Bill Gates testified before Congress today on the future of innovation and
His testimony outlined four goals that our country must pursue: improving educational opportunities in science and technology, revamping the visa system for highly skilled workers, increasing federal funding for basic scientific research and providing incentives for private-sector research and development.
When we talk about the need to engage our youth, to inspire them to pursue math, science, engineering, and technology education, I see a direct tie to NASA’s value for this country. The premise of the discussion on this site revolves around a theme of “participation, collaboration, and engagement.” This is on purpose. We see the discrepancy Gates mentions first hand; we see our peers turn off when you mention math or science; but we also see those who do engage when asked to participate and what that means for our nation. We see NASA as part of the solution.
So how can NASA help solve the problem? I see it much differently then a comment posted on another discussion thread that the government can not innovate. I see NASA as a SOURCE of innovation. I personally participate in, and see the value of, a government agency that creates, integrates, and engineers every day. I see the historical precedence of NASA inspiring people to pursue technical careers that is alive and well today. I see NASA currently providing educational opportunities for future employees. I see all the science research that we do on a daily basis and its direct application to the improvement of our society. I see the huge opportunity for NASA to engage and inspire the future workforce through participation. I believe that NASA is part of the solution Gates is proposing. It’s an organization that has global reach, an inspirational message, technical jobs that back it up, and an agency with real value to the world. As a side note to think about, if you noticed the post on NASAwatch the other day, according to one source, it’s an agency that is already retaining some of those highly skilled experts despite the VISA restrictions… “36% of scientists at NASA or almost 4 out of 10 scientists are Indians.”
Gates said he is optimistic that information technology will continue to be part of the transformation process and improve the productivity and the quality of our day-to-day lives, adding that private companies alone cannot ensure that the
March 12th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I see NASA as a SOURCE of innovation AND a REASON for innovation.
The hardware / software that we have to create for space mission have some of the most demanding requirements in engineering. We have to account for ridiculous temperature operations, insane reliability, out-of-this world materials (aerogel!).
All of these requirements squeeze out innovation.
In addition to being a SOURCE of innovation, I see NASA as a REASON for innovation. Unlike the IT industry where the majority of the “why” we want to innovate is EFFICIENCY and COOLNESS, we focus the “why” is to help create a better world.
*To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.
*To advance human exploration, use, and development of space.
*To research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics and space technologies.
NASA innovates, NASA inspires.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:06 am
“NASA innovates, NASA inspires”
Your “innovation” squeezed out funds (taxes) that might have gone to private companies instead. These private companies didn’t get those funds, so they were not able to invest them, potentially, in R&D — so their innovations never happened.
Never look at NASA’s accomplishments without looking at what didn’t get accomplished because of the taxes taken.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Taxpayer, although I agree with your bottom line (”Don’t judge NASA accomplishments without comparing to where else the money could go”), I very much disagree with the implication that large companies are better at R&D.
Take a look at this TED talk by Charles Leadbeater to get my sentiment: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/63
The idea is basically that large companies are anti-innovation simply because projects that get funded are ones that have a low level of risk and a high return on investment, whereas true innovation comes about by investing in and trying things that are completely new, where the market for the innovation is unknown or even nonexistent.
NASA is (partially) exempt from this problem because they are not a profit-making company. They can focus on science for the sake of science alone, and because of that can branch out in more innovative ways.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
When I speak to schools about NASA, parents and teachers would raise the idea that NASA is an expensive organization and they don’t understand why the government is spending so much on Space research with Earth problems yet to be resolved.
It was at that moment that I would bring up a chart from 2001 that showed an estimated division of exactly where our Nations Trillions of dollars were actually allocated. I am summarizing these numbers, but almost 30% went to Medicare/Healthcare, 40% Military, 30% Education, etc. What really made the impact was NASA’s sliver of the pie. NASA’s 16 Billion dollars is less than 1% of the Nation’s Budget. The cuts that we receive on a yearly basis don’t and won’t make a dent in helping any other areas out. Because the need is greater than NASA.
When put into perspective, NASA’s innovation is making something out of nothing! Those that are against spending the money, really don’t understand the impact in the research, science, and engineering that goes on at NASA. With all our efforts, NASA does not know how to sell itself. Our marketing and sales skills are poor because lets face it, we believe the science should sell itself, but a laymen needs the bells and whistles!
March 13th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
There is a scene in Contact (the movie) where David Drumlin (the smarmy Director) says that science should at least have some relevance, some payback for people’s lives and tax money. One of the astronomers pipes up and says something like “I agree! Take my globular cluster survey of 47 Tucanae for example…” Inspiration is fine but by itself its very insufficient.
There is a difference between pure science for its own sake and innovation. NASA may inspire some but its only inspiring people who are predisposed to science for its own sake to begin with. If you want to “inspire” people to study math and science in school and become an engineer or scientist you are going to have to also show them how its going to pay the mortgage, buy a nice car, go on a nice vacation from time to time and pay for your kids college.
I’ve been at the Commercial Space Transportation Workshop the last few days and one comment from an attendee is how hard NASA drives contractors to the lowest price for engineers. Why is anyone going to want to become an aerospace engineer here in the US unless there’s a chance you can make good money at it. There is an _extreme_ shortage of hypersonic/supersonic aerodynamiscists. All of the ones available are being sucked into government programs. We need to start building out the bench for these in college. But if you do decide to go into that field are you dooming yourself to a life of working for the government or some sole source contractor? You might build some cool hardware but if the choice is that or going into IT and making three times as much or getting an MBA and making 5 times as much, what do you think most people are going to do?
Inspiration doesn’t pay the bills. Innovation within a for profit business not only pays the bills it can make you rich. “Innovating” within NASA might pay the bills but it ain’t gonna make you rich. Move this stuff into private industry and offer stock options and you’ll get all the inspiration you can stand.
I’m not some Gen-X guy picking on the kids only slightly younger than me, but in just a few short years you guys are going to have your own kids, start worrying about your retirement plans, getting mortgages, and worrying about how your going to take care of your aging parents. Inspiration doesn’t help those things, money does.
March 13th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I’ve worked as both a civil servant and, now, as a contractor. I probably could have made more money in petroleum engineering or something like that, but being an aerospace engineer has made me more than enough money to invest for my retirement and get a house.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:50 am
Michael A,
I’m confused about the video you linked and its relation to our discussion. As I see it, the video heartily supports my point. The mountain bikers didn’t use tax dollars to innovate — they invested their own funds and funds they raised themselves. Where in the video do you feel Charles supports redistribution of wealth and research priorities via large government programs?
You also make several assertions. Let’s examine two of them:
1) “…large companies are anti-innovation simply because projects that get funded are ones that have a low level of risk and a high return on investment,…”
I disagree. Public companies invest in projects that create value — typically as measured by a positive Net Present Value (NPV). This doesn’t restrict companies from investing in high risk projects — it just requires that they heavily discount future returns because, well, the project is high risk! Was Boeing’s investment in the 747 low risk? What about Amazon.com’s investment in the Kindle? Sony’s investment in Blu-ray?
Companies that do this well are rewarded and typically are provided larger sums of capital. Companies that do this poorly are penalized and might be forced out of the market. However, when the government invests in projects, it is not subject to this test. In fact, if a government project fails, it is often rewarded with more funds!
2) NASA “can focus on science for the sake of science alone, and because of that can branch out in more innovative ways.”
Are you sure? Who determines what is “more innovative” or what science is worth pursuing? The answer is a committee — central planning. The bottom line is that if you favor research via large government planning you favor a statist rather than a market approach. In my opinion, this short circuits one our country’s greatest strength: the innovation from our free markets — which is exactly what the video you linked is talking about.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:58 am
J Kremer,
You may not think ~$17B/year is a lot of money, but most do. And while many may disagree that those other government programs did or did not make an impact is really not the point: even if they are a complete waste, why would you use them as a benchmark?
Let’s look at one of your assertions specifically:
“Those that are against spending the money, really don’t understand the impact in the research, science, and engineering that goes on at NASA.”
This is true! In fact those inside of NASA don’t really understand the impact either — no one can — and that is the point. The problem is that NASA can’t quantify the opportunity cost of the funds the Agency spends. We got a Shuttle, but what did we have to forego to pay for it? That is what the capital markets do in the form of a required return on investment for a given amount of risk. A test companies must pass day in and day out.