Why is NASA researching thought reading?

Is NASA a military organization? If not, then why are military applications relevant.

Just because a product is developed for civilian use does not preclude military applications.

I'm pissed that NASA is spending time and money on projects that are not reflective of its reason of existence AND that they fail at it.

It seems to me that astronauts being able to communicate effectively in a noisy environment could be considered a relevant project.  Besides, from the way that you're ranting, would you rather that they did succeed?

When it does work, instead of giving the technology to the people (who should rightfully own it) they sell it so they can work on further pet projects or indulge their cocaine habits.

First of all, the "cocaine habits" bit was uncalled for and you should know better.  Secondly, if NASA can sell their patents to industry, then they don't need as much taxpayer money to fund their research.

Quote from: Username on February 03, 2014, 06:53:44 AM

Is NASA a military organization? If not, then why are military applications relevant.

Just because a product is developed for civilian use does not preclude military applications.

Quote

I'm pissed that NASA is spending time and money on projects that are not reflective of its reason of existence AND that they fail at it.

It seems to me that astronauts being able to communicate effectively in a noisy environment could be considered a relevant project.  Besides, from the way that you're ranting, would you rather that they did succeed?

Quote

When it does work, instead of giving the technology to the people (who should rightfully own it) they sell it so they can work on further pet projects or indulge their cocaine habits.

First of all, the "cocaine habits" bit was uncalled for and you should know better.  Secondly, if NASA can sell their patents to industry, then they don't need as much taxpayer money to fund their research.

They are selling patents that are rightfully owned by the people of the United States. They can't be funding their projects this way - its wrong. These technologies belong to the people of our country - the ones working their asses off to supply their families with bare necessities in these times of economic uncertainty. They should not have to pay for research both in taxes and in the private sector.

If this is the model they wish to take ( privatized funding ), they should privatize. They already communicate effectively. Furthermore there is no evidence that this research would help with communication and in fact it hasn't.

I'm also not so sure the cocaine remark is uncalled for. Two strikes so far:
http://www.space.com/7780-cocaine-nasa-space-shuttle-hangar.html
http://www.space.com/11128-nasa-kennedy-space-center-cocaine.html

Yes, I would like for their silly projects to at least work. On the other hand, I would rather they not indulge themselves in these projects.

Next time they should use a  pencil instead of spending a million dollars inventing a new kind of pen.

You've got some weird anti-NASA shit going on.  Did one of them sleep with your wife or something?

Or are you just an angry internet conpspiracy warrior?

They are selling patents that are rightfully owned by the people of the United States.

Who says that those patents are owned by the people?

If this is the model they wish to take ( privatized funding ), they should privatize.

The government routinely sells lots of things that "are rightfully owned by the people of the United States".  Why should patents be any different?

They already communicate effectively. Furthermore there is no evidence that this research would help with communication and in fact it hasn't.

Perhaps that's why they dropped the research years ago. 

Next time they should use a  pencil instead of spending a million dollars inventing a new kind of pen.

You do realize that NASA did not invent the space pen, don't you?

However, the claim that NASA spent millions on the Space Pen is incorrect, as the Fisher pen was developed using private capital, not government funding

Quote from: Username on February 03, 2014, 07:32:47 AM

They are selling patents that are rightfully owned by the people of the United States.

Who says that those patents are owned by the people?

I do.

Quote

If this is the model they wish to take ( privatized funding ), they should privatize.

The government routinely sells lots of things that "are rightfully owned by the people of the United States".  Why should patents be any different?

Just because this behavior is widespread does not mean it is morally right.

Quote

They already communicate effectively. Furthermore there is no evidence that this research would help with communication and in fact it hasn't.

Perhaps that's why they dropped the research years ago. 

Perhaps that's why they shouldn't have started it.

Quote

Next time they should use a  pencil instead of spending a million dollars inventing a new kind of pen.

You do realize that NASA did not invent the space pen, don't you?

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Pen#Uses_in_the_U.S._and_Russian_space_programs

However, the claim that NASA spent millions on the Space Pen is incorrect, as the Fisher pen was developed using private capital, not government funding

Fair enough, I did not know that - thanks. Though they did start developing it before switching back to pencils.

The urban legend does show the abstract though, even if that particular example is wrong. NASA routinely wastes money on silly projects.

NASA routinely wastes money on silly projects.

Okay;  I'll name a few products that have resulted directly from NASA scientific research carried out for their space programs.  And I'd like you to name just as many "silly" projects.  Fair enough?

► Activated charcoal drinking water filters.
► Freeze drying.
► High-intensity LEDs.
► Mylar (biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate).
► Safety grooving on high-speed freeways.
► Invisible tooth braces (translucent polycrystalline alumina).
► Ionization smoke detectors (americium-241).
► Scratch-resistant spectacle lenses.
► Dynacoil 3D polyurethane foam shoe insoles.
► Viscoelastic memory foam (disabled persons bedding/seating).
► Aural infrared thermometers (ear canal, babies).
 


 

Shoe insoles?
Water Filters?
Tooth Braces?
Freeway grooving?
Eye glasses?
Medical Bedding?


With the exception of freeway grooving these are things the government has no business developing, let alone a space agency. A space agency likewise shouldn't be developing freeway grooving. That's over half your list.

And then let us consider this: the working class pays this ticket for all these items but gains no benefit from them without paying again for the development of them at purchase (via markup for patent acquisition etc).  They are stealing from those that pay their salary to continue their silly projects.

With the exception of freeway grooving these are things the government has no business developing

Why not?

The urban legend does show the abstract though, even if that particular example is wrong. NASA routinely wastes money on silly projects.

Nor does the debunking dispute the fact that NASA was spending money developing such a pen until the costs "skyrocketed". How high is too high? How high does cost have to rise before even such a stingy, fiscally-responsible organization like NASA cancels it, I wonder. Conveniently the monetary figures for that development were missing from the article in favour of the fact that the same pen NASA spent too much money on before giving up was ultimately developed by a man in private enterprise who was able to develop them and sell them at under $3 a pop and turn a profit on the venture. It also neglects the fact they bought the 34 mechanical pencils mentioned for $4,382.50 in 1965 dollars, and they looked for an alternative only after the contract became public and predictably the taxpaying public was not impressed.  Surely, this is a stunning story of fiscal success for NASA.

With the exception of freeway grooving these are things the government has no business developing, let alone a space agency. A space agency likewise shouldn't be developing freeway grooving. That's over half your list.

Did you forget that NASA is also an aeronautics agency?  You know, it's in the name: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  NASA does quite a lot of research in aircraft safety, including grooved pavement for airport runways and aircraftde-icing technology, which benefits quite a few average taxpayers.

With the exception of freeway grooving these are things the government has no business developing, let alone a space agency. A space agency likewise shouldn't be developing freeway grooving. That's over half your list.

You must have misinterpreted this bit of my posting?  "...a few products that have resulted directly from NASA scientific research carried out for their space programs".

None of those things I listed were part of any NASA research aimed primarily at the civilian sector.  They were all offshoots of space technology modified for public usage.  And as such, cost the taxpayers no more than the original R&D would've for the space program.  The secondary commercial development of all those things were paid for by private companies.

I'm not quite sure why you've got such a hard-on for dissing NASA.  Any personal reasons may I ask?

I'm also awaiting your similar listing of "silly things" that NASA have spent taxpayer money developing.
 

I have a problem with all government funded research. They just happen to be one of the most vocal and one of the worst. Compare with Ann Rand and Paul Feyerabend.

I also have a problem with priestcraft. Again they are one of the worst. Remember when they claimed dark matter was discovered? They routinely lie to the populace that is supporting their ridiculous endeavors through their blood sweat and tears.

I have a problem with bloated government agencies that should be part of the private sector. The government should not have their hands in aeronautics or space except in a regulatory manner. Just because we had a pissing contest with Russia during the cold war does not mean space exploration or science should be part of the government.

I have a problem with the military and government controlling and guiding scientific research through use of grants and other tactics.

I have a problem with companies that exploit the common person. NASA routinely does this by selling their research and patents to further their funding.

I have a problem with NASA using cocaine while on the tax payers clock.

I have a problem when NASA is completely useless at their job. WHen they can't recognize a moon rock from a petrified tree; when they ignore a mystery donut rock, when they purposefully misreport or edit findings etc.

I love science, and the government and scientific community is turning it into a religion, in the worst sense of the term. We are dealing with a farce of science, and its about time someone fixed the issue.

I have a problem with any technology that is possible of invading personal space. Science and the government are too amoral to be trusted with this power.
If any of those are personal, then yes. I have a personal problem with NASA.

I have a problem with all government funded research. They just happen to be one of the most vocal and one of the worst.

Wow.  I can only imagine how you feel about DARPA. 

The government should not have their hands in aeronautics or space except in a regulatory manner. Just because we had a pissing contest with Russia during the cold war does not mean space exploration or science should be part of the government.

Why, specifically, do you think it'd be better for multinational corporations alone to be researching and developing aeronautics and space programs?  Surely that'd likely open the floodgates of crime and corruption more than entrusting a government agency that at least has to answer in some measure to the taxpayer? 

CEOs of every major private corporation across the planet earn [sic] tens of millions of dollars in salaries per annum—relatively few people at NASA get that sort of income.  And the corruption follows the money trail.

I also did a double-take when I read your claim that the Cold War was only a "pissing contest".  You must be joking surely?

Can I ask if you were even alive during that time when the Doomsday Clock was set at 3 minutes to midnight at the height of the Cold War?  Do you understand what the Bay of Pigs was all about?
 

Why, specifically, do you think it'd be better for multinational corporations alone to be researching and developing aeronautics and space programs?  Surely that'd likely open the floodgates of crime and corruption more than entrusting a government agency that at least has to answer in some measure to the taxpayer? 

CEOs of every major private corporation across the planet earn [sic] tens of millions of dollars in salaries per annum—relatively few people at NASA get that sort of income.  And the corruption follows the money trail.

I also did a double-take when I read your claim that the Cold War was only a "pissing contest".  You must be joking surely?

The space race was a pissing contest - not the cold war. 

The only proper function of government is the protection of the individual rights and well-being of its people.  Clearly the private sector is corrupt as well. That's a whole different conversation though. If the question is Plutocracy or Scientocracy my answer is : neither.  Both share exactly the same central issue - a corrupt amoral ruling class. If  we want an open and free society, we have to address these two issues at the very least. To me, science seems to be the more pressing issue as we already have lots of theoretical solutions for plutocracy. We are just too barbaric to want to make use of them.

The space race was a pissing contest - not the cold war.

In actuality, the so-called "space race" was a very integral part of the Cold War.  The US was caught napping when the USSR launched the first ICBM and put Sputnik 1 into orbit. Hence JFK stating in May 1961 that the United States should set as a goal the "landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth" by the end of the decade.  The launch of Sputnik inaugurated the space race. This culminated in the Apollo Moon landings, which NASA astronaut Frank Borman later described as "just a battle in the Cold War".

If the question is Plutocracy or Scientocracy my answer is: neither.  Both share exactly the same central issue - a corrupt amoral ruling class. If  we want an open and free society, we have to address these two issues at the very least. To me, science seems to be the more pressing issue as we already have lots of theoretical solutions for plutocracy.

Generally speaking, I'd agree with these comments.  The dilemma of course is that we (the people) ultimately have no say in choosing one or the other—or neither.

https://archive.org/details/space_place_live_6

This aired at around 8pm est the other night.