BF2S Forums Where's the motivation? [Debt Ceiling]

FEOS wrote:

So let's see if I've got this: Dilbert demands Kmar provide hard data showing a positive ROI for NASA. Kmar provides it--in spades. Dilbert counters with a hypothetical argument about those same NASA-derived technologies possibly being created without NASA's help. He uses as examples the initial creation of Teflon and integrated circuits, ignoring any advances in those same technologies or applications thereof by NASA (likely the reference to them previously) as his sole source for this hypothetical argument to counter Kmar's avalanche of data supporting his own position.

Does that about summarize it thus far?

Looks like someone needs to go back under his bridge, tbh.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Not sure really, its impossible to say if those technologies would have been developed without NASA being involved.

Very often technology follows complex pathways, often parallel, no one person or organisation can really claim the full credit.

As noted previously, many of the claimed spinoffs on Kmar's list are so broad as to be meaningless.
Many of the inventions attributed to NASA in fact have nothing to do with them, the same goes for Bell Labs.
Whether NASA really gives value for money I very much doubt.

The Digital Cardiac Imaging (DCI) System answers this demand by incorporating image processing technology first developed for NASA's Earth remote sensing satellites. Designed by Philips Medical Systems International, The Netherlands, and marketed in the U.S. by Philips Medical Systems North America Company, Shelton, Connecticut, the DCI offers much sharper real-time images. It is the most widely used digital cardiac imaging system, according to the manufacturer, with more than 300 units in operation worldwide, including over 100 in the U.S.

The Philips system gives the cardiologist direct control of "roadmapping," in which freeze-frame images of a blood vessel section aid in guiding the catheter. Using a cordless control unit such as a remote TV channel selector, the cardiologist can manipulate images to make immediate assessments, compare live x-ray and road map images by placing them side-by-.side on monitor .screens, or compare pre- and post-procedure conditions. The additional information allows the doctor to get into and out of the heart more quickly, minimizing trauma.

The image processing technology employed by the DCI originated some 15 years ago at International Imaging Systems (I2S), Milpitas, California. 12S pioneered optical, analog, and digital image processing equipment for NASA's Earth resources survey spacecraft, exemplified by the Landsat satellite family. In the early 1980s, 12S responded to emerging interest within the medical industry for such applications as ultrasound, computer-aided tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) body scanners. I2S supplied medical equipment firms with image processing hardware and software identical to that used by NASA. Subsequently, I2S broadened its market and developed application-specific products for its industrial clients, including a high-performance processor for Philips Medical's DCI system.

Miniaturized space technology detects a broad range of spontaneous heart arrhythmias

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) strikes nearly half a million Americans each year. Eighty percent die before medical help arrives and those who survive face a two-year recurrence rate that may be a as high as 55 percent. For many potential victims, however, the Automatic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator, or AICD* (shown at right) offers new hope: it can reduce the two-year SCD mortality rate to less than three percent.

The AICD incorporates spacebased miniaturized electronics to detect a broad range of spontaneous heart arrhythmias, including those caused by ventricular fibrillation, during which the heart loses its ability to pump blood, causing death or brain damage in minutes.

The AICD pulse generator was developed in the early 197Os by Intec Systems Inc. and Medrad Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, in conjunction with researchers at Sinai Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland. NASA funded development of an AICD recording system and an independent design review of the system, both conducted by the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University, Howard County, Maryland. The first model was successfully implanted in a dog in 1976 and, after 12 years and more than $4 million in research, the device was implanted in a 57-year-old woman at Johns Hopkins Hospital on February 4, 198O. Clinical studies ensued and a grant from NASA enabled Intec Systems and the Applied Physics Laboratory to pursue development of more advanced models.

The AICD is manufactured by Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota, a subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company, which purchased Intec Systems in 1985. CPI was the first company to receive FDA approval for an implantable defibrillator and continues to work to make this lifesaving technology available to a greater number of patients.

Adopting infrared sensor technology developed for space missions,the Diatek Corporation of San Diego, Calif., produced an aural thermometer that gauges body temperature in two seconds or less. Accurate to within two-tenths of a degree, the Model 7OOO thermometer measures heat emitted from the patient's tympanic membrane, or eardrum.

Kmar wrote:

... mined for hundreds of trillions of dollars in return. "In fact, all the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium and ruthenium that we now mine from the Earth's crust, and that are essential for our economic and technological development, came originally from the rain of asteroids that hit the Earth after the crust cooled.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

That wasn't the question.

The question was whether money 'invested' in NASA could be better invested elsewhere, all we have is the figures for NASA, no comparisons.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So let's see if I've got this: Dilbert demands Kmar provide hard data showing a positive ROI for NASA. Kmar provides it--in spades. Dilbert counters with a hypothetical argument about those same NASA-derived technologies possibly being created without NASA's help. He uses as examples the initial creation of Teflon and integrated circuits, ignoring any advances in those same technologies or applications thereof by NASA (likely the reference to them previously) as his sole source for this hypothetical argument to counter Kmar's avalanche of data supporting his own position.

Does that about summarize it thus far?

Looks like someone needs to go back under his bridge, tbh.

Not really, I asked for proof that it made more sense to give money to NASA than giving to anyone else, say the military who develop a lot of technology, universities, tech companies and so on.

A comparative study, and one more recent than 1976.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The net financial benefits are unknown and unquantifiable.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

If the Republicans don't budge, and the Democrats show a will to cooperate, you'd think this could put the Republicans in a bad light..?

I suspect they misunderestimate the intelligence of the average voter.

Then again, maybe not.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EzpXp9BJPrQ/S … artier.jpg

Dilbert_X wrote:

Fine, more recent than 1976+13= 1989. Thats 22 years ago.

So how much return is the US taxpayer getting from a Dutch company using NASA technology?

we asked respondents what percentage of the national budget is allocated to NASA and to the Department of Defense, the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Health and Human Services, among other agencies. NASA’s allocation, on average, was estimated to be approximately 24% of the national budget (the NASA allocation in 2007 was approximately 0.58% of the budget.) The next highest over-estimate was for the Department of Defense, which received approximately 21% of the budget in 2007 and was estimated on average to receive approximately 33%.

In other words, respondents believed NASA’s budget approaches that of the Department of Defense, which receives almost 38 times more money (see “Putting NASA’s budget in perspective”, The Space Review, July 2, 2007). Once people were informed of the actual allocations, they were almost uniformly surprised.

Jaekus wrote:

Again, I know it's sounds ridiculously oversimplified, but surely the solution is to simultaneously cut spending AND raise taxes? And be intelligent about it too.