6 ms·

NASA has funded a bunch of early stage technologies

101 points by tectonic 3y ago

nso 3y ago
I initially misread the title as "NASA has FOUND...", and my mind went spiraling for a little bit.
ortusdux 3y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftKjkZHirc
- antoniuschan99 3y ago
  There's also this one I been watching! https://www.youtube.com/@rptechlab/videos 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/ https://astra.com/space-products/astra-spacecraft-engine/
dvh 3y ago
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?!
- NotACop182 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    It may be easier on Titan, the gravitational constant is smaller, so less downhole bore pressure.
    - idlewords 3y ago
      Or you can just land on one of the open lakes.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  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_extraterrestrial_bodies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landings_on_extraterre...
- basicallybones 3y ago
  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 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.)
- idlewords 3y ago
  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.
throw0101c 3y ago
NASA has developed all sorts of stuff over the decades: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State * https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/17987621 https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/17987621 This includes early bootstrapping of the Silicon Valley ecosystem: * https://steveblank.com/secret-history/ https://steveblank.com/secret-history/
- culi 3y ago
  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 https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-entrepreneurial-state
  - nawgz 3y ago
    > 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.
    - culi 3y ago
cushychicken 3y ago
> 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/ 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 3y ago
  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.
  - cushychicken 3y ago
    Intel specifically, I couldn't say. But the government was a huge early customer of SV chip companies - particularly those that had to do with optics. The USA proudly (but quietly) had the best spy satellites in the world for decades, and the semiconductor industry was a big factor in why they did. Maybe still do - hard to know exactly without a hell of a lot of security clearances. Highly recommend Steve Blanks "Secret History of Silicon Valley" for more on this: https://steveblank.com/secret-history/?amp https://steveblank.com/secret-history/?amp
abrahms 3y ago
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..

101 points by tectonic 3y ago

nso 3y ago

I initially misread the title as "NASA has FOUND...", and my mind went spiraling for a little bit.

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftKjkZHirc

antoniuschan99 3y ago
There's also this one I been watching! https://www.youtube.com/@rptechlab/videos 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/ https://astra.com/space-products/astra-spacecraft-engine/

dvh 3y ago

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?!

NotACop182 3y ago
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 3y ago
  It may be easier on Titan, the gravitational constant is smaller, so less downhole bore pressure.
  - idlewords 3y ago
    Or you can just land on one of the open lakes.
moffkalast 3y ago
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_extraterrestrial_bodies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landings_on_extraterre...
basicallybones 3y ago
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 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.)
idlewords 3y ago
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.

throw0101c 3y ago

NASA has developed all sorts of stuff over the decades: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State * https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/17987621 https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/17987621 This includes early bootstrapping of the Silicon Valley ecosystem: * https://steveblank.com/secret-history/ https://steveblank.com/secret-history/

culi 3y ago
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 https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-entrepreneurial-state
- nawgz 3y ago
  > 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.
  - culi 3y ago

cushychicken 3y ago

> 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/ 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 3y ago
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.
- cushychicken 3y ago
  Intel specifically, I couldn't say. But the government was a huge early customer of SV chip companies - particularly those that had to do with optics. The USA proudly (but quietly) had the best spy satellites in the world for decades, and the semiconductor industry was a big factor in why they did. Maybe still do - hard to know exactly without a hell of a lot of security clearances. Highly recommend Steve Blanks "Secret History of Silicon Valley" for more on this: https://steveblank.com/secret-history/?amp https://steveblank.com/secret-history/?amp

abrahms 3y ago

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..