tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28823501.post2119337597270858126..comments2023-06-19T23:26:32.126+10:00Comments on QuantumG's Blog: Please Stop Lying To ChildrenQuantumGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17336493213317053535noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28823501.post-16904458342586665642011-05-10T01:57:27.723+10:002011-05-10T01:57:27.723+10:00I can see both sides of this argument. On one hand...I can see both sides of this argument. On one hand you want to encourage and inspire people to think about all that space can be. BUT, we should not be advocating it on the basis of spinoffs (no matter how heavy the involvement). <br /><br />Space is more than LASIK and Tang, GPS or DirecTV. It is the cutting edge of discovery and learning. It takes a lot of time,talent and patience to make it all work.<br /><br />Personally, I believe that we should encourage people to think, then put the concepts and the tech into the hands of anyone who wants to learn and see what they come up with. We just might be surprised.Joe Latrellhttp://www.photostospace.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28823501.post-71305173863584841312011-05-08T15:00:55.174+10:002011-05-08T15:00:55.174+10:00I agree with Tyson's basic point - which I tak...I agree with Tyson's basic point - which I take to be that even if space exploration advocates are only a small interest group, what they're advocating for still has a massive impact on society - I just think he weakens that argument by choosing such terrible examples of space exploration spinoffs. Surely with his connections he could get some better ones.<br /><br />However, ultimately these are just side benefits. If you base your space program around maximizing the side benefits - and that's what happens when you start professing the side benefits as the purpose of the program - the end result will be degenerate.<br /><br />In any case, adults are not convinced by the side benefit argument.. they rightfully recognize that they're already funding the National Science Foundation and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency primarily for the side benefits. They want their space program to be about space.QuantumGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336493213317053535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28823501.post-16422404035732744872011-05-08T14:18:59.998+10:002011-05-08T14:18:59.998+10:00Necessity is the mother of invention. It is true N...Necessity is the mother of invention. It is true NASA can't get all the direct credit for those inventions, but it is highly likely that if we had not pushed our boundaries in the frontier of space we wouldn't have developed those technologies; technology we now use in every day life. That's what Tyson was saying. Spin-offs or not, NASA (and space exploration in general) provided the necessity for tools that later turned into common household technology.Kickboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16545025976868306962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28823501.post-56667146080093901112011-05-08T11:56:17.655+10:002011-05-08T11:56:17.655+10:00Sigh, here we go. The technology used by LASIK to...Sigh, here we go. The technology used by LASIK today was indeed derived from shuttle docking technology, but that technology wasn't developed by "NASA engineers". <br /><br />It was developed by Autonomous Technologies' engineers under an SBIR with Johnson Space Center and the Department of Defense's Ballistic Missile Defense Office... in the 1980s. That is, NASA and the DoD *wrote them a check* and they developed technology for them. <br /><br />A decade later they developed a product called LADARVision. Autonomous Technologies merged with Summit Technology to form Summit Autonomous which was later acquired by Alcon who finally got FDA approval for the technique.<br /><br />It's like saying that mansion on the hill over there is my spinoff because I once hired the guy who built it to clean my gutters, and if NASA has a claim to LASIK then so does the ballistic missile defense office.<br /><br />As for power drills and GPS, even NASA disagrees. These are listed in the spinoff FAQ as "not invented here". We don't have NASA, or "space exploration" to thank for these technologies.. we *do* have some smart and creative engineers to thank, but we don't even know their names.. I think that's pretty sad, don't you? Giving the credit to someone else is even worse.<br /><br />I don't mean to say that there are *no* NASA spinoffs.. there are, but they're mostly things your average guy on the street can't relate to - like the technique of xray or ultrasonic inspection of welding. <br /><br />What I'm saying in the first half of this post is that speakers are not doing NASA a service when they make dubious claims about spinoffs.<br /><br />What I'm saying in the second half of this post is more general.. perhaps I should just drop the first half so more people will read it.QuantumGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336493213317053535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28823501.post-45112533892223666992011-05-08T02:43:24.131+10:002011-05-08T02:43:24.131+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28823501.post-962809832848771682011-05-07T23:46:43.393+10:002011-05-07T23:46:43.393+10:00Thanks for your interest in my speeches. A few co...Thanks for your interest in my speeches. A few comments:<br /><br />1) Most people (nearly all) who have lasik surgery today do so because it's cheap, accurate, and safe. All three of these factors were enabled by contributions from the shuttle-ISS docking innovations developed by NASA engineers.<br /><br />2) Most people (nearly all) who use chordless power tools with high torque do so because this technology (including related batteries) was perfected by NASA for shuttle-era satellite repair missions. Previously, you could buy a motorized screw driver, but they were useless for any real construction job because they were under-powered, under-torqued and their batteries could not sustain the work-load.<br /><br />3) At no time -- in print or speech -- do I decouple advances in space exploration and technology from the military or geo-political finding drivers that birthed it and continue to sustain it. What matters here is that GPS is not NASA, and, of course, I make no such claim.<br /><br />So if my speech is one of your best examples of an informed person lying to children then I think the world is in pretty good shape. (FYI: my primary audience is adults. For that lecture, about a half-dozen children attended out of 1,700 people.)<br /><br />p.s. I have a book coming out in Jan 2012 "Space Chronicles" entirely on our past present and future in space, where all these arguments are given in full detail.<br /><br />Again, thanks for your interest.<br />-NDTyson, New York City.Neil deGrasse Tysonhttp://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/noreply@blogger.com