I think the author may be equivocating on innovation. Anyone would have to agree that the kinds of innovations that NASA was/is responsible for (whether directl

I think the author may be equivocating on innovation. Anyone would have to agree that the kinds of innovations that NASA was/is responsible for (whether directly or through funding subcontractors) were of a fundamentally different kind and scale than current .com/Web 2.0 innovations. Twitter isn't an X-15; Google is great, but it's no Moon landing. The kinds of innovations we seem to think we are seeing today are clever tricks compared to the kind of R&D that went into NASA's frankly glorious history of innovation. The resources and incredible intellectual capital that had to be (and still has to be) invested in a new launch vehicle, satellite, or manned craft is just orders of magnitude higher than what is required for innovation of the internet-startup kind. None of this should be seen to denigrate the innovations that are minting millionaires and billionaires today. Indeed, the truly wondrous thing is that a mere clever trick can make you for life. Unless I'm missing something (and I'm not, at least here), this is the very reason that ycombinator and Hacker News exist at all; You can fund significant innovation that may earn $10^6-$10^9 for $10^4. For a contemporary example of the difference between these two kinds of innovation, just look at SpaceX. Elon Musk made his money the clever trick way (low initial capital + clever trick + hard work + wonder of the internet) and is now engaged in the "old school" way of making money with innovation (high capital + lots of Ph.Ds + hard work of 100s to 1000s of people + rigorous design, construction, and testing).