You always hear the claims that we’ve gotten all of this stuff, technology and other things (Velcro? I think?), as a side benefit of the space program and/or NASA. (I don’t know if those two are mutually exclusive or not so I’m saying both. Pardon my ignorance if it’s redundant to do so.)
What is the truth of the matter? What stuff do we have as a direct result of going to space? And how is it related? What purpose were these various things first invented for?
You might want to look here: http://www.techbriefs.com/
This publication is dedicated to promoting NASA developments.
ETA: Oh, yeah - don’t forget Tang!
Well, our satellite-based comforts are all located in space. GPS and TV are two biggies which use satellites, though I’m sure there are many, many more.
Most supposed technological spin-offs form the space program are actually technologies that were already extant and were adopted by NASA. Velcro, for instance, already existed. So did remote monitoring medical devices, Mylar, and any number of other innovations. Even the propulsion and computing technology that was used in the Apollo program was largely developed under or as a result of military space programs. The first space launch systems were repurposed or modified IRBMs and ICBMs (Redstone, Atlas, Gemini) and even the Saturn I used a substantial amount of Jupiter IRBM hardware (tankage and bulkheads). The Apollo Guidance Computer, while a unique design, leveraged heavily upon the Autonetics D-37 Minuteman II guidance computer for the development of integrated circuits. The SRBs for the Space Transportation System (Shuttle) are directly derived from the Air Force studies for a 156 inch solid propellant motor for a very large ICBM.
To be fair, NASA has conducted a lot of research into aerodynamics and propulsion that do not have military applications. It continued manned space efforts after it became clear to the Air Force that there were no military applications that demanded a human presence. It has developed novel communications technology for deep space tracking and communication. It has also performed a number of space-based Earth observation that improves our understanding of climate and ocean conditions, and allows much more accurate surveillance of developing weather. But gadgets that exist for the consumer stemming exclusively or primarily from the space program? Not much, and in fact, the flow of technology has actually moved the other way, as NASA has attempted to imrpove capability by adopting commercially developed technology such as laptop computers, high temperature lubricants, and cellular communications.
Stranger
Holodecks?
The Global Positioning System was developed by the United States Department of Defense for military use (primarily to give SLBM launch platforms a more accurate measurement of initial position to improve target accuracy) and was only later made available to the general public in fully undithered form (deactivation of Selective Availability), largely due to the KAL 007 incident and later technology that allowed differential GPS to nearly the same accuracy as non-SA signals (provided the user could see four or more satellites).
Satcom–television, radio, and telephony via satellite–has been the endeavor of commercial enterprise, and except for the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) and the Deep Space Network (DSN) which are maintained by NASA for its own use and that of paying military and commercial interests, although the capabilities of TDRSS have largely been exceeded by Orbcomm and Inmarsat.
Stranger
The integrated circuit(miniaturized electronics) was developed without any NASA or military support.
Actual space use of integrated circuits did not begin until the Apollo Program, and by that time the planar process (critical to ICs) had been fully developed by Fairchild Corporation, Texas Instruments, and Sprague Electric Co.
NASA went into many blind alleys, and much of what was developed for space, had no civilian application.
Wiki has a nice list, as well as noting RAH’s testimony before the Congressional Joint Committee on Aging. Jerry Pournelle has also listed quite a few over the years, along with anecdotes about NASA’s reaction to their (the researchers) request for human cadavers. (They were developing suit helmets. If you survive a motorcycle crash because of your helmet, thank NASA.)
As someone who has been involved in the computer field for 40 years, I’ve felt that the claim that NASA is the driving force behind technological innovation is exaggerated. I think consumer buying is a greater influence. However, that’s only IMHO.
The first thing that came to my mind was peltier devices. These are also known as thermoelectric coolers, but they can be used for a lot more than cooling. Run electricity through one and one side gets hot while the other side gets cold. Reversing the polarity rarely works outside of Star Trek, but if you reverse the polarity of a peltier the hot side gets cold and the cold side gets hot. They work in reverse as well. If you apply heat to one side and cold to the other, they generate electricity. They aren’t terribly efficient, but they are small and very flexible.
They were first used in satellites, and for many years were too expensive to be used in much else. Now that they’ve gotten cheap, you see them in things like portable coolers (like your typical “camping” style cooler that plugs into a car cigarette lighter), and they are also popular as computer CPU coolers for those people (like overclockers) who need a bit more cooling power than your typical el-cheapo fan and heatsink.
The Peltier effect is also used to make temperature-controlled sample holders for analytical instruments (Agilent 89090A, I’m lookin’ at you!)
Sorry; I don’t quite get you. How are satellites not the product of space programs? You sound like you’re contradicting me (maybe intranets tones) but I don’t see where.
The aqueduct?
In the States anyways, “the space program” usually means the space program of NASA and its immediate predecessors, rather then just any organization or company that launches things into space.
Indeed, there does seem to be a lot of misconception about what NASA is and does. A lot of things NASA does not do are attributed to it, and a lot of things it does do are ignored.
A reminder - it is the National Aeronautics an Space Administration. One thing people forget is the Aeronautics part. NASA is responsible for a massive amount of fundamental work that directly contributes to advancing the state of the art of ordinary planes that fly in the air.
After the Challenger accident NASA was removed from the commercial launch business. It does not launch any commercial or military satellites. And as has been mentioned above, the vast majority of launch vehicles were not designed by NASA, and were designed and built initially for the purpose of delivering nuclear weapons across the planet. Mercury and Gemini missions were launched on such ICBM vehicles, not on NASA designed vehicles. Some parts of the Saturn vehicles were designed by Von Braun’s team, which was transferred from the US Army to NASA for the express purpose of supporting the Apollo missions. Since the end of Apollo the only launch vehicle NASA has designed has been the shuttle, and arguably the stillborn Aries 1. All the other launches have been purchased by NASA from commercial suppliers that build vehicles for the military and commercial launches. And the vast majority of the design and engineering of the Saturn and Shuttle systems were done in house by the contractors. One would argue that the creation additional of expertise in the contractors from these efforts has been very useful, if not directly quantifiable.
NASA has a critical role is supporting and nurturing these industries. Sometimes there may be altogether a bit much political pork involved in this support, but that is the nature of politics and the manner in which parish pump funding works in the USA. However the role is clear.
The nature of space programs is such that there is both highly specialised engineering involved - so specialised that it is hard to see a direct consumer level spin off. But also an inherent risk averseness and thus conservatism in engineering. Spending 10 million dollars on R&D to maybe find a cheaper technique to replace a 1 million dollar process or design, with one that costs a tenth as much, may be seen as a waste of time and money. Especially if it brings new risks, both technical or in time. OTOH new companies like Space-X are perhaps showing that it is now overdue to revisit this. And NASA’s role is to nurture companies like Space-X. It is a bit like the manner in which the postal service was used to nurture the nascent airline industry.
The usual spinoffs cited (non-stick maps, Tang) are both silly and not true anyway. Spinoffs that matter are really contributions to very high technology areas that we see as beneficiaries of, not direct consumers of. Pushing launch vehicle designs beyond the size needed for ICBM systems probably enabled the introduction of the very large payloads in orbit we see now earlier than if it had been left to commercial interests alone. OTOH you can go too far. The Europeans went too far with Ariane 5 which is now considered too big, and is only commercially viable because it can loft two customers in one go. Its successor will actually be a smaller vehicle.
The other one to be clear of is the division of responsibility between NASA and JPL. JPL has been the prime contractor responsible for a huge number (perhaps more like the vast majority) of probes and landers in interplanetary exploration. Again, usually with NASA as the customer. There can be entire missions that NASA commissions, but does no actual engineering or bending of metal on. Atlas/Centaur pretty much replaced the role of the Shuttle in planetary probes. Witness last night’s launch of Curiosity.
“Hall Effect” magnetic field sensors. I bought a few, for a few bucks each, when they were first developed. I wanted to build a sensor for my bike wheel, to be fed to the bike computer I was designing. I couldn’t afford the processor overhead to do it. If I still actually had a use for them, I could probably buy them for 20 cents, or less, now. I still have the original 3.
What makes you think that NASA invented Hall Effect sensors?
Stranger
Again, I used to get the “NASA Technical Briefs”-99% of the patents they filed were worthless.
Its amazing how much money the government blows, filing useless patents.
OK. Not how I use the phrase, but hey ho.
You know, we really need to blow up a large asteroid headed towards earth and then maybe people will shut up about the “what do get from space technology… blah blah blah.”