The Goddard and the Wright brothers were working on a military contracts. Edison worked on developing applications for existing science, and Da Vinci was employed by his Prince. Big raw reseach requires massive public investment, without Isabella,Colombus would never have crossed the ocean.
I suggest that you do a little research before you pop off and make a fool of yourself.
Robert Goddard did his original rocket research on a private grant. Orville and Wilbur Wright built and flew their Wright flyer on their profits from their bicycle manufacturing business.
Of course when they seceded in flying their vehicles, then they cashed in with some modest government contracts, in addition to much larger private deals.
Rarely does government lead innovation. Usually they find struggling entrepreneurs and turn them into government contractors, incapable of putting together a PowerPoint slide show for less than $1M. /sarcasm
I don't think the Wright brothers got any money from the military until long after they got their flyer to work. Their was, however, another inventor who did get a research contract. He spent a lot of money but failed miserably. The success of the Wrights was such an embarrassment to the government that the Smithsonian Museum refused to give them credit for the first flight.
Public research requires a massive waste of taxpayer funds. Queen Isabella didn't have to deal with a greedy bureaucracy, political correctness, pork-barrel politicians and environmental correctness. She just did it.
""The private market has never invested in raw research, or in massive new projects."
First off, the Wrights and Goddard's research was not based on any military contract or public spending. Their work was on their own dime or private funding. The U.S. military contracts and public bucks came AFTER their inventions were developed. I would love to see support for the assertion that their work was developed entirely with the funding of the public, since as you say, the private market has never invested in raw research.
Second off, either Da Vinci was employed by his prince or not, but that certainly doesn't make the Mona Lisa a public works project. His scientific work was akin to any other free agent's, i.e., his own, and his erstwhile employment was certainly not as a scientist but as a tutor and artist. There is to my knowledge no such thing as a "public tutor" or "public artist" for rich kids and wealthy men even now, and then it was even less likely, especially when there was no such thing as a public school or even doing things for "the public welfare" at the time. He was a private person, working for a private person, and you're really stretching to make his employer 'government,' especially when you talk of Renaissance Italy. I would love to see support for the assertion that his inventions were developed entirely with the funding of the public, since as you say, the private market has never invested in raw research.
Edison I'm sure we're going to argue about, but while you may be dismissive of Edison's genius, he was certainly smart enough to put 'existing science' to practical use where none had before. And movies, the light bulb, and record players are credited to him regardless of your denigration of his ability as less than invention. You may deny his work was invention, but it was certainly privately funded. I would love to see support for the assertion that his work was developed entirely with the funding of the public, since as you say, the private market has never invested in raw research.
And let's see you dismiss the private research of Nikolai Tesla as publicly funded or somehow 'applied science.' I would love to see support for the assertion that Nikolai Tesla's work was developed entirely with the funding of the public, since as you say, the private market has never invested in raw research.