PDA

View Full Version : How NASA technology has improved our life.



Zvezdichko
2009-Oct-19, 10:02 PM
Hello,

I'm planning to write a big article about NASA spin-offs and technology improvement. How does space technology affect everyday life?

Well... we all know about GPS, meteorology, telecommunications, etc. I'm sure the general public doesn't know much about other spin-offs. For example - this:

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/06/16/5-spinoffs-from-the-hubble-space-telescope/

Any other examples?

mike alexander
2009-Oct-19, 10:43 PM
Here's a good place to start

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

NASA has been publishing Spinoff for decades.

KaiYeves
2009-Oct-19, 11:47 PM
I actually did a Public Service Announcement on this topic, so:

- Better protective suits for firefighters.
- Safer bike and sporting helmets. (As the sister of a football player, I approve!)
- Tinted glare-reducing sunglasses for safer driving.
- Shatterproof eyeglasses. (As a nearsighted athlete, I approve!)
- Cordless power tools. (Spinoff... d'oh (http://www.myteespot.com/images/thumbs/t_6989.jpg))
- Smoke detectors.
- Memory foam pillows.
- Better cushioning in athletic shoes. (All cross country runners can appreciate this!)

Larry Jacks
2009-Oct-20, 12:56 PM
Some people have the mistaken notion that if it involves America and space then it had to be a NASA project. GPS is not NASA technology. It came out of military research. NASA did a lot of good early work on comsats (especially technology demonstrators) but most of the work was done by private industry such as Hughes Aerospace (now part of Boeing).

samkent
2009-Oct-20, 02:28 PM
I have to agree with Larry on this one.

A lot of what we thought were NASA goodies turned out to be market place modifications. A biggie is the PC. Too many people think if it weren’t for NASA we wouldn’t have the PC.
I would love to see your list and perhaps debate a few.

djellison
2009-Oct-20, 02:37 PM
Here's your list
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

Start here
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/back_issues_archives.html

1600 stories later, you can get to here
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2007/index.html

Then get back to us.

By the way - I've NEVER heard anyone claim that the PC exists only because of NASA.

samkent
2009-Oct-20, 02:58 PM
From the link.
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/


Under the title of
“Lithium Battery Power Delivers Electric Vehicles to Market”

They have


NASA contributed engineering expertise for the car’s advanced battery management system and tested a fleet of zero-emission vehicles on the Kennedy campus.

It sounds like NASA contributed to the charging/discharging circuitry. I doubt that ONLY NASA had this knowledge. More likely one of their engineers contributed his spare time to the project. It’s ironic since NASA has banned all lithium-ion batteries from space use due to their propensity to explode or catch fire.

Personally I wouldn’t call this one a feather in NASA’s cap.

djellison
2009-Oct-20, 03:19 PM
Nor do NASA. They simply state - as you correctly quoted

"NASA contributed engineering expertise..."

You're so desperate to criticise NASA, you don't even stop to read the stuff you copy and paste!

samkent
2009-Oct-20, 04:42 PM
You're so desperate to criticise NASA, you don't even stop to read the stuff you copy and paste!


It’s not that I’m looking to criticize NASA it’s just some of the things they do I feel is a waste of their small budget. Namely Phoenix.

But this stuff is on a NASA website and the title page is Nasa Spin-off.
If this is one of their top 5, then they are grasping at straws.

NEOWatcher
2009-Oct-20, 05:03 PM
If this is one of their top 5, then they are grasping at straws.
The page just says "spotlight".

It doesn't say "top 5", it doesn't say "most recent", it doesn't say "most notable", it doesn't say "biggest impact", and most certainly does not say it's a static list.

Now; I will agree that some of these "participated in" might not be as notable, and that some of these are just NASA got there first, so it is difficult to gauge the impact if NASA were not involved.

But; the simple fact that there is a central technology and science group where ideas can be coordinated, seems to be a good indicator that some of these things would not be where they were if there weren't some "group" effort involved.
Eventually; these things might be developed, but when, considering the budgets involved.

And; forgive me for being U.S.-centric, but I like the idea that we have an agency that's trying to keep the country's technology ahead of others.

And specific missions may not mean much in a direct spin-off, they do provide scientific benefit, and incrimental technological benefits.

It sometimes takes an archeologist years to gather enough fossils as evidence for something. Taking months of scraping to find a single bone may seem like a waste, but combine that with many other bones, and it might be an important piece of the puzzle.

It's for these reasons that I think a simple "list" like this will always seem inadaquate and trivial at times.

ugordan
2009-Oct-20, 05:09 PM
Itís not that Iím looking to criticize NASA itís just some of the things they do I feel is a waste of their small budget. Namely Phoenix.
Phoenix, the Mars lander?

BetaDust
2009-Oct-20, 05:49 PM
Phoenix, the Mars lander?

I still miss her!
Phoenix (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmM1lv827Ro), what a beauty she was...

--Dennis

slang
2009-Oct-20, 08:13 PM
I actually did a Public Service Announcement on this topic,

What is that, Kai?


Phoenix, the Mars lander?

Yeah.. just search on poster and Phoenix. But please don't get that started again. :rolleyes:

I think I have a late 70's or early 80's copy of Spinoff lying around somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it up.

ugordan
2009-Oct-20, 08:57 PM
What is that, Kai?
Yeah.. just search on poster and Phoenix. But please don't get that started again. :rolleyes:

I thought so.

So samkent, just to be clear - what are your thoughts on Ares I-X if you think Phoenix is a waste of money?

mugaliens
2009-Oct-20, 10:58 PM
Well... we all know about GPS...

Other than being the contracted space-lift, how is GPS is NASA spinoff? GPS predates NASA, with clear roots back to WWII, as it's based on LORAN and Decca Navigator (1940s), Transit (1960), and Timation (1967). They're all military systems. GPS wouldn't be in use by civilians had not President Reagan directed it after Koran Air Lines Flight 007's shoot-down in 1983.

djellison
2009-Oct-21, 07:50 AM
If this is one of their top 5, then they are grasping at straws.

It isn't and they're not. Again - you're copy and pasting without reading the content.

Furthermore, the Phoenix jibe is so far off base you're just embarrassing yourself even more.

samkent
2009-Oct-21, 11:13 AM
what are your thoughts on Ares I-X if you think Phoenix is a waste of money?

I am 100% behind it. It shows an attempt to do things in a different way. That is at the heart of what NASA was intended to do in the first place. As to the overruns I see it this way. If the government allocates a million, the agency (Not just NASA) is going to spend 2. If it all pans out you will have another option “Do you want liquids or solids”.

I see Phoenix as a lot of money with tremendous effort for a mission they knew with 100% certainty would end in 3 months. All to ground truth something they knew was there in the first place.

djellison
2009-Oct-21, 11:17 AM
they knew with 100% certainty would end in 3 months..

No they didn't. They knew with 100% certainty there would be scope for a mission extension possibly as long as up to Sol 180. Please stop lying.

Furthermore - if you're going to judge missions on duration - might I suggest that $78M for 4 minutes of LCROSS for something "they knew was there in the first place" is somewhat more expensive.

Your oversimplification and misrepresentation of space science is disgraceful.

ugordan
2009-Oct-21, 11:55 AM
I am 100% behind it.

Wow. The mind reels at the double standards of some posters here.


see Phoenix as a lot of money
Really? For $400 million we get good science done, ground truth for water ice on Mars.

Ares I-X - for $400 million we get to take a stock shuttle booster, shove an inert 5th segment atop, shove a boilerplate upper stage simulator on top of that, and top it all with a mockup Orion spacecraft and mockup launch escape tower. Then you scrounge some Atlas V avionics - oh dear, EELV hardware worthy of Ares I, the world is about to end! Then you wrap it all up in tinfoil and declare it a useful "test" with no hardware actually being real Ares I hardware. Just so the center working Constellation can relearn (Mike Griffin's own words) rocket "science". In this day and age when noone flies anything but all-up tests anymore.

So, to recap - on one hand you've got a primary mission lasting 3 months on the surface of Mars for $400 million total, on the other hand you have a $400 million, suborbital "test" lasting less than 3 minutes and you're telling me with a straight face on that it's Phoenix that's a waste of money???

As far as I'm concerned, you've lost all credibility on the matter with me.

Swift
2009-Oct-21, 01:20 PM
Folks,
Let's not completely derail this thread. There are already threads about Ares and other post-shuttle systems, about Phoenix, and about NASA's budget. And if those don't work for you, start another thread. Let's keep this thread focused on spin-offs. Thanks,

KaiYeves
2009-Oct-21, 11:27 PM
What is that, Kai?
A Public Service Announcement is a short film similar to a commercial, but with a positive social message, such as "Don't drink and drive".

slang
2009-Oct-22, 12:06 AM
A Public Service Announcement is a short film similar to a commercial, but with a positive social message, such as "Don't drink and drive".

Thanks. Over here they sometimes show such messages "for the good of society", and they're usually produced by some organisation. But you made one too?

mike alexander
2009-Oct-22, 02:35 AM
Weather satellites.

If I had to pick one thing NASA got started, it's weather satellites. TIROS, Nimbus, GOES. For the first time in human history, the entire globe can be watched for developing weather, in real time.

What we do with the data is a whole another thing. But imagine if such data had been availabvle for the Galveston Hurricane.

I'd bet that the whole space program has been paid for by improved global weather forecasting.

mugaliens
2009-Oct-22, 09:04 AM
Mike - I'd agree. Wx Satellites have been used to drastically reduce injury and the loss of human life and to somewhat reduce property damage.

Larry Jacks
2009-Oct-22, 01:21 PM
Weather satellites.

If I had to pick one thing NASA got started, it's weather satellites. TIROS, Nimbus, GOES. For the first time in human history, the entire globe can be watched for developing weather, in real time.

US weather satellites belong to NOAA, not NASA. NASA does help in the development and did some important pioneering work but it isn't NASA's mission to own or operate weather satellites.

KaiYeves
2009-Oct-22, 11:22 PM
Thanks. Over here they sometimes show such messages "for the good of society", and they're usually produced by some organisation. But you made one too?
Yes, at Filmmaking Camp we made a few. The company we worked with offers them to broadcasting companies, but mine didn't get picked to be shown on TV.

The Jim
2009-Oct-23, 12:18 AM
[I]Weather satellites.
NASA does help in the development and did some important pioneering work but it isn't NASA's mission to own or operate weather satellites.

NASA procures the satellites, launches them, gets them operating and then turns them over to NOAA.

The Jim
2009-Oct-23, 12:20 AM
It’s ironic since NASA has banned all lithium-ion batteries from space use due to their propensity to explode or catch fire.


Incorrect. Many spacecraft use them. This comment and the one on solids vs liquids shows that you don't know what you are talking about

The Jim
2009-Oct-23, 12:23 AM
I have to agree with Larry on this one.

A lot of what we thought were NASA goodies turned out to be market place modifications. A biggie is the PC. Too many people think if it werenít for NASA we wouldnít have the PC.
I would love to see your list and perhaps debate a few.

This is due to weapons development, ie ICBM.

NEOWatcher
2009-Oct-23, 12:10 PM
It sounds like NASA contributed to the charging/discharging circuitry. I doubt that ONLY NASA had this knowledge. More likely one of their engineers contributed his spare time to the project. Itís ironic since NASA has banned all lithium-ion batteries from space use due to their propensity to explode or catch fire.
Instead of just stating you don't know what you're talking about, I'll provide the why.
Guidelines on Lithium-ion Battery Use in Space Applications (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090023862_2009023573.pdf)
They have quite a few requirements for most batteries. This indicates that they have done thier own research. Not just a spare time of an engineer.

samkent
2009-Oct-23, 05:20 PM
Incorrect. Many spacecraft use them. This comment and the one on solids vs liquids shows that you don't know what you are talking about


I stand partially corrected. Here is an older link on BA discussing batteries.

http://www.bautforum.com/space-exploration/71746-batteries-iss-shuttle.html

Several mentions in it refer to the ISS using NiMH batteries. I may have gone one assumption too far. But it doesn’t look like Lithium’s were the battery of choice at the time.

publiusr
2009-Oct-23, 08:09 PM
In terms of pro-NASA spin-off, here is a space.com link on space-vaccines.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090923-tw-astrogenetix-iss.html

Birmingham, Alabama was also lucky to have this man as a resident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_J._DeLucas

Most of space-potential is yet to be tapped.

The Jim
2009-Oct-23, 09:04 PM
In terms of pro-NASA spin-off, here is a space.com link on space-vaccines.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090923-tw-astrogenetix-iss.html

Birmingham, Alabama was also lucky to have this man as a resident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_J._DeLucas

Most of space-potential is yet to be tapped.

Those are both commercial ventures and not NASA. NASA only provides transportation.

KaiYeves
2009-Oct-23, 09:17 PM
Well, it depends on what you consider a spin-off. How many dominoes have to be between NASA and the finished product? Do cultural works inspired by the space program count as having improved our lives?

publiusr
2009-Oct-23, 10:04 PM
It isn't just transport, the facilities are all part of it. Gov't funding did serve to underwrite early comsats.

"Telstar was the first active, direct relay communications satellite. Belonging to AT&T as part of a multi-national agreement between AT&T, Bell Telephone Laboratories, NASA, the British General Post Office, and the French National PTT (Post Office) to develop satellite communications, it was launched by NASA from Cape Canaveral on July 10, 1962, the first privately sponsored space launch. Telstar was placed in an elliptical orbit (completed once every 2 hours and 37 minutes), rotating at a 45į angle above the equator."

That's a lot of dominoes indeed.

mugaliens
2009-Oct-24, 01:14 AM
That's a lot of dominoes indeed.

Indeed. Yet amazingly, nearly all of the Internet now runs on Earth-bound fiber.

As I use Comcast, I have unlimited LD calling in the US, over my cable modem, which carries both voice and data.

I'm trying to figure out a good use for the six RJ-11 jacks scattered around my apartment...

LED night lights? Has anyone developed ones that plug into your phone jacks?

Oh, here's a start (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2432180/red_telephone_rj11_power_saved_8_led_table_desk_re ading_lamp/). Are LEDs a NASA spinoff? Let's see... electroluminescence was discovered in 1907...

Nope.

Losev created the first LED in the mid-1920s...

Shoot! That even pre-dates the first liquid-fueled rocket, so...

Nope.

publiusr
2009-Oct-26, 07:21 PM
The growing fiber optic movement will eventually eat into some segments of the sat-comcast market, which in the eyes of many weaken the case for space. I think Congress is as pro-space as it is ever likely to get, so we really have to push for greater space spending while we have the Congressional support window open.

In history, it is not enough to say that the reason we are here is because of the asteroid strike. It might be that--had that same rock hit 64 million years ago, after say, mammals had been hunted to extinction---we'd have little left besides lizards. On the other hand, had the Baptistina hit 70 million years ago, allowing a few Myr to recover before Deccan or whatever, we might have dinos still.

Space exploration may also need "support windows." Congress needs to act before the next big disaster or war, or spaceflight might never progress. Who know, the window (late 60s-early 1970s) may have already passed... due to other conflicts.

mugaliens
2009-Oct-27, 07:30 AM
The growing fiber optic movement will eventually eat into some segments of the sat-comcast market...

I smell a set-up, but ok, I'll bite: What's the current load over fiber, and what's the current load over sat-comcast?

ToSeek
2009-Nov-03, 03:34 PM
Off-topic discussion of the role of NASA vs. private industry moved here. (http://www.bautforum.com/space-exploration/95964-role-nasa-vs-private-industry-space.html)

Tuckerfan
2009-Nov-04, 01:02 AM
Shuttle tech may help with breast cancer treatments. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102172043.htm)
Researchers at Rush University Medical Center and Argonne National Laboratory are collaborating on a study to determine if an imaging technique used by NASA to inspect the space shuttle can be used to predict tissue damage often experienced by breast cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. The study is examining the utility of three-dimensional thermal tomography in radiation oncology.

Ara Pacis
2009-Nov-04, 07:45 PM
Shuttle tech may help with breast cancer treatments. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102172043.htm)

Sorry, doesn't count. According to the logic espoused above, that would be the RUMC and ANL doing it, not NASA.

NEOWatcher
2009-Nov-04, 09:03 PM
Sorry, doesn't count. According to the logic espoused above, that would be the RUMC and ANL doing it, not NASA.
Whose logic? And what do you mean by "doing it".

The technology exists, and is NASA.
The application to Cancer is what is being researched.

mugaliens
2009-Nov-04, 09:04 PM
The growing fiber optic movement will eventually eat into some segments of the sat-comcast market...

We may be discussing two different things... I was referring to two-way Internet broadband capability and VoIP phone service, not primarily one-way TV service.

Exceedingly little of the Internet (or telephone service, nearly all of which is digital, these days) flows through satellites. Rather, it's all over fiber.

Ara Pacis
2009-Nov-05, 05:53 PM
Whose logic? And what do you mean by "doing it".

The technology exists, and is NASA.
The application to Cancer is what is being researched.

Read upthread. Also, note irony.

NEOWatcher
2009-Nov-05, 07:30 PM
Read upthread. Also, note irony.
Hard to tell; Subtle, and no history of your opinion within this thread.

Tuckerfan
2009-Nov-06, 04:15 AM
One word: Replicators. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20091105/sc_space/devicelikestartrekreplicatormightflyonspacestation )
Space explorers have yet to get their hands on the replicator of "Star Trek" to create anything they might require. But NASA has developed a technology that could enable lunar colonists to carry out on-site manufacturing on the moon, or allow future astronauts to create critical spare parts during the long trip to Mars.


The method, called electron beam freeform fabrication (EBF3), uses an electron beam to melt metals and build objects layer by layer. Such an approach already promises to cut manufacturing costs for the aerospace industry, and could pioneer development of new materials. It has also thrilled astronauts on the International Space Station by dangling the possibility of designing new tools or objects, researchers said.

"They get up there, and all they have is time and imagination," said Karen Taminger, the materials research engineer heading the project at NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia.


Taminger's project has undergone microgravity tests aboard NASA's "vomit comet" aircraft. Now she hopes to get EBF3 scheduled for launch to the International Space Station, so that space trials can commence.

sirjon
2009-Nov-06, 06:54 AM
NASA did a lot of good early work on comsats (especially technology demonstrators) but most of the work was done by private industry such as Hughes Aerospace (now part of Boeing).
Let's call it "shotgun marriage". Science and Technology needs funding, without military and big corporations, science would not 'grow' at this far. The sad thing is that Science and technology are sometimes used not to benefit mankind, creating new destructive machines for military and a 'technology' to control our mode of life and economy for greedy capitalists to stay in power...But let's face it, this is how the system works!

sirjon
2009-Nov-06, 07:07 AM
Shuttle tech may help with breast cancer treatments. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102172043.htm)
A comment on Micro-Endoscope for Medical Diagnosis - maybe its better to develop 'microscopic robotics' that a patient could swallow and let it do the venturing inside a human body and do the operation. No outside wounds or what-so-ever. One thing, it is maybe a coincidence that NASA developed this technology because of enormous funding...even w/out Hubble Telescope, this technology could be provided for medical application...the only problem is again, funding!

Larry Jacks
2009-Nov-06, 02:59 PM
Here's a linked article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33626447/ns/technology_and_science-space/) about a technology NASA is either developing in house or testing that could well have benefits for a lot of people.

Space explorers have yet to get their hands on the replicator of "Star Trek" to create anything they might require. But NASA has developed a technology that could enable lunar colonists to carry out on-site manufacturing on the moon, or allow future astronauts to create critical spare parts during the long trip to Mars.

The method, called electron beam freeform fabrication (EBF3), uses an electron beam to melt metals and build objects layer by layer. Such an approach already promises to cut manufacturing costs for the aerospace industry, and could pioneer development of new materials. It has also thrilled astronauts on the International Space Station by dangling the possibility of designing new tools or objects, researchers said.


Let's call it "shotgun marriage". Science and Technology needs funding, without military and big corporations, science would not 'grow' at this far. The sad thing is that Science and technology are sometimes used not to benefit mankind, creating new destructive machines for military and a 'technology' to control our mode of life and economy for greedy capitalists to stay in power...But let's face it, this is how the system works!

In a utopian fantasy world, people do stuff freely for the betterment of mankind. In the real world, they do it for self-benefit. Technology is essentially neutral. The "goodness" or "badness" depends on how the technology is used. The same basic technologies required to create life-saving vaccines can also be used to create life-destroying biological weapons. You can't have one without the other.

NEOWatcher
2009-Nov-06, 03:12 PM
Here's a linked article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33626447/ns/technology_and_science-space/) about a technology...
4 posts too late, and covered by Fraser.;)

It's cool, considering it's only been similarly done with plastics and working with metals is such a vast improvement.
But; Star Trek replicator? Come now, it's only shaping material, it's not not even creating a new compound of a material.

Antice
2009-Nov-06, 05:11 PM
4 posts too late, and covered by Fraser.;)

It's cool, considering it's only been similarly done with plastics and working with metals is such a vast improvement.
But; Star Trek replicator? Come now, it's only shaping material, it's not not even creating a new compound of a material.

It's a very important advance for long duration spaceflight tho. the ability to manufacture complex spare parts from what is essentially raw materials without needing an entire factory chain is just what we need if we are to colonize off world.

Ara Pacis
2009-Nov-07, 07:54 AM
Hard to tell; Subtle, and no history of your opinion within this thread.

I was referring to the opinions of others.

bebe7
2009-Nov-11, 01:00 AM
We all know who designed the Saturn V rocket...it wasn't the Wright Brothers.

AlexInOklahoma
2009-Nov-11, 02:33 AM
We all know who designed the Saturn V rocket...it wasn't the Wright Brothers.

Wasn't it Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas and a few other contractors that did so? ;)

Alex

bebe7
2009-Nov-11, 09:22 PM
Wasn't it Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas and a few other contractors that did so? ;)

Alex

I was meaning to say WVB.

ugordan
2009-Nov-11, 09:31 PM
I was meaning to say WVB.
Yes, I'm sure he designed the whole thing by himself and then solved all the various issues that cropped up - like S-II weight reduction campaign, F-1 combustion instability problems, pogo problems, etc.

Yes, he was an important figure, but let's not give him more credit than he deserves.

bebe7
2009-Nov-11, 09:36 PM
Yes, I'm sure he designed the whole thing by himself and then solved all the various issues that cropped up - like S-II weight reduction campaign, F-1 combustion instability problems, pogo problems, etc.

Yes, he was an important figure, but let's not give him more credit than he deserves.

Quite, although WVB's background was channeling tech for the benefit of only a select few.

I believe NASA's overall mission is to improve humanity.

AlexInOklahoma
2009-Nov-11, 10:06 PM
Quite, although WVB's background was channeling tech for the benefit of only a select few.

I believe NASA's overall mission is to improve humanity.

Channeling tech? a select few? HUH? Please, please explain....I am lost again here.

And per NASA's site at http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_nasa_do.html ->"NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research." (bold is mine/A)

Humanity, per se, is a totally different subject ;)

But related to NASA improving our lives, NASA does have this (http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/) site, which helps delineate the 'achievements' of the topic/OP, so to speak. (did not notice that link mentioned before - sorry if it was) Also see here -> http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/nov/HQ_09-260_Spinoff_2009.html

And for Shuttle specifics, here's a pdf I have not yet perused, though it does look interesting -> http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/pdf/Shuttle_spinoffs.pdf

Alex

bebe7
2009-Nov-12, 12:10 AM
Channeling tech? a select few? HUH? Please, please explain....I am lost again here.

And per NASA's site at http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_nasa_do.html ->"NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research." (bold is mine/A)

Humanity, per se, is a totally different subject ;)

But related to NASA improving our lives, NASA does have this (http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/) site, which helps delineate the 'achievements' of the topic/OP, so to speak. (did not notice that link mentioned before - sorry if it was) Also see here -> http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/nov/HQ_09-260_Spinoff_2009.html

And for Shuttle specifics, here's a pdf I have not yet perused, though it does look interesting -> http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/pdf/Shuttle_spinoffs.pdf

Alex

The V-2 BM Alex.

KaiYeves
2009-Nov-12, 09:06 PM
"NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research." (bold is mine/A)

Humanity, per se, is a totally different subject
You don't think those things are good for humanity?

mugaliens
2009-Nov-13, 01:02 AM
We all know who designed the Saturn V rocket...it wasn't the Wright Brothers.

Well, they helped! In a rather very long-drawn-out, distant, and mostly removed sort of way...

Tuckerfan
2009-Nov-13, 04:30 AM
Need a nose? There's a NASA app for that. (http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/11/12/nasa-unveils-chemical-sniffing-device-for-the-iphone/)
Is there anything the iPhone can’t do? Researchers at NASA’s Homeland Security Cell-All program have brought the latest mind-boggling application to Apple’s phone in the form of a stamp-sized chemical sniffing device. The prototype chemical sensor can sniff small amounts of chemicals like methane, ammonia, and chlorine gas.

Antice
2009-Nov-13, 08:54 AM
the Iphone is a palmtop computer first and a phone second. so i am not surprised at it being as flexible as it is. now those gadgets they are developing are kinda cool in a very geeky way. i wanna have one of those sniffers too.

Hernalt
2011-Mar-28, 10:47 AM
Specific question: Does anyone have any lead or suggestion for sussing out the relation between the large cost-plus contracts and the Nasa civilian market innovations as listed in this thread? Do the cost-plus contracts pull their weight, or some other measure, in terms of generating innovation that gets timely to market? Also, if possible, can anyone suss the relation between 'Nasa as jobs program' and relative share of same innovation?