If there is a separation between the knowledge creation and the commercialization, I'm all for this model of funding science. However, the problem starts when NASA becomes a lab that creates patents with the intent of licensing them. In this scenario, NASA will stop focusing on advancement of knowledge and become focused on creating the kind of knowledge that will sell.
I would take it a step further. I used to work at NASA, and I never even thought about a patent. Not sure if we could have even gotten them, but the idea couldn't have been further from my mind.
To me, and what I would guess were most of the engineers around me, the whole point was space exploration. Full stop. Not climate studies, not "science for science's sake", but engineering (not science) to get us into space.
Maybe there is a role for a government organization dedicated to researching quasi-commerical science and engineering, but I would hate for NASA to become that agency. I want NASA focused on putting men in space.
"To me, and what I would guess were most of the engineers around me, the whole point was space exploration. Full stop. Not climate studies, not "science for science's sake", but engineering (not science) to get us into space."
There's obviously another branch of Nasa, otherwise how does
James Hansen ever work there?
James Hansen has not worked for NASA for two years, but that's nitpicking -- your point is correct.
There are multiple NASA centers who generally see the enterprise of space exploration differently. JSC and KSC are more focused on "putting men [sic] in space" (as the parent commenter said). GSFC is more focused on observing Earth and the Sun from space. JPL is more focused on robotic planetary exploration. Those are gross generalizations, because GSFC has been heavily involved with Hubble, and JPL does some Earth missions, etc.
I don't know who James Hansen is. The above is how I think NASA should operate, not how it actually does. I think NASA gets easily distracted by science, when it should be an engineering organization devoted to space and flight (more space than flight these days). Many smart people disagree.
I don't know the full spread of salaries at NASA, but from the people I do know who work for the government, they don't do it to get rich. I tend to think that people at NASA are there because they believe in its mission, and will be fairly likely to hold to that mission.
Yes, but what about the people in charge of those people? Once they see that some research is more profitable than others, what's stopping them from going to NASA people and demanding more profitable research? At what point does NASA lose its focus in its mission?
I'm all in favor of Startup NASA. I'm merely asking for things to be done in a way that doesn't mess with what's being done right already.
The problem is that NASA's patents may enable a subsequent technology that is also patentable that NASA will then need to licence. By holding patents they can get negotiating power on further technological improvements.
As a current NASA engineer, I suspect that the truth is along these lines. Similarly over the years I've noticed an odd trend of NASA funding external development of tools or technologies (either to private companies or universities), only for us to have to then license it once it is complete. A double bill for the taxpayers.
How long have you been there? I've been gone for over a decade, so I'm curious if you can confirm a suspicion I've had recently - that NASA has a bit of Silicon Valley envy and are trying to emulate the tech startup world in ways that may or may not be appropriate to their mission. When I worked there during the .com bubble, nobody cared about Silicon Valley at all - it very much had a military industrial complex feel to it.
I would say that depends largely on the project. Some projects are purposefully trying to appropriate ideas from the tech world (development lifecycle practices, etc.) but others are pretty firm in holding on to more traditional gov't ways of operating. Flight projects in particular have not changed very dramatically, and that is probably not a bad thing.
My least favorite part about the traditional ways are that they tend to be very poor at estimating FTE/WYE needs for a body of work, and will more often than not err towards over-estimation. This ends up necessitating the creating of busy-work to make use of all assigned personnel. Mostly by adding extra checks and documentation that many would agree are not very beneficial.
It's hard to be lean when you're given 15 more people than you actually need, basically.
I generally think this is a good way to openly share advanced research results and engineered technologies with the goal of implementation in mind. It makes some very cool technologies and information available and actionable to more people. I think that alone is positive.
But you are right, nothing can go unbounded.
Let us hope commercial success won't change the motivations of the organization...
you can't eliminate all conflicts of interest all of the time. But why not try to commercialize existing NASA technologies? this is exactly the type of knowledge transfer that is good for society
If I understand correctly. I think that the parent comment is concerned about NASA favoring the research of technologies that have a potential for marketization rather than others, more "moonshot"-like projects.
Commercialization is good, as long as it does not leak everywhere.
Exactly. If commercialization is done in way that does not distract from the principles of the research, it is great. But to achieve that, the incentives must be right. With Startup NASA, what is the incentive for NASA to keep doing moonshot-like projects, when they can make bank by investing only in profitable-in-the-near-future research? If the incentive is there, I am glad startup NASA exists. If not, I fear that Startup NASA will turn NASA into just another lab that has lost its focus.
Think about it. If people who work for NASA wanted to make bank, why would they work for NASA in the first place ? is NASA known as the best place to make bank, if that's your objective in life ? Is it going to become that place, as a result of this ? I understand the concern, but I think it's misplaced
The problem is not the people working at NASA wanting to make bank. It's the people overseeing those people realizing that there is a possibility to make bank, then pressuring the people working at NASA to do research to make bank. That's the change I fear.
But I wanted to respond to a different thing you said in the first comment:
> why not try to commercialize existing NASA technologies
I never said commercialization of the technologies is a bad thing. In fact, I'm all for it. But it has to be done in a way that doesn't break what's already being done right.
It won't be the decision of people who actually do the work, but of the people upstairs who decide what research the agency is focusing on.
The entire trend around public agencies trying to earn their own living on the market seems increasingly ridiculous. The whole point of having government agencies in a market economy at all is to have someone do the work that is necessary but doesn't make sense in market economy. Like feeding the poor, healing the sick, or doing basic research.
Agencies like NASA are one of two primary ways for society to tell the market: "you're a great optimization engine, but not perfectly aligned with our needs; sometimes you fail and we need to compensate - for instance, you rejected X, and yet we want X to be done". The other would be to become Elon Musk and keep shoving electric cars down market's throat until it gives up and suddenly there's a demand.
As Americans you can not - hell, as the world we can not afford agencies like NASA and ESA to drop basic research and pursue things that can be done by any random government contractor, but better, because said contractor would have less accumulated red tape.
