





Elon Musk and the Falcon 9 [Source: Discovery]










SpaceX Dragon Crew Vehicle [Source: SpaceX]





Sources: SpaceX, CBS News

Comments     Threshold


RE: Priorities
By Quadrillity on 3/19/2012 3:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
I would say that the breakthroughs since then have been comparatively dismal. During that time, however, NASA research brought some really great stuff to society. There have been some really nice advances since then, but the vast majority of those do not make their way to the general public for one reason: cost. To me that is pretty much worthless.

I see it as (exaggerated): "WOW! We made a battery that can power a small town for a year on a single charge... but it costs one trillion dollars when scaled."

I guess my skepticism has been brought by the same scenario with hydrogen fuel cells. For decades we (a collective of research around the world) have been throwing billions at making a hydrocel that is 1) economic and 2) functional for as long as today's fossil fuel cars. To this day, the private sector and the government research sector has no clue how to make this happen yet. We should keep trying, don't get me wrong! But I think our interests are best served in the private sector where we KNOW for fact that innovation costs less, comes quicker, and is overall better for society.

You might convince me better if NASA suddenly hits a major breakthrough tomorrow that essentially breaks us from foreign oil dependence. Until then, I see don't see the justified cost.

RE: Priorities
By mmatis on 3/19/2012 3:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
You might want to look at all the new drugs that have been developed since the late 90s. Understand that they were made possible by electrophoresis which is used to separate proteins which are associated with each malady. Note that electrophoresis was going nowhere until J&J started flying their Continuous Flow Electrophoresis System (CFES) as shuttle middeck experiments. Results obtained from those tests enabled the drug manufacturers to make electrophoresis work in 1G, and the drug explosion quickly followed. So tell those whose diseases were untreatable up to about 10 years ago that "...breakthroughs since then have been comparatively dismal..."

RE: Priorities
By Quadrillity on 3/19/2012 3:55:25 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks for the example. I can't see why so many people are responding back with hate rants rather than actually answering my honest questions.

I still have to wonder though, could that particular breakthrough be made without proxy research from NASA? Such question cannot be answered (since no-one owns a time machine or crystal ball), but maybe you see the point of my questions.

RE: Priorities
By mmatis on 3/19/2012 4:23:30 PM , Rating: 1
Again, the drug companies understood that proteins held the key to cures for many diseases, and had been trying for years to get electrophoresis to work in 1G. The experiment they flew required interaction in flight, and would not have been possible otherwise.

Also note that corporations have to satisfy their shareholders with their research funding. As a result, the event horizon for profitability from research has to be no more than 5 to 10 years, or at most 15 with an exceptionally promising idea. NASA and the other government research agencies do the long range research beyond that event horizon which private entities will not fund, but without which many of the world's great advances would not exist. Because of that, the benefits of NASA research are not generally seen by the public. In the CFES example, McDonnell Douglas and J&J provided the flight hardware for the experiment, while NASA provided the ride to space. Astronaut Charles Walker:
was a McDonnell Douglas employee who flew as a payload specialist after the initial flight of the payload.

RE: Priorities
By nafhan on 3/19/2012 8:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
You can be fairly certain that without basic "unprofitable" research by universities, NASA, etc. Much of the technology that we enjoy today would not exist. Exactly which technologies and how much such a nebulous concept is actually worth is (as you mentioned) impossible to pin down.

As far as "people responding with hate rants", that's probably because you called science that's not immediately monetizable worthless - on technology blog. :)

RE: Priorities
By stromgald30 on 3/20/2012 5:43:51 AM , Rating: 2
Scratch resistant coatings on eye glasses and UV protective coatings on sun glasses were both invented by NASA in the 60s and 70s. The technology was commercialized when NASA licensed them out to various companies.

A more recent example of NASA innovation being commercialized is in hip implants, which originally had a short life span (would crack/break down after ~5 years) in the 90s. NASA had a special metal hardening technique they developed for jet engine components in the late 90s. The technology was licensed out to a small biotech company that used it to extend hip implant life to >50 years.

There are plenty of examples if you take the time to really look.

RE: Priorities
By pfd on 3/20/2012 8:14:33 AM , Rating: 2
I can say with some confidence that CFE has had basically zero contribution to any marketed drug. McDD had intended it to be used to purify a hormone, EPO, from human kidney cell cultures. This hormone is now produced from genetically engineered microbes (yeast, I think), which produce it in high enough concentration that no microgravity separation would be needed.

Microgravity crystallization of proteins, another much ballyhooed technology, has also not led to any new drug. Ditto for all other attempts at microgravity exploitation.

The rule of thumb is to take any claims about commercial spinoffs, scale them down by several orders of magnitude, and then be very skeptical about the even that residue. It's a field for shysters, frauds and the hopelessly gullible.

RE: Priorities
By Jedi2155 on 3/21/2012 12:05:21 AM , Rating: 2
I'm right there with you regarding Fuel Cells. Awesome technology in concept "Only emission is water, hydrogen being the most plentiful element in the universe!?!" How could you not buy that?

Then you learn about all the hurdles about it....I am actually strongly against hydrogen fuel cells as a vehicle fuel. Having personally driven a fuel cell vehicle for thousands of miles (and having had them break down on me a dozen or so times), I think the hurdles are far too great, to be overcome when they is a much more promising technology nearing mass acceptance, which is the pure battery EV.

The ONLY benefit I see with fuel cell's over EV's, is the fast fill time, but just about every other aspect about it is worse imo. Cost, range, wells to wheel efficiency, durability, and infrastructure are just so under developed and cost so much that it can't compare.

