🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Dec20.150503.27019@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>In article <8912181657.AA01075@aldrin.cray.com> lfa@VIELLE.CRAY.COM (Lou Adornato) writes:

>> In fact, I don't see why space R&D wouldn't be >more< productive than
>> civilian.  By law, NASA research is available to the public (with the
>> _major_ exception of that which is determined to be sensitive to
>> National Security).

>Industry has a strong incentive to do R&D in areas that will lead to
>valuable products and services that can be sold for a profit.  NASA
>does not.

Like swept-wing aircraft?  Supercritical airfoils?  NASA/NACA innovations
that make airline flights faster and cheaper.

Winglets?  Fly-by-wire?  Highly-integrated engine control?  NASA

There aren't many _private_ hypersonic wind tunnels.  In fact, there
aren't many private transsonic tunnels.

Wake turbulence research?  We help keep your airplane from being thrown
out of the sky, with our flight safety research.  Downbursts?  Wind shear?

NASA research is of great economic value.  It's just that others get
the value.  For example, NASA doesn't build airliners but the people
who do use NASA's research.

BTW, the printed circuit was first used in proximity fuses for shooting
down V-1s, so here's yet another example of NASA/Defense innovation that
really affected "real life."

Small, but hot little blue flame:
NASA is not just space!  The first A is aeronautics and don't you forget
it!  Even if Headquarters sometimes does, I expect more from you-all.

Happy Holidays, Space Cadets!
--

Mary Shafer  shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov or ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
         NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                   Of course I don't speak for NASA