Gas turbine/electric hybrid?

Page 2 of 3  
NASA developed many new technologies that have passed on to the public.
Do a Google search, you will be impressed.
Progress is never a waste of money.

wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What about velcro ? High impact plastic ? Fuel Cells ? GPS ? Satellite TV and Radio ?
Lynn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Heh.. gee... never THOUGHT of that!!1
;)
There's more, btw.
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lynn McGuire wrote:

Actually the DOD was behind the GPS program at the start. NASA provided the taxi for it.
--

-----------------
www.thesnoman.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
More importantly what about the need to make things small that let to better computers, cell phones, and microscopic surgery such as eye surgery, organ surgery and transplants. As well as the ability to reattach severed limbs etc?
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

Most of the things you mention had a tangential relationship to the space program. It's true the space program speeded up many of those things, but not that we would not have any of it without them. And perhaps the pace of progress would have limited some of the regress we have to face too, like offshoring of jobs, elimination of repair jobs, and cheapening of all manner of products. It goes both ways.
Once a company has derived most of its income from NASA or the Air Force it is permanently spoiled and will never want to work again for a living. You'd have to fire or kill all of the executives and most of the management to get them to pursue gainful market endeavors at reasonable per-piece profit levels.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Space Program's necessity of the materials, mapping, weather forcasting, etc. promted their development and the speed of their developement. The things mentioned may not be here today if it had not been for the Space Program. True, your point of jobs, it does go both ways, but , a basic economics class dictates if one has the money and needs labor, and one has a labor pool, but needs the money, a relationship will develope that will benefit both. Nothing new, been going on for thousands of years.

As long as the contractor is delivering their products within the contractual requirements of NASA and the Air Force, they are within a gainfull market.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And, tell that to Boeing... in this case, both Bret's and Franks' points are made
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002754224 _boeingitar22.html
Copy and paste both lines.
Carbon fiber technology developed for steath bomber, used in commercial aircraft. The issue: military secret or not?
Whatever the case, not only is the market global, but also the product and manufacturing source.
No... it isnt as easy as just keeping it to ourselves... in the competitive market, it goes both ways. The alternative is that, if you DO attempt to keep such close to the vest, some politico just deals it away without thinking, in return for campaign contributions. See: Clinton Campaign/China - Missile guidance systems scandal.
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Backyard Mechanic wrote:

Personally I think that Boeing is making a mistake by outsourcing so much of the 787 development and manufacturing. Boeing is putting know-how into the hands of it's future competitors. Boeing saves some money today but takes away from it's own long term value.
The government wasn't concerned about Boeing using the military technology to build commerical products, it was concerned about giving that technology away to foreign based companies. Since the US taxpayers funded the carbon fiber R&D there are good arguments for not giving the technology away.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nearly anything you can name was either developed or vastly improved by the needs of war, include the space program itself.
mike hunt
.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
True, because of the need of a quality item in a short amount of time.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Frank from Deeeetroit wrote: <<snip>>

When that market recedes the company is toast. Only bankruptcy allows the company to go back to civilian reality, because the corporate structure is geared to a process that spends $500 to qualify, approve and document a $2 bolt (which was made to government standards at 5X market price in the first place.)
Thew recent crash of a Grumman amphibian due to spar failure was an example of this. No airline operator operates a 58-year old airframe that has been in continuous use in a marine environment.....unless there are no new ones. The Long Island plants that built these things are sitting idle, the trained workforce is unemployed, underemployed, retired early or moved elsewhere. The design of these things is paid for, has been for fifty years. New Grumman amphibian airframes could be built for very little in labor and materials. Some of the tooling still exists, none of it was terribly expensive to build (except for accounting purposes) and much could now be done on NC soft tooling anyway. In fact a very much cheaper option would be to just build new wings and horizontal stabilizers which (along with the gear forgings) are all that has much of a fatigue concern. The hulls are way, way overbuilt. I guarantee anyone at Northrop Grumman who suggested this would be laughed out of the boardroom. Their corporate structure is geared to selling a widget that costs $2,000,000 to build for $76,400,300 and making it look plausible on paper. (Yes, it cost $500,000,000 to develop....but the taxpayer already paid them in full and more for that!)
I really believe now the only thing that can save America as we know it is a monumental, sudden, and near-total implosion of Wall Street. Most of the market cap in tech stocks and much in defense must vanish, and suddenly. I don't make light of the impact: many innocent people will suffer greatly. But the alternative is even worse. I'd rather see a few dozen families mourn their stockbroker and investment banker fathers that bounced off the Manhattan sidewalks and some 50-year-old retirees depensioned while they can still re-earn a small sum to live their lives out than...the current trends, where most of them will lose it anyway and a few people will become multibillionaires and the average standard of living in America plunge further and further.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

exists, none of it was terribly expensive to build (except for accounting purposes)<<
And the liability insurance. Or is that free nowadays?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bret Ludwig wrote:

Don't confuse companies with technologies. Sure a company which focuses on supplying the government is unlikely to do well in other areas, but there are exceptions to that rule as well. Jet engine development was all funded by the government early on and to this day both commercial and goverment users are supplied from the same factories.
Then of course we have GM's Hummer division, which is clearly an offshoot of government contract work. Of course AM General had to put Hummer into GM's hands in order to maximize the commerical appeal, but the roots are still clear.
It sounds like you have a particular bone to pick.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't forget Teflon!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Olaf wrote:

I thought Teflon was a happy accident that resulted from a tank car load of whatever the chemical is being lift sitting too long - not a result of any intentional development.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And now, the rest of the story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon
Bill K.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
the best inventions are results of mistakes the yellow sticker is a result of a bad glue mixture
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not really. It was the result of specific experimentation. Spense Silver was looking for improvements in the way 3M made tape adhesives and as part of his experimentation, discovered this new glue with different properties. Not really a bad glue mixture as much as experimenting.
Here's a link to the story off 3M's web site...
http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.3M.com/about3M/pioneers/fry.html
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Backyard Mechanic wrote:

Yeah, just cable television (all of which uses commerical satellite content), weather satellites, GPS navigation, XM radio, the Internet and a huge amount of solar cell research and production. Damn NASA and the military :).
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.