[HN Gopher] NASA has funded a bunch of early stage technologies
___________________________________________________________________
NASA has funded a bunch of early stage technologies
Author : tectonic
Score : 68 points
Date : 2023-05-24 14:52 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (orbitalindex.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (orbitalindex.com)
| cushychicken wrote:
| > _The US government_ has funded a bunch of early stage
| technologies
|
| Regarding title: FTFY
|
| The US government is probably the most successful venture
| capitalist in history.
|
| Scott Galloway defends this thesis admirably:
| https://www.profgalloway.com/welfare-queens/
|
| I have a sneaking suspicion that the semiconductor industry as we
| know it would not exist without copious and frequent government
| funding.
| tcmart14 wrote:
| For sure whether directly or indirectly. I don't think we'd be
| where we are without Eniac. I wouldn't be surprised if most of
| Intel's early customers where in some way or shape related to
| NASA or DARPA/Defense. IBM got its start also by selling
| hardware and software to the government. Even though those may
| not be semiconductors as we see today, we wouldn't have gotten
| the innovation of semiconductors, at least as early as we did,
| without the government essentially bootstrapping computing on
| scale.
| abrahms wrote:
| Astopharmacology sounds so cool, especially the use of
| microorganisms to synthesize medicines. I wonder how those drugs
| will mutate as the organisms go through breeding cycles..
| throw0101c wrote:
| NASA has developed all sorts of stuff over the decades:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies
|
| Most of the modern technologies that we use in recent years has
| had initial funding from government:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State
|
| * https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/17987621
|
| This includes early bootstrapping of the Silicon Valley
| ecosystem:
|
| * https://steveblank.com/secret-history/
| culi wrote:
| The gov't made the iPhone basically. I mean think about it:
| * GPS -- government technology * the internet -- a
| government technology * ai voice assistants -- Apple
| literally hired the head of this research straight from DARPA
| after DARPA had released its work to the public *
| touchscreens -- DARPA * accelerometers -- DARPA *
| speech recognition -- more DARPA and MIT tech * digital
| cameras - Bell Labs which had a government enforced monopoly
| that required them to fund and release research
|
| I don't know why the myth that private sector entities create
| technologies is so pervasive. Why would a company invest so
| much into research just to release it to their competitors? The
| only research that drives everything forward comes from the
| public sector.
|
| If you'd like a more thorough historical breakdown, I'd
| recommend economist Mariana Mazzucato's book on debunking
| public vs. private sector myths.
|
| https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-entrepreneurial-state
| solidsnack9000 wrote:
| These systems are typically developed in public-private
| partnerships. This is not really the same thing as "the
| government" creating it. The projects or technologies are
| typically evaluated by studies which, even if classified, are
| frequently conducted by private corporations contracted by
| the government; the research is undertaken by a mix of
| government and industrial labs; and then manufacturing is
| generally (though not always) undertaken wholly by private
| enterprises.
|
| The government and industry both have a role to play. Maybe
| part of the reason the myth persists is because it is simpler
| to believe it's one way or the other -- government creates
| technology or private business creates technology -- than to
| think in terms of the more complex reality.
| maxcan wrote:
| Governments are good at pure science, research, and
| individual technologies. They are not good at making
| products. That is fundamentally where private companies have
| a massive advantage.
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| The more I read stuff like this the more I realize all
| countries on Earth should pay thanks to the USA and all the
| great advances it has gifted the world with. And I'm not
| being facetious it's really crazy just how much advances in
| the United States have forwarded technological progress.
| Please tell every seething European to thank America for
| keeping them safe from Russia too.
| nawgz wrote:
| > I don't know why the myth that private sector entities
| create technologies is so pervasive
|
| Money pays to protect money, so all sorts of convenient myths
| are part of the common knowledge.
|
| Privatization is destroying the world. Capitalism is only a
| plausible economic system under heavy regulation and
| governments with more power than the corporations.
| nso wrote:
| I initially misread the title as "NASA has FOUND...", and my mind
| went spiraling for a little bit.
| ortusdux wrote:
| Very interesting projects. Some youtubers have been recreating
| and iterating on the electroaerodynamic thrusters in the solid-
| state propulsion project:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftKjkZHirc
| antoniuschan99 wrote:
| There's also this one I been watching!
| https://www.youtube.com/@rptechlab/videos
|
| Also Astra sells one too (I read they bought the company and
| it's like their only revenue generator currently)
| https://astra.com/space-products/astra-spacecraft-engine/
| dvh wrote:
| I really want to see Titan's lake before I die. It's the only
| stable, landable liquid in solar system (besides Earth), how it
| is not a priority?!
| idlewords wrote:
| Because we burn our space budget on useless and expensive human
| spaceflight, in the false belief that only manned missions can
| get the public excited about space.
| NotACop182 wrote:
| I think drilling miles under ice is a mission most likely to
| fail on our first attempts. It's the one project I want done
| but know it might not even happen in the next 50 years.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| It may be easier on Titan, the gravitational constant is
| smaller, so less downhole bore pressure.
| idlewords wrote:
| Or you can just land on one of the open lakes.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Probably because they already sent Huygens and there's planets
| and moons that haven't been landed on yet at all (i.e. almost
| all of them). Titan's one of the rare exceptions.
|
| List's actually shockingly short:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landings_on_extraterre...
| basicallybones wrote:
| Historically, just getting anything to another planet costs in
| the hundreds of millions of dollars. Perseverance launch alone
| cost $243 million (total mission cost was $2.7 billion). It is
| an enormous expenditure.
|
| You might be interested that Rocket Lab's Electron now can
| launch small interplanetary spacecraft for low-eight figures
| (~$10 million for the launch to lunar orbit for NASA CAPSTONE,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPSTONE#Launch).
|
| However, the Electron payload capacity is small (a few hundred
| KGs). I doubt it is enough for much equipment, but I believe a
| camera/radio/parachute is feasible. Take these prices with a
| big grain of salt, as I am just a hobbyist, but now you can get
| a spacecraft to an interplanetary body for probably around
| $20-$30 million dollars. As costs fall and other next-gen
| rockets become operational, I am hopeful that we see more
| interplanetary landings over the coming decades.
|
| (disclosure, I am a RKLB shareholder.)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-24 23:01 UTC)