Though I agree with some of the above comments that the technological innovations since 1977 haven't been altogether uninspiring, I do wonder: Who right now is funding innovation that doesn't directly have a business model tied to it? i.e., innovation for the sake of innovation, without the startup pitch, killer ceo, etc - the scientist pushing the limits for the sake of science?
Is NASA a place where this happens?
And is it frivolous to suggest that this kind of innovation without an obvious money-making scheme is important?
It's not frivolous because fundamental research often leads to unexpected commercial benefits. One example - Japanese physicists doing research into quantum tunneling led to the shrinking of satellite dish antennas from 2m to about 30cm.
On some levels I think Kasparov is right. You could fly from London to New York faster in 1977 (on the Concord) than you can today.
Primarily, the people doing innovation for innovation's sake right now are the guys who've already made their fuck-you millions or billions, and can now afford to fund out-there research. Folks like Paul Allen, Elon Musk, (to a certain extent) Peter Thiel, Sir Richard Branson, etc. Sure, there's occasionally a commercial motive behind some of their side projects -- but not always, and often as a pipedream. In a way, it is refreshing to see people's throwing money at pipedreams simply to make them ever so slightly more realistic. Will Branson make space flight affordable to the masses in his lifetime? Almost certainly not. But he realized that if he didn't kickstart the process, it would have taken the world a lot longer to get started.
Is NASA a place where this happens? And is it frivolous to suggest that this kind of innovation without an obvious money-making scheme is important?