Posted on 01/02/2007 8:56:20 AM PST by Rodney King
What Won't Nasa Invent Next?
By Tim Swanson
Posted on 1/2/2007 [Subscribe at email services, tell others, or Digg this story.]
Could you imagine if any press outlet reported on the successful landing of each domestic or international flight? The resulting product would most likely resemble the smorgasbord of numbers and symbols typified by stock quotes and would take up an entire section of the daily newspaper.
Yet NASA and the entire socialized space establishment are given a free pass whenever they succeed. Take for instance STS 116, the most recent shuttle mission into low-earth orbit.[1] Space shuttle Discovery landed Friday night in Florida … without blowing up and every major media outlet reported on it.
A Numbers Game
During its development, shuttle management testified before various committees as to the predicted success rates of this complex machinery. The failure number continually recited was 1 in 100,000.[2]
In its 20+ year lifespan, the shuttle program has a failure rate of around 1 in 50 launches. Yet with this abysmally low success rate, its ever-increasing budget requests are approved annually.[3]
Could you imagine the economic impact on the domestic airline industry if there was a 1-in-50 chance of your plane crashing? In all reality, it would not exist beyond the research and hobbyist industries.
Flying the Friendly Skies
However, as it stands today, traveling on planes is still statistically considered the safest form of transportation.[4] The reason perhaps most overlooked for this success is the business model with which these airlines (usually) must operate: they have to remain profitable.[5]
They must satisfy consumer demands; otherwise, they go bankrupt.
In contrast, the space shuttle could conceivably fail every time. Yet because it is politically controlled and taxpayer funded, it can continue receiving funds indefinitely. Bankruptcy is out of the question.
So if you cringe at the murderous idea of nationalizing the airline industry or any mode of transportation, imagine what a low mortality rate privatized roads could provide in the marketplace if public roads (road socialism) were abolished.
Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due
In addition to the free ride the agency gets from reporters, NASA has also been incorrectly credited with inventing numerous widgets, ranging from personal computers to freeze-dried ice cream:
Tang
Originally developed by General Foods Corporation in 1957, it initially suffered poor sales. NASA used it in their Gemini missions starting in 1965 (astronaut John Glenn apparently liked its taste); it was then forever incorrectly cited as their own creation.[6] Velcro
Originally invented in 1948 by Georges de Mestral, a Swiss engineer and mountaineer who noticed burrs stuck to his wool pants while he hiked. He worked with a French weaver to design the nylon hooks. Velcro predated NASA's use by more than a decade. NASA popularized its use; astronauts could move about freely and attach tools to their spacesuits.[7] Microwave Oven
Originally invented by Percy Spencer, an engineer at Raytheon in 1945, it initially did not sell well and failed to penetrate mainstream markets until the late 1960s. Spencer was running some experiments with radar equipment and accidentally melted a chocolate bar. Popcorn was the next logical guinea pig.[8] Teflon
Discovered by Roy Plunkett of DuPont in 1938. Reportedly, he was trying to make a new CFC refrigerant. Teflon cooking pans were common in households prior to Yuri Gagarin's flight, let alone the Apollo missions.[9] Nylon
This is yet another polymer developed in-house at DuPont during the 1930s. Its commercial debut was in an everyday bathroom item: as the material within a bristled toothbrush. The atmospheric pressure suits NASA astronauts use in space have a layer of nylon-based compound in them.[10] Semiconductors, microprocessors, and integrated circuits
The integrated circuit was originally developed by Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments in February of 1959. Neither the Mercury nor Apollo orbiters used these. Furthermore, other firms such as Intel played a key role in the research and development of the microprocessor, none of which involved NASA. The Internet
Originally called ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), this cross-country, packet-switching computer network was developed in part by the US Department of Defense, not NASA. And while some urban legends claim the original purpose for ARPANET was to allow institutions to communicate with one another in the event of disastrous war, this is a myth. Charles Herzfeld, who was director of ARPA at the time, has noted that it was designed to effectively and efficiently manage and utilize relatively scarce computing resources across the country.[11]
Back on Terra Firma
In the end, regardless of what the state did or did not fund or invent, the take-away principle is the unseen.[12] While everyone with a TV has been able to see the hordes of chemical rockets dramatically blast into the cosmos over the past decades, they were similarly unable to see the productive opportunities foregone and ignored via the reallocation of scarce resources.[13]
The perceived benefits of a vain, nationalized space program include, among others, the fallacious need to fight the mythical shortage of scientists and engineers. Whereas in reality, it has stymied private tourism, exploration, and research for nearly half a century.[14]
It is a monumental drain of capital resources to simply satisfy a nationalist ego; and its motto should be changed to reflect the only groups that benefit from its existence, politicians and contractors: For Benefit of Few.
Tim Swanson is a graduate student at Texas A&M University. Send him mail. Comment on the blog.
Notes
[1] See mission details and history here. All about LEO here.
[2] These are the same people that sold the public on a $10/pound payload when the real costs are much closer to $10,000/pound. In addition, during the Challenger investigation, Richard Feynman corrected a manager who tried to use the 1-in-100,000 argument, noting that it was actually 1-in-50. In fact, NASA's own engineers developing this vehicle estimated that the risk was very high, closer to 1-in-100.
[3] Despite the 2003 Columbia explosion, the 2004 budget was increased by $469 million to $15.378 billion. The 2005 budget: approved for $16.2 billion. 2006 budget: approved for $16.456 billion. See also Time magazine's piece "Space Pork" as well as that from Reason.
[4] See the entry on Aviation accidents and incidents
[5] Despite various superficial endeavors to deregulate and privatize portions of the industry, the FAA and other political entities continue to have a heavy hand in artificially controlling this market. Furthermore, the federal bailout of the airline industry after the events of 9/11 undermined the natural progression of the market place for failure. This raises the question: why let any enterprise fail, why not bail everyone out?
[6] See more of its history here. See also The Straight Dope and Kukucachoo.
[7] The word Velcro originated by combining the two French words, "velours" (meaning 'velvet') and "crochet" (meaning 'hook'). More of its history here. See also "NASA Plan Needs a Little Spin" from Boston University.
[8] More on the microwave oven.
[9] More on Teflon and Yuri Gagarin.
[10] More on Nylon and space suits.
[11] Economist Peter Klein has also discussed the myth surrounding the development of the Internet. See also, "Who Owns the Internet?"
[12] In fact, physicist Robert Goddard (namesake of NASA's Goddard Flight Center) pioneered the American rocketry industry by inventing the first liquid-fueled rocket in 1926 — more than three decades before the creation of NASA itself.
[13] In terms of economics, trying to gauge the negative redistribution effects on productive resources to this human space flight program involves the real-world analysis of Broken Windows and opportunity costs. For more economic discussion see: 1 2 3
[14] One example out of many, see Andrew Beal's (of Beal Bank) full page ad in Space News. See also "A Free Market In Space" by Robert Murphy and "How much should companies spend on research and development?"
You can receive the Mises Daily Article in your inbox. Go here to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Mises Shop
Favorites
* Mises Blog * Email Lists * Live Chat * FAQ * Membership * Mises Store * Marketwatch * LewRockwell.com * Day in History
STUDENTS
* Quiz * House Library * Working Papers * Study Guide * Austrian Forum * Mises Classroom * Fellowships * Awards
LITERATURE
* Human Action * Man, Economy, and State, * Mises * Rothbard * All authors * All Subjects
JOURNALS
* QJAE * JLS * Mises Review * Free Market * AEN * Left & Right * Lib. Forum * RAE
MORE AIDS
* RSS Feeds XML * Films on Liberty * Faculty and Staff * Austrian Network * Contact
Ludwig von Mises: "Modern war is merciless, it does not spare pregnant women or infants; it is indiscriminate killing and destroying. It does not respect the rights of neutrals. Millions are killed, enslaved, or expelled from the dwelling places in which their ancestors lived for centuries. Nobody can foretell what will happen in the next chapter of this endless struggle. This has little to do with the atomic bomb. The root of the evil is not the construction of new, more dreadful weapons. It is the spirit of conquest. It is probable that scientists will discover some methods of defense against the atomic bomb. But this will not alter things, it will merely prolong for a short time the process of the complete destruction of civilization." - Human Action
NA$A?........
"What Won't Nasa Invent Next?"
A profit?
Yes, I'm afraid it's largely true. NASA did a pretty good job in the early years, but it's been quite a long time since they did anything very useful, aside from pushing back the frontiers of astronomy with the space telescope and exploration of the planets. And the best of that now seems to be past, too.
On the other hand, we do still hold the high ground from a military point of view, and we had better continue to do so. The Russians and Chinese understand the importance of space superiority, and are still determined to challenge us.
There is clearly a commercial use and therefore an economic drive to develop satellites. But it's not clear whether there will be that much of a drive to get out and claim the planets or develop tourism in space, unless things get cheaper. I'm not sure that you can say that NASA is blocking progress in these areas simply by existing, because they are doing so badly that they really don't offer any competition to anyone who can figure out a way of going past them.
Flying machines that go in to space. What's next, a musical about the common house cat?
NASA is given its task and its funding by Congress, and Congress is where commentary should be directed. The article of this thread should be directed to the circular file.
Agreed. Just another waste of pixels from mises.org.
I don't think that you have thought what who wrote through: Since all federal agencies are given funding and task by Congress, does that mean no Federal agency should every be criticized for its usefulness or performance? If I spent the time going through your posts, would I find that you have never criticized an agencies actions, usefullness, or performance? Would you instead always just blame congress?
I proposed that the ISS be converted into a Space University. Not like the one in Stassburg but like the one in Clarke's Island in the Sky.
Imagine if you announced that students could compete for a scholarship to study in Space. Think our math and science score might soar? The Space Shuttle would be modifided, painted Yellow and would become the Space University School Bus!!
My hidden agenda is to wrest control of space from NASA and pass it on to the business community where entrepreneurial spirit, which has been and will always be , UPLIFTING, (obvious pun intended).
NASA used to be superb at nurturing new technologies (such as the means for using photominiaturization to create computer chips) by promising to buy whatever the company could produce for its own research and use.
Since the tax incentive for pure R&D disappeared in the Carter Admin, companies rarely go to NASA and say "I have a widget, and I don't know what to do with it." If it doesn't answer an immediate need, companies won't mess with it, and many good ideas get left on the drawing board.
Rewarding failure will bring more failure. See Government Schools
.
And NASA's manned flights are nothing but a method to test obsolete shuttles.
.
Your time would be better spent doing almost anything else. But even so, not all my written product is represented in the FR database content. Come to think of it, some has ended up in NASA archives.
Probably there is more purpose to NASA's manned flight programs than merely testing old hardware.
OK, but my question is: Is NASA the only federal agency that is off limits to criticism since its budgest and direction come from congress, or are all Federal agencies off limits to criticism for the same reason?
I don't like NASA. They offered me a job once and I found something else to do. They are possibly slightly more interesting as a gov't agency than, say, the Bureau of Land Management. It would be horribly misleading to think that NASA is in the business of space development. If space development is the goal repeal the Treaty. But NASA's job is to maintain preeminence in space. That's it, and it's not much considering the competition so far.
"Probably there is more purpose to NASA's manned flight programs than merely testing old hardware."
To fund the russians space tourism industry, and to create a platform for the commercial marketing arm of the russian space agency (ala the "golf ball" ad of a month ago).
NASA has no pride whatsoever. The Russians completely had their way with the incompetent bureaucrats of NASA with regards to the International Space Station, and continue to do so to this day.
We need to have a space capability, but sadly, NASA isn't about excellence in spaceflight, it's about bureaucracy and sending the first all-lesbian crew into space or comparable meaningless political gestures du jour.
I might have mentioned this recommendation before:
Repeal the Treaty.
.
Are you kidding? Look at the Mars rovers. A *huge* success, and they are sending far more advanced ones soon. NASA does a ton of great work. Project Constellation coming up will also be amazing.
Is it too late to apply as their official in-flight photographer :c) ?
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.