Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

We Stopped Dreaming

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 891011>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 6 Votes, Average 4.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 March 2012 at 2:24pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

^^^ Hey . . . it's a REALLY efficient fire hose . . .






















. . . and I like Velcro.

I bet you still have your OP velcro wallet don't you?


Now you're just being ridiculous.

We all know Mack carries a fanny pack.
Back to Top
GroupB View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 September 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GroupB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 March 2012 at 3:52pm
If you are bored, you can go to this site, http://www.sti.nasa.gov/spinoff/database , and search for a random product, foam for example, and browse all the foam related technologies that originated from NASA and went on to be used by private industries.  Below are the results for "foam".
2010 Composite Sandwich Technologies Lighten Components Glenn Research Center PDF
2009 Insulating Foams Save Money, Increase Safety Langley Research Center PDF
2005 Forty-Year-Old Foam Springs Back With New Benefits Ames Research Center PDF
2004 Bringing in the Reinforcements Glenn Research Center PDF
2002 Foot Comfort for the Fashionable Ames Research Center PDF
2001 Keeping Cool in Extreme Heat Langley Research Center PDF
2001 Takin' the Heat Langley Research Center PDF
2000 The Imagery of Sound Langley Research Center PDF
1998 Foam: The "Right Stuff" for Extreme Environments Johnson Space Center PDF
1997 Toy Gliders Langley Research Center PDF
1995 Prosthesis Material Marshall Space Flight Center PDF
1991 Spinoff From a Moon Suit N/A PDF
1988 Foam Cushioning Ames Research Center PDF
1988 Glass Artworks Marshall Space Flight Center PDF
1986 Spinoff from a Moon Boot (Dynacoil) N/A PDF
1985 Foam Dispenser Marshall Space Flight Center PDF
1984 Flame Resistant Foam Johnson Space Center PDF
1981 Technology for Transportation Safety Johnson Space Center PDF
1981 Temper Foam Ames Research Center PDF
1980 Metallized Products N/A PDF
1979 Alaska Pipeline Insulation N/A PDF
1979 Springback Foam Ames Research Center PDF
1979 Tank Insulation N/A PDF
1978 Firefighting Module (1978) Marshall Space Flight Center PDF
1978 Foam for Filtering Marshall Space Flight Center PDF
1977 Technology for Tuna Boats N/A PDF
1977 Shock Absorbing Helmets Ames Research Center PDF
1976 Versatile Padding Ames Research Center PDF
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 March 2012 at 4:06pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

I'd like to direct everyone's attention to this link: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/03/21/this-is-why-we-invest-in-science-this/

/end debate.
Awesome. So for 17billion/ year we get velcro, Tang and an efficient firehose.  That truly is a sound investment.
 

 

 


Hand over your cell phone, gps, personal computer, laptop, tablet, ECU from your car, and really, any digital device or other device which uses miniaturization which you own. Without NASA, they wouldn't exist.
Back to Top
GroupB View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 September 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GroupB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 March 2012 at 7:51pm
If it weren't for NASA, we wouldn't have Mack, http://www.sti.nasa.gov/spinoff/spinitem?title=Implantable+Heart+Aid
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 March 2012 at 8:55pm

Seems that with all of these wonderful inventions that NASA could be a little more self supporting. Wonder how many businesses invest billions into research and then let everyone else use the technology without proper compensation? What an awesome business model.

 Yeah, I know, "the government isnt a business". Maybe it should be run a little bit more like one in this instance.


Edited by oldpbnoob - 27 March 2012 at 9:01pm
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
GroupB View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 September 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GroupB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 March 2012 at 9:44pm

NASA is a public service, not a business.  The "payment" in this case comes in the form of jobs created by companies manufacturing products based on the technology, reduced product prices for consumers (you).  All of which leads to increased quality of life for Americans, and more revenue for the government in the form of taxes.  If memory serves correctly, you are a believer in reduced tax rates for corporations so they can use the added revenue to create jobs.  This is really no different, other than it is actually yielding tangible products.  If corporations would pay their fair share of taxes then they would be paying for the technology that NASA develops, it being a publicly funded institution. 

I don't have an exact number, but I bet that corporate tax breaks are well in excess of NASAs budget. 
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 March 2012 at 11:30pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Seems that with all of these wonderful inventions that NASA could be a little more self supporting. Wonder how many businesses invest billions into research and then let everyone else use the technology without proper compensation? What an awesome business model.


 Yeah, I know, "the government isnt a business". Maybe it should be run a little bit more like one in this instance.


Seeing as how the government is forbidden from owning patents, they really can't demand compensation. Furthermore, companies outside of NASA actually made all of the components and worked hand-in-hand on the research. The reality is that NASA provided the impetus to move forward with all of the technological advances that you've been turning a blind eye to so willfully. NASA has done more to produce jobs for Americans in sustainable high-tech fields than any other organization. Period. Without the need to miniaturize computers, radios, and other components, for weight and space savings, that you'd be seeing the kind of tech we do today? We simply wouldn't. Look at consumer driven parallels from the same time. Cars are a fantastic example. Cars didn't get any smaller or fuel efficient despite better products and technologies being available in the 60's and 70's. Automobiles are perhaps one of the few areas of consumer goods which didn't take what was developed for NASA and run with it. The result was the stagnation of design over two decades. Meanwhile the consumer products closely tied to the NASA programs of the time steadily got better, smaller, more efficient. Computers went from being monstrous machines only companies could afford to models which fit the desktop and more importantly, the budget of the average family. The same can be said about TV's, radios, phones, even things like refrigerators and microwave ovens. There really wasn't a demand for a home computer, and I don't know if we'd ever have gotten one if NASA hadn't forced innovation which made the PCB and micro processor possible. We'd probably only now be getting to the point we were 30 years ago. I don't really think you'd want to see how this forum would look on an 80 baud modem and a Tandy.

The reality is that NASA doesn't build things themselves, they contract out. And without them making these demands of said contractors, we wouldn't have seen the kind of innovation we have in all those fields. Again, look the fields that weren't as affected. They stagnated and are now considered by most to be 3rd place at best, and usually a whole lot worse.
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2012 at 12:02am

Disagreeing with value isn't turning a blind eye. Several factors have driven many of the improvements described above, electronics especially. Miniturization wasnt solely done for NASAs sake. Electronics would have progressed. Maybe not at the same speed, but they would have. And to be honest, if it didn't we wouldn't have known the difference  wold we? Perhaps we wouldn't be sitting here discussing this on the internet today, but we would have gotten there. While many of the advancements such as cell phones, are great was it really that big of a deal? While I sit and watch my teenage daughter text her boyfriend and play games for hours on end, I might just have to argue against that one.

NB4 O Noez OPBN is wanting us to go back to the stone ages yo!
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
GroupB View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 September 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GroupB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2012 at 12:06am
Even if you don't agree with the products themselves, how can you argue against the jobs and economic growth created by them?
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2012 at 1:07am
OPB, while I see the point you're making, this is where I tend to step away from using the business model on research projects.

The reason is because that the US is largely an innovation based economy. We live and die by staying ahead of the rest of the world in new consumer technology. So I'd argue that R&D projects would fall under the investment capital side of economics, in which case the expectation is that a significant expense will be followed by a movement forward on the production curve years down the road.

I don't see why NASA couldn't fit into that model of you applied it to the economy as it stands. Now how much we spend vs how much the economy benefits is an argument for one far more educated than myself, but I think that the benefits of say, cell phone technology, would be difficult to really stack up against a base number.

Remember that capital purchases are a one time expense that produces a benefit that (ideally) multiplies over time until that investment is rendered obsolete by a new one. As long as Velcro, cell phones, and calculators are being produced based off of the investments made by NASA funding we won't have a real idea what percentage of profit the world turned by it.
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2012 at 2:18am
Clearly opbn prefers profit over progress. Talk about short sighted.
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2012 at 7:26am

Veering off course here. I wont restate my main point again. Briefly, I didnt say every NASA expenditure was a waste, my main issue is with some of the more unrealistic and wasteful aspirations. I.E. putting men on Mars. I"ll also refer you to my earlier posts regarding value as it was based on ROFLs comment that military spending was a waste. Lets take it in context.

I think weve beaten this one into the ground. I feel a lot of money is wastefully spent on things such as manned space exploration and things like the ISS. Its how I feel. It isnt going to change and I am not some short sighted maroon for feeling this way no more than anyone is a liberal idiot for thinking military spending is wasteful.
 
 
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2012 at 8:01am
Extreme opbn is extreme. I never said all military spending is wasteful, I believe in strong national defence, but not to extreme lengths. A small-ER military that is expertly trained can be just as effective (in some cases more) as a huge military.

Just setting my case straight here - I know you're not changing your mind.
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2012 at 8:46am
Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:

Extreme opbn is extreme. I never said all military spending is wasteful, I believe in strong national defence, but not to extreme lengths. A small-ER military that is expertly trained can be just as effective (in some cases more) as a huge military.

Just setting my case straight here - I know you're not changing your mind.




But just as in OPB's case, who sets the standard for extreme? What value would we associate here that would give us a starting point?

You both have the same problem in not establishing an idea of what "normal" spending is.

If the U.S. is spending too much on its military there has to be a figure that you consider to be within reason, a size and availability that we've exceeded. The same would go for OPB's argument about NASA.

Not saying either of you are wrong, but I think that both arguments are incomplete.
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2012 at 10:53am
Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:

Extreme opbn is extreme. I never said all military spending is wasteful, I believe in strong national defence, but not to extreme lengths. A small-ER military that is expertly trained can be just as effective (in some cases more) as a huge military.

Just setting my case straight here - I know you're not changing your mind.
And I never said all NASA spending was wasteful either. I beleive there is wasteful spending in nearly every government program out there TBH.
 
And to clarify, I do not beleive I ever endorsed cutting corporate taxation. Think you are getting your old farts mixed up Group B.  


Edited by oldpbnoob - 28 March 2012 at 11:36am
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
Lightningbolt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
PHAT and PLAT

Joined: 10 July 2002
Location: Dean's List
Status: Offline
Points: 4889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lightningbolt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2012 at 11:25am
incorporated/.$
Sent from a phone booth
Back to Top
GroupB View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 September 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GroupB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2012 at 3:10pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:

Extreme opbn is extreme. I never said all military spending is wasteful, I believe in strong national defence, but not to extreme lengths. A small-ER military that is expertly trained can be just as effective (in some cases more) as a huge military.

Just setting my case straight here - I know you're not changing your mind.
And I never said all NASA spending was wasteful either. I beleive there is wasteful spending in nearly every government program out there TBH.
 
And to clarify, I do not beleive I ever endorsed cutting corporate taxation. Think you are getting your old farts mixed up Group B.  
 
That's likely, there are too many of them running around here.
 
I will say one last thing though.  Just like war is the necessary evil that drives military innovation spinoffs, space exploration is the necessary "evil" that drives NASAs innovation spinoffs.  If it weren't for space exploration (or some other lofty* goal), NASA would have nothing to develop for. 
 
* See what i did there?
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2012 at 3:21pm
Originally posted by GroupB GroupB wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:

Extreme opbn is extreme. I never said all military spending is wasteful, I believe in strong national defence, but not to extreme lengths. A small-ER military that is expertly trained can be just as effective (in some cases more) as a huge military.

Just setting my case straight here - I know you're not changing your mind.
And I never said all NASA spending was wasteful either. I beleive there is wasteful spending in nearly every government program out there TBH.
 
And to clarify, I do not beleive I ever endorsed cutting corporate taxation. Think you are getting your old farts mixed up Group B.  
 
That's likely, there are too many of them running around here.
 
I will say one last thing though.  Just like war is the necessary evil that drives military innovation spinoffs, space exploration is the necessary "evil" that drives NASAs innovation spinoffs.  If it weren't for space exploration (or some other lofty* goal), NASA would have nothing to develop for. 
 
* See what i did there?
And I guess thats the crux of it. I feel military innovation is considerably more necessary than trying to figure out how to travel to some unknown or maybe non-existent planet for a scenario that may or may not ever happen with technology that most likely will never exist. Which is back to my original point that people have not stopped dreaming, a lot of us just realized the dream is exactly that, a dream. It most likely will never become a reality as we have imagined it.
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
GroupB View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 September 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GroupB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2012 at 3:54pm
Not with that attitude.
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2012 at 4:04pm
Originally posted by GroupB GroupB wrote:

Not with that attitude.
Reality sucks sometimes.
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 891011>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.