’s contribution to the bottom-line profit is its rate of return as measured by its percentage yield compared to its cost, over a period of time and in relation to “average” returns in the economy for similar investments. The government, however, does not exist for the purpose of making, let alone maximizing, profits. The government does not even have a capital account. And, by convention, the U.S. government does not consider any expenditure an investment.[2] Therefore, any comparison between industry return on investment (ROI) and government rates of return must be very carefully analyzed. They are not the same, and there is no reason they should be the same. Therefore, the methodology used for calculating returns to government R&D expenditures should be different from the metrics that are used by corporate R&D efforts. The focus for measuring government returns to its expenditures on R&D should be on the impacts on the beneficiaries of government R&D (firms and the economy in general) rather than solely on the benefits that flow back to the particular government agency."

"Capturing all of the broad objectives of various mission-oriented federal R&D programs in simple economic measures is not possible. Because of the complexity and vast differences in the missions of the agencies, any economic measure is only a very partial accounting of the impacts of any program. And, since most technology transfer activities involve pushing the results of federally-sponsored technology into other uses, many of the measures and models ignore larger aspects of economic impacts in favor of trying to understand how better to manage and sell transfer programs. In addition, economic externalities (impacts beyond the firm or industry that can be measured by standard microeconomic techniques) are often ignored. These externalities can have positive and negative impacts on sectors of the economy."

"Many federally-sponsored R&D programs have resulted in major economic changes. Examples include: the NACA in developing aircraft technology; the Department of Agriculture in creating the extension service to disseminate research results on better farming techniques; the NIH R&D efforts that led to the creation of the biotechnology and bioengineering industries; the Department of Defense support of electronics, computers, and software which, in combination with the miniaturization needed for the space program has played a large role in making the United States a world leader in the computer industry; and the NASA R&D that provided access to space for satellite communications. Although it is possible to measure the sales and growth of these industries, it is virtually impossible to calculate in economic terms the improvements and changes in the quality of life and the way we live as a result of the contribution of federal R&D programs."

http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/lifesci.htm

Hmmm, spin offs are worthless. Giving links to prove NASA are worthwhile ridiculed. Money would have better spin offs in private hands.

Ok, so you guys hate NASA.

By your reasoning, DARPA should be killed as well. It is basic research with no immediate payoff. Money spent on NASA research is often so basic that it changes our understanding of our world. That's hard to put a dollar sign on.

But let's look at what happened when NASA was gutted by Nixon. We had three commercial airline companies building most of the worlds airliners reaping the rewards of NASA research. We had talented people from all over the world here in America doing NASA research. We cut those jobs and sent them home to create new companies like Airbus. Now we have one airline company and we are not a leader anymore.

Would a NASA with budget that paid from everything that Congress mandates keep America a leader? It did in the sixties. It could now.

And if you really read Augustine or even CAIB, it points that out.

Neil Armstrong's speech last year singled out the car engine as a spin off. Not a direct improvement but the overall betterment of industry that came from the precision engineering needed by NASA. That higher precision means we have car engines that last 200,00 miles instead of 50,000 miles. They didn't start out to make better car engines by going to the moon. Yes, improvements would probably occur anyway but slower. Also, such improvements are those 'spin offs' that grow the economy to pay for NASA and all other federal programs.

Private research has little interest in pure research such as NASA does or DARPA. But finding the wealth in that unknown territory by funding such as NASA is what JFK saw in tackling huge and difficult jobs like going to the moon.

Well for one thing Michell's phrase:

"Some are asking what has the agency [my emphasis] done to deserve nearly $20 billion in funding every year?

"From the medical devices, fetal monitors for babies, to Lasik surgeries, MRI's, cell phones, the gps,” says Mitchell."
Inplies that NASA had 'something' to do with the actual things mentioned. And, as I see you have not found any evidence (covert or otherwise) to directly connect NASA with Northrop Corporation Research and Technology Center. And as you yourself confirm that NASA has (only) developed a process: "LADARTracker" (Something, by the way, that I had never heard of UNTIL YOU POSTED THE LINK.) And as Mitchell says "Lasik" not "LADARTracker." Keith is right, Mitchell is wrong and, by extension, so are you!

Similarly GPS was DOD as any fule kno... Mitchell's statement does not mention “Global Differential GPS.” If he had, Keith would not have pulled him up over it and we would not be having this somewhat pointless discussion.

Just to correct your last post the link is broken.
On skimming the article this poster noted:

"Much of NASA’s technology R&D is on the cutting-edge, developing unique solutions for space applications. Many of the inventions and innovations have no apparent commercial use."
I would say "most" and the desperation and money and time spent on attempting: "to try to push these technologies toward commercial use. Whether it be through the contractor that developed the technology, through intellectual property (patent) incentives to NASA employees, or through publications such as Tech Briefs or Spinoff, an attempt is made to disseminate information and encourage some form of commercial initiative." ...telling.

NASA and more especially HSF was and still *is* primarily about political and technological prestige. Not Dollars and sense!

brobof,

Let's start by getting this "invent" thing out of your mind. I stated that the word "invent" was NEVER mentioned in Mitchell's statement. For that matter, the word "invent" wasn't even mentioned in the blurb from Ed Perlmutter and Pete Olson's opinion poll.

Let follow up by defining "spinoff". I believe these statement are just GENERAL references to "spinoffs" (defined as something, such as a product, that is derived from something larger and more or less unrelated; a byproduct) and/or patented inventions. It would be foolish to think SPECIFICS such as LADARTRacker would be blurted out. The public would look at you crossed eyed from complete and utter cluelessness.

As for GPS (including "Global Differential GPS technology") and Lasik (including LASIK surgery's LADARTracker), I believe I stated my case as factually as possible in my 4/6 4:00pm post. I was merely trying to provide detailed "spinoff" evidence to the general references used for GPS and Lasik.

To reiterate, the Global Differential GPS technology and LADARTracker are definitely two of the many "spinoffs" that NASA has derived, not just the patented inventions. End of point.

That may be your point.
But the point of the thread (and my point) is that NASA has enough problems, as is, without well meaning idiots like Mitchell ascribing the value of NASA in terms of technologies that it had nothing to do with! Vide: Teflon, Velcro, Tang and, now, Lasiks! This is how urban myths get started. The answers are there if Mitchell had bothered to do his research: http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions.htm/printable

Even correctly cited, inventions or spinoffs are a silly metric :) to measure the worth of an organisation that was cobbled together from ten warring tribes at the height of the Cold War. NASA's sole purpose then, as is now, is to make Americans feel better about themselves. eg John Glenn vs Yuri Gagarin, Bay of Pigs vs Rice University, Apollo 8 vs Vietnam War.

As America's financial system crumbles and two (!) intractable military adventures unfold; clearly it is time for "panem et circenses." The bailout of the supermassive black hole in the financial system and the 'stimulus' may be enough 'bread.' Now it is time for the circus!
It will be arriving in Florida on the 15th...

The simple fact is that ANY large technological project will have trivial utilities that may be profitable eg CERN and the Internet. Here high energy physics may push the boundaries of computing power but its real purpose is the Unknown Unknowns and its real benefit the forging of international cooperation in a cathedral of gee-whizzery!
Talk about going round in circles!

brobof,

If you don't like myths, then quit spreading the Teflon, Velcro, Tang myth. Here's what NASA has to say about it and has always said about it: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/home/myth_tang.html

If you don't want to click the link in my previous post, here's what NASA says about the Teflon, Velcro, Tang myth:

Tang, Teflon, Velcro

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.

And BINGO we're back to comprehension skills! Sigh!

"...well meaning idiots like Mitchell ascribing the value of NASA in terms of technologies that it had nothing [my emphasis] to do with! Vide: Teflon, Velcro, Tang and, now, Lasiks! "

"The Latin term "Vide " means, in a UK legal context: "see". "

Stop digging. Instead take a sip of Koolaid and write to NASA and suggest they add Lasiks, GPS,... to the disclaimer :)

...or other types of collaborations thereof. Again, no one said "invent".

Don't you think it is fair to admit that GPS and Lasik were probably general references to NASA spinoffs and or collaborations thereof? Again, the word "invent" was never mentioned. This whole diversion was a great way to get away from acknowledging the many accomplishments of NASA.

Why doesn't anyone mention things that NASA really did have a hand in that benefit a large number of people?

One easy example is satellite remote sensing: NASA in collaboration with NOAA was heavily involved with the design and operation of the first weather satellite and continues to serve as NOAA's purchasing agent for current weather satellites. The data have improved weather forecasting and benefited the US and world population. Same is true of satellite sensing of earth resources.

A second easy example is aeronautical research. Airplane winglets, which can reduce aircraft fuel consumption by 5% in some cases, were developed by researchers at NASA. Since a sizable portion of the US population travels by air in a typical year (51% in 2006), this research benefits millions of people in the US and even more worldwide.

Of course, these aren't truly spinoffs but things NASA was chartered to do.

The hole keeps getting deeper!
"...or other types of collaborations thereof." Semantically implying, by appending the above initiating ellipsis to my terminating ellipsis: that Teflon, Velcro, Tang, Lasiks and GPS ARE collaborations. Not only is this putting words in my mouth: outrageously so! The concatenation flies in the face of your two previous posts.

As Spock would say illogical!

But let us leave this evidently pointless task in punctuation and misattribution.

Instead let's get to the root of your fundamental mis-understanding of the nature of the thread and simple grammar and comprehension:
"You don't 'cause that was not the intent of what Mitchell was saying."
You know what his intent was?
Perhaps you have access to the entire Mitchell interview; please share: References? Links?
Perhaps you are a mind reader?
Or perhaps you just can't admit that Mitchell, like some others I could mention, hasn't the foggiest notion of what he is talking about.

Whilst you are digging, a response to Keith's reasonable request:
"Editor's note: your cluster of links do not substantiate your claims. Please show me where all of the things mentioned by the two articles were developed specifically as a result of something NASA did. Also, please fund out what the precise royalty payments have been since - oh, 1958, and then contrast that with the total public funds spent on NASA since that time." Even one of them would be a start and we now seem to agree that Lasiks and GPS don't count!

Oh Noes! You don't:
"Don't you think it is fair to admit that GPS and Lasik were probably general references to NASA spinoffs and or collaborations thereof? "

GPS was DoD as any fule kno... Lasiks HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NASA. I repeat: NASA did not invent, fund, spinoff, develop, market, or any other transitive verb this technology.

"Again, the word "invent" was never mentioned." You keep making thia assertion! Again please provide the complete transcript of the interview. He might have! The article certainly implies that he was associating NASA with those inventions.
Perhaps he whispered "NOT" after the interview finished. Perhaps he had his fingers crossed! Perhaps he likes propagating Urban Myths!

"This whole diversion was a great way to get away from acknowledging the many accomplishments of NASA."
Don't get me started:
First Satellite NOPE
First Animal in Orbit NOPE
First Human in Orbit NOPE
First Woman in Orbit NOPE
First SpaceWalk NOPE
First MultiPerson SpaceCraft NOPE
First Probe to impact Moon NOPE
First Probe to image Moon's Farside NOPE
First Lunar Lander NOPE
First Lunar Orbiter NOPE
First Probe to Land on Moon NOPE
First Probe to (crash) on Planet (Venus) NOPE
First Probe to land on a Planet (Venus) NOPE
...
So, apart from the VERY risky Moon Landings what has NASA done for you?

Have any of you ever been involved in a licensing agreement with NASA, or even a collaborative effort between industry and the agency on new technology?

From my experience, it was generally a NIGHTMARE. Try getting a successful space act agreement out of JSC. We wasted so much tax dollars and time, our technology partners gave up and walked away; multiple cases. Folks at ARC claimed their implementation of space act agreements was far better, but I dont have first hand experience of that.

Ever used the invention disclosure process at JSC? Another waste of time, grossly inefficient and a joke to anyone who has worked in the private sector or academia (and much of that is far from perfect!).

I just hope and pray that if money is to be spent through JSC on R&D, it will be spent offsite. With over a decade of experience of R&D at JSC, in addition to academia and industry, I can say $1million spent on R&D at a university or a well management startup would easily cost $5million at JSC.

1. The reason for the ellipsis had nothing to do with you. Ken deleted my post previous to that because it contained a reference to the same derogative pronoun you used for Mitchell. For some reason, it was okay for you to use but not me. My post with the ellipsis was a follow up to that post.

2. 13,090 NASA patents - YEP. Don't be afraid to check them out, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=NASA&d=PTXT. This does not include direct spinoffs or colloborations with other contractors, non-profit organizations, etc. Those are in the links I sent the other day.

My humble apologies coreyde and, whilst I am at it, public and abject apologies are also due to Bob Mitchell and also to Keith whose excellent site I have sullied with unfortunate slip of the keyboard. Sometimes our enthusiasms for precision get away with us.
Lessons learned.

Alas your last link is faulty. In the chastened state that one finds oneself, may I suggest that a quick check in Preview is a worthwhile exercise especially with long addresses. Alternatively there is always http://tinyurl.com/

As a final word on the topic IF NASA finds itself 'spun off' into a role similar to DARPA and thus afforded a potential revisiting of Intellectual Property rights. I would direct an inquiring mind to the model used at CERN.

This Web site is not the best for posting links (looks like my link above got broken at the line return), so try this. Go to the US Patent office, http://patft.uspto.gov. Click on Advanced Search under PATFT. Type in NASA in the query box and click Search. You should get "NASA: 13090 patents".