PDA

View Full Version : Space exploration: worthwhile or not?



ron ll
08-25-2009, 10:43 AM
Following a discussion at coffee this morning I was somewhat surprised to hear several express the opinion that it is a waste of money; with the old argument, "Solve the problems at home first". I've always been a fan of space exploration and thought the technology spinoff was a worthwhile trade for the relatively low cost; with the old argument, "We spend more on pizza or kitty litter than we do on space exploration" (or something like that, don't hold me to those numbers :) .)

Allowing for a little bias given that a wooden boat crowd is going to be a little more traditional than the average bloke, generally what do you think about the issue?

Keith Wilson
08-25-2009, 10:46 AM
It's one of the few things I'm positively enthusiastic about paying taxes for. Manned, unmanned, both; I don't care.

Tom Montgomery
08-25-2009, 10:57 AM
I care. Manned space exploration is a massively expensive and inefficient waste of resources, IMO. Money that could be invested in science is instead spent on technology to keep the humans alive. Unmanned space exploration is absolutely the only way to go.

LeeG
08-25-2009, 11:03 AM
"exploration" doesn't state the method used anymore than "national defense" does. Sure space exploration is worthwhile. Putting up bubbles of air for a half dozen humans to reside is one kind of exploration. There are others that are less costly and put the instruments which don't require air, food shelter into space for years.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
08-25-2009, 11:04 AM
I have a list of people who should be sent there to take a long look.

Kaa
08-25-2009, 11:06 AM
The question is too general to be useful. Should we spend some money on space exploration? Sure.

Now, how much and on what precisely are much more interesting questions. Hauling stuff up to the ISS and hauling garbage back ain't so sexy any more.

Kaa

ron ll
08-25-2009, 11:09 AM
I have no doubt that unmanned exploration is very valuable. But I also think that humans should go as well. One, there is a lot of medical technology spinnoff, plus I think there is just an inherent need for humans to explore the edges and push the boundaries.

ron ll
08-25-2009, 11:11 AM
Now, how much and on what precisely are much more interesting questions. Hauling stuff up to the ISS and hauling garbage back ain't so sexy any more.

Kaa

I totally agree. The low earth orbit trucking system is not really space exploration.

ron ll
08-25-2009, 11:22 AM
A for instance: Helium 3 is rare on earth but abundant on the moon. Turns out it is an easily fusionable material. We don't know yet, but helium 3 could just possibly allow fusion reactors to work. Can you imagine what energy problems on this planet would be solved with efficient fusion reactors?

Nanoose
08-25-2009, 11:25 AM
Hauling stuff up to the ISS and hauling garbage back ain't so sexy any more.

Kaa

Ah, yes....because sexy is the defining evaluative issue. :rolleyes:

Kaa
08-25-2009, 11:27 AM
Ah, yes....because sexy is the defining evaluative issue. :rolleyes:

I like sexy :D Do you have a better criterion?

Kaa

Nanoose
08-25-2009, 11:28 AM
For space exploration? Sure. Cost/benefit analysis.

Kaa
08-25-2009, 11:29 AM
For space exploration? Sure. Cost/benefit analysis.

How do you estimate the benefits?

Kaa

Nanoose
08-25-2009, 11:30 AM
Sex ;)

Nanoose
08-25-2009, 11:31 AM
...in which case the costs are disproportionate to the non-existent benefits, and the manned portion of the program, at least, should be scraped.

LeeG
08-25-2009, 11:32 AM
RonII, I'm not sure what you are saying. The electromagnetic spectrum is the primary means for exploring "space" given the dimensions involved. The technical challenges and discoveries involved in protecting a few humans for exploration within the orbit of Mars is very, very costly. More likely we'll be putting near human machine intelligences into space or bringing information back to earth for interpretation in new ways than recreating a human friendly environment far from Earth.
The paradigm of humans exploring one part of the globe doesn't transfer directly to humans exploring regions outside of the globe. Sailing to Mars isn't the same as sailing across the Atlantic to discover new worlds.
But in 50yrs if there's human like machine intelligences in space or a processing of data from far flung devices into a coordinated web of experience we'll be doing the equivalent of "putting a man in space".

Glen Longino
08-25-2009, 11:37 AM
Sex ;)
:D
Sometimes you are really funny!

Nanoose
08-25-2009, 11:39 AM
:D
Sometimes you are really funny!

See...we do have a lot in common. ;) :D

damnyankee
08-25-2009, 11:43 AM
Just because we might be able to do it better in the future is NOT a reason to wait. Exploration is humanity's only reason for existing, its what we do. The only thing that will stop humans from getting to Mars is self destruction. Humans WILL go to Mars. The only question remaining is which humans will go? Will it be Americans or Chinese Or Indian, or some other political/social group that is far far in the future. I say it should be us. Lets not become myopic and fail to achieve our potential.

Christopher

ron ll
08-25-2009, 11:44 AM
The paradigm of humans exploring one part of the globe doesn't transfer directly to humans exploring regions outside of the globe.

Sure it does. Of their time, they are/were expensive, devisive, difficult and dangerous.

Kaa
08-25-2009, 11:48 AM
Sex ;)

Woohoo!

Are the aliens sexy enough? :D

Kaa

Kaa
08-25-2009, 11:52 AM
...in which case the costs are disproportionate to the non-existent benefits, and the manned portion of the program, at least, should be scraped.

The point is, you don't know the benefits. Exploration is not engineering, you don't know what you'd get out of it. Sure, you have some expectations, but they might well be wrong -- otherwise there's no point in going exploring.

In the history of humanity most every expedition which set out into uncharted waters not knowing what it'd find would fail the cost-benefit test.

Kaa

ron ll
08-25-2009, 12:02 PM
It's pretty obvious that the question quickly divides into explore/not explore, then subdivides into manned/unmanned. I guess I don't really care about the manned/unmanned question. Send the robots first; definitely more bang for the buck. But ultimately humans should, and will, follow.

But to the first question, at least do it. Do something. Otherwise we might as well just start shoveling the sand in over ourselves now.

LeeG
08-25-2009, 12:05 PM
Sure it does. Of their time, they are/were expensive, devisive, difficult and dangerous.

Humans could still breath and fish on the other side of the oceans, even if they were going to fall off the edge.

Humans cannot breath vacuum or eat photons.

A better analogy would be exploring the oceans floor 30,000 ft down or the surface of the moon. We know more about the surface of the moon.

The impression I get from you is that there's no distinction between the migration of thousands of humans across the planet and the vast resources required to keep a few humans alive in space. Space is not the earth, 5,000 miles over the ocean is qualitatively different than 5,000,000,000 miles through vacuum where solar bursts can cook earth based organisms that have miles of atmosphere to protect them.

You've eliminated all scale by using a few words. The scale matters, kind of like the difference between a 30' boat and a 25' boat is more than 5'.

Nanoose
08-25-2009, 12:07 PM
... Exploration is humanity's only reason for existing,.... Humans WILL go to Mars.

Christopher

I can think of many other reasons for human existence.

And why should we go to Mars? We know it is not an environment that will/can support life. Why WILL we go?

Nanoose
08-25-2009, 12:09 PM
The point is, you don't know the benefits. Exploration is not engineering, you don't know what you'd get out of it. Sure, you have some expectations, but they might well be wrong -- otherwise there's no point in going exploring.

In the history of humanity most every expedition which set out into uncharted waters not knowing what it'd find would fail the cost-benefit test.

Kaa

Exploration of an environment that supports your life is different than exploration of an environment that won't. So why?

I would opine spend the $$ on space exploration if the 'disposable income' is available. It would seem that the U.S. has a few issues on terra firma to solve before doing this kind of "investing", e.g. get every American into a health care plan before thinking you have the $$ for this kind of speculative activity.

Sam F
08-25-2009, 12:11 PM
At the very least, it keeps roving gangs of rocket scientists off the streets and out of trouble.

huisjen
08-25-2009, 12:11 PM
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5996/startrek2.jpg

...

Art Read
08-25-2009, 12:12 PM
"The space race started out as little more than national ego and pride, with enormous sums spent primarily for the ability to boast.

While there have been MANY worthwhile technological spinoffs from space exploration, who is to say that the same benefits couldn't be derived from spending the same money to solve technological problems on our own planet?

I can see the point of unmanned exploration, which delivers ten times the bang for the buck... but for those of us who recognize that our resources (and money) are finite, manned space exploration is something we simply can't afford."

"I'm surprised, and shocked, that most conservatives, especially the ones constantly whining about the deficit, don't necessarily agree."

______________________________________________


Originally Posted by Nanoose
"...in which case the costs are disproportionate to the non-existent benefits, and the manned portion of the program, at least, should be scraped."


"The point is, you don't know the benefits. Exploration is not engineering, you don't know what you'd get out of it. Sure, you have some expectations, but they might well be wrong -- otherwise there's no point in going exploring.

In the history of humanity most every expedition which set out into uncharted waters not knowing what it'd find would fail the cost-benefit test.

Kaa"

___________________________________________


There, in a nutshell, is the essential difference between conservatives, (individualists) and liberals, (stateists).

Where an individualist sees opportunity and advancement, a stateist sees squandered resources and nationalistic jingoism. Where the stateist sees the need for centralized control and cost/benefit analysis of public funds, the individualist sees unknown shores and unlimited possibility.

ron ll
08-25-2009, 12:13 PM
Humans cannot breath vacuum or eat photons.



And humans cannot survive long periods without citric acid. Magellan didn't know this. :D

Nanoose
08-25-2009, 12:15 PM
It would seem public funds need to procure the public good. I don't see how billions spent here does that.

ron ll
08-25-2009, 12:16 PM
... but for those of us who recognize that our resources (and money) are finite, manned space exploration is something we simply can't afford.



Sure glad we don't have to use that logic on owning a wooden boat. :D

Kaa
08-25-2009, 12:17 PM
Exploration of an environment that supports your life is different than exploration of an environment that won't. So why?

That's completely irrelevant to the main point which I'll restate just in case: the benefits of exploration are unknown. That's why it's exploration. And that's why the cost/benefit analysis is of very limited utility in figuring out what and how should we explore.

For another example of the same issue, consider the cost/benefit approach to basic science. Why would you fund people wandering around obscure branches of higher math, or tinkering with some infinitesimally small particles?

Kaa

Nanoose
08-25-2009, 12:19 PM
Why would you fund people wandering around obscure branches of higher math, or tinkering with some infinitesimally small particles?

Kaa

Exactly! ;)

Nanoose
08-25-2009, 12:20 PM
Does can = should?

ron ll
08-25-2009, 12:31 PM
Exploration of an environment that supports your life is different than exploration of an environment that won't. So why?



And Cousteau rolls over in his grave.

LeeG
08-25-2009, 12:42 PM
And humans cannot survive long periods without citric acid. Magellan didn't know this. :D

Ascorbic acid.

You are trying to make an argument based on a false argument of either/or. Manned or not, exploration or not. Given a finite budget more science and more exploration will happen from putting TOOLS of exploration into space that use resources for actual exploration and not preservation of an organism that evolved on Earth. You don't need a human eye in space looking at an LCD screen to interpret the data from the devices in space. Expend the resources on the appropriate tools, not a new building for the tools in a harsh environment.

I'm interested in real exploration, not replicating stories of exploration.

Nanoose
08-25-2009, 12:58 PM
Given limited public dollars, I think they have everything to do with this decision. How will public money be spent?

Good post, Lee. Thanks.

ron ll
08-25-2009, 02:14 PM
Ascorbic acid.



Fine. Ascorbic acid. Mama told me never to have parsing contests with a......Oh, wait. That was different. :D

As I said above, I really don't care whether it is manned or unmanned, altho I think humans will always eventually follow. I just think we should be doing a lot more than we are.

BTW, NASA's budget is less than $17 billion, about 0.6% of the national budget.

Bernie Madoff scammed over $50 billion, and Americans eat over $27 billion worth of pizza every year.

LeeG
08-25-2009, 02:29 PM
There's some fantastic stuff happening in space exploration, it helps to know what you're talking about because your opening line characterized a false argument "solve the problems at home first!". The reason for exploration isn't to create velcro or a better can opener, it's to explore.

The action of a few folks heading out is held as the substance of exploration but it's that system on the ground or home base that ENABLES the exploration to occur. It's the synthesis of new data and experience from a variety of source by people OTHER than explorers who push the frontiers of knowledge. That frontier of knowledge is between the ears.

Imagine if the $500 billion that was spent on the Iraq war went to preparing homo sapiens for a declining oil supply world. That would go more to ensuring the long term viability (100yrs out) of the space program than watching a civilization peak and crash because we never got beyond thinking that there would always be an ever increasing supply of fossil fuel.

James McMullen
08-25-2009, 02:40 PM
I would like to see them spend a fraction of the Iraq war budget on figuring out how to detect and divert the next dinosaur-killer type of asteroid. We know from history and science that it's really just a matter of when, not if, another celestial body impacts the earth.

It wouldn't take a very big rock at all to destroy our civilization regardless of whether humans as a species managed to survive the catastrophe.

Glen Longino
08-25-2009, 03:26 PM
"We may not be there yet, but we will go to the stars." Ishamael

Nope, too danged hot on stars!
Maybe you mean it metaphorically?

brad9798
08-25-2009, 03:26 PM
To asnwer the original question- a total waste of money at this point! TOTAL!

damnyankee
08-25-2009, 04:33 PM
I can think of many other reasons for human existence.

And why should we go to Mars? We know it is not an environment that will/can support life. Why WILL we go?


Really? Like what? taking care of each other? Thats a circular argument. Existing just to Exist is sustance living and very depressing. Because of God? That doesn't offer an explanation, why would God create us? to glorify Him? well, some one once said "God sure must like space, He created so much of it," The best way to glorify God would be to explore His creation. Not that I believe that God has anything to do with it. Perhaps you think we are the manifestation of the nature of the universe, The universe created us in a way that causes us to go to all the places we can go. We will eventually have the technology to go to Mars and beyond, so we will go. We will go for the same reason we climb mountains, and canoe on rivers, because we can.

Christopher

Nanoose
08-25-2009, 04:48 PM
Well, we know part of how they'd handle 2 years of food, water, and energy....but drinking urine has never really appealed to me.

Nanoose
08-25-2009, 04:50 PM
can does not = should

George Roberts
08-25-2009, 04:51 PM
Art Read (post #32) seems to have nailed it.

The space race was there in part to fight the next war. Things turned out a bit different than expected. But ...

If one looks at the costs involved in space - $10 billion/year, there is no private organization that could do exploration. So if exploration is going to be done, the government needs to do it.

There are a lot of "great" ideas around - the space elevator for one. But there is also a lot of risk - the space shuttle deaths and failures to maintain a schedule to name a couple.

The moon seems to be a dead end. Mars seems to be a dead end. Not much outside of the solar system seems reachable. One needs to put forth some reasonable benefit to doing exploration. And then a plan as to how to get there.

($200K to go into orbit for a vacation seems more inspiring than $2K to go to the Grand Canyon, but ... $200K?)

damnyankee
08-25-2009, 05:04 PM
Art Read (post #32) seems to have nailed it.

The moon seems to be a dead end. Mars seems to be a dead end.

Your basing this on what? As already pointed out the moon may have significant economic advantages. Mars may be longterm habitable. (As much as an ocean floor colony.) Mars may hold or have held life. In the end we wont know until we go. And if we never go it will never be worth anything. But if we do go...

Christopher

Nanoose
08-25-2009, 05:14 PM
...it may never be worth anything either. ;)

ron ll
08-25-2009, 05:15 PM
The moon is a dead end?!?! Good grief. In just one example that I already cited above, helium 3 is known to be abundant on the moon. VERY little of it on earth. It is known to be a highly fusionable material. If we can build an efficient fusion reactor, the earth's energy problem is solved...safely. How much would that be worth to you?

George Roberts
08-25-2009, 05:26 PM
Your basing this on what? As already pointed out the moon may have significant economic advantages. Mars may be longterm habitable. (As much as an ocean floor colony.) Mars may hold or have held life. In the end we wont know until we go. And if we never go it will never be worth anything. But if we do go...

Christopher

Abundant He3 is certainly not an economic advantage. (If we can solve problems related to fusion, we have enough fuel materials on earth to last forever.)

If Mars had life, what does that do for us? (I accept the premise that there is live on lots of planets.) Now, if God is living on Mars, that would be interesting.

Nicholas Scheuer
08-26-2009, 07:13 AM
Like the Repubs want to do with Healthcare, wait several years.

A Healthcare Program is a necessity. Space exploration is nice, but hardly a "must do now" sorta thing.

Moby Nick

Rick Starr
08-26-2009, 10:03 AM
What an illuminating thread.

Art's "stateists" as represented here have done absolutely nothing to advance the concerns they purport to value. In fact they seem to be a quagmire of cynicism, despondency and failed ambition.

The first dozen or so contributors to this thread have logged over a hundred thousand posts to the woodenboat forum, which demonstrates that the important responsibilities we assign the state are well and sufficiently being carried out.

There is a huge tangible social benefit to an inspiring public program like the space program, or in it's time the highway system or earlier the canal system. While there remains any sense that there are money and resources to be bled from the vision and growth of tomorrow in order to sustain the complacence of today there will be these arguments, cloaked in piety and altruism, to suck the life out of our species.

I, Rowboat
08-26-2009, 10:21 AM
It wouldn't take a very big rock at all to destroy our civilization regardless of whether humans as a species managed to survive the catastrophe.

Are you trying to thwart the will of God, sir?

He does work in mysterious ways.

Plus, we could get zapped by a gamma-ray burst. Ain't nuthin' we can do to prevent that.

Nanoose
08-26-2009, 10:26 AM
The first dozen or so contributors to this thread have logged over a hundred thousand posts to the woodenboat forum, which demonstrates that the important responsibilities we assign the state are well and sufficiently being carried out.



All it demonstrates is that for the 'rich' of this culture, their needs are met. It doesn't show whether the state has anything to do with that. And it says nothing of all those not appearing here.

ishmael
08-26-2009, 10:35 AM
It's fun to try to draw parallels. Cortez came here, with wealthy patrons, in the early 16th century. They were expecting to find gold. There was gold coming out of central America, but precious little, as in none, in Florida. Golly, he and his troupe wandered all over the SE of what is now the US. Silly bastards. Eldorado. Si un ciudad es eldorado.

Rick Starr
08-26-2009, 10:35 AM
All it demonstrates is that for the 'rich' of this culture, their needs are met. It doesn't show whether the state has anything to do with that. And it says nothing of all those not appearing here.

QED.

As I said, "While there remains any sense that there are money and resources to be bled from the vision and growth of tomorrow in order to sustain the complacence of today there will be these arguments, cloaked in piety and altruism, to suck the life out of our species."

Bob Adams
08-26-2009, 04:41 PM
I really thought this group would have greater vision than has been shown.

TimH
08-26-2009, 04:51 PM
We need to go to space to escape the tyrany here on Earth. Just like leaving Europe for the new world.

Gonzalo
08-26-2009, 05:03 PM
...there is a lot of medical technology spinnoff...I know there is medical knowledge pertinent to keeping people healthy in space that has come from the study of, well, keeping people healthy in space. I'd be interested to hear of any medical technology pertinent to earthbound humans that has come from human space flight. I am far from an expert in this, and I would be interested to hear the examples you or others cite.

ron ll
08-26-2009, 05:06 PM
I know there is medical knowledge pertinent to keeping people healthy in space that has come from the study of, well, keeping people healthy in space. I'd be interested to hear of any medical technology pertinent to earthbound humans that has come from human space flight. I am far from an expert in this, and I would be interested to hear the examples you or others cite.

You've heard of "Pampers" no doubt. :D

Gonzalo
08-26-2009, 05:43 PM
While there have been MANY worthwhile technological spinoffs from space exploration....Remember that there have been at least four "space programs" from which these technological spinoffs have come.

First, there is the military rocketry program, including spy satellites. All booster technology, and a lot of orbital mechanics, much of the remote control technology, and GPS, descended from these efforts.

Second, there is NASA's unmanned exploration starting with the Explorer satillites in the 50s. This was certainly accelerated by the support that the Apollo program needed, but a lot of the technology was developed independently of Apollo.

Third, commercial applications, such as communication satellites.

Fourth, the manned space program, including Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the shuttle, skylab, and the ISS.

No doubt a lot of technology came from the manned space program, but I'll bet most of what we consider technology spinoffs came from the military, communications, and unmanned exploration programs.

I may be totally uninformed, but I doubt that much technology unrelated to keeping people alive in space really spun off the manned space programs. The record of achievement, other than getting there, of manned space exploration is pretty thin. Kind of like climbing Mt. Everest. A difficult task to achieve, but not a lot of reason to go there...except to go there.

Gonzalo
08-26-2009, 06:01 PM
...helium 3 is known to be abundant on the moon. VERY little of it on earth. It is known to be a highly fusionable material. If we can build an efficient fusion reactor, the earth's energy problem is solved...safely. How much would that be worth to you?Wouldn't it be wise to determine whether "we can build an efficient fusion reactor" using helium 3 before spending heaven knows how much to colonize the moon in order to mine it?

Don't get me wrong; I am not against space exploration. I am for exploring aggressively with unmanned equipment, advancing science where it can be done, and finding materials to be exploited by manned exploration when it makes sense to do so.

IMHO, it is foolish to spend orders of magnitude more money on manned expeditions before there is a clear reason to do it.

Gonzalo
08-26-2009, 06:04 PM
You've heard of "Pampers" no doubt.You are claiming that disposable diapers were developed for manned space exploration and later adapted for commercial use? First I've heard of that. But as I have said before, the accomplishments of manned space exploration are pretty thin.

Gonzalo
08-26-2009, 09:35 PM
Guys like Rutan and the private ventures are doing a lot more for less.
Amateur radio has been putting reliable satellites into orbit for years for short money.Rutan has accomplished a good deal, considering he doesn't have a government budget. But "a lot more" than NASA? Really? Has Rutan done more than travel to the moon, explore Titan, send Rovers all around Mars or Voyagers outside the solar system? B.S. Rutan has accomplished a very specific mission: to send a manned vehicle to the edge of space and back again. I respect Rutan enormously, but that path has already been trod, first by the U.S. Air Force and then by NASA. (Probably by the Soviets, as well.) To say Rutan accomplished more with less is vastly overstating his accomplishments, considering that the Air Force and NASA broke the same ground 50 years ago.

Rutan is obviously bringing his own brilliant technology to the table. But he is still standing on the essential technology that was developed before him. Rutan's mission is not exploration or ground-breaking technology, but to entertain space tourists with routine, short flights. I'm glad he is going to do this, but let's keep his accomplishments in perspective with the incredible steps NASA, the Air Force, and commercial programs have accomplished.

Similarly, the AARL (AMSAT) satellites are great accomplishments for a mostly volunteer civilian organization. They were well built, and have functioned well. But they are only where they are because of ground that was broken and technology that was developed by the U.S. Air Force, NASA, and commercial satellite operators.

Captain Blight
08-26-2009, 10:22 PM
If NASA hadn't succumbed to the panic of the Cold War years, of HAVING to beat the Soviets to the moon, we'd be on Mars right now. If we had done it intelligently, incrementally, with first a space station at a LaGrange point and then a lunar colony then progressing on to Mars, we might have got there by the mid-80s. The Moon colony makes a good deal of sense, in that whatever we find on the Moon will be at the top of a gravity well. We know there are metal ores on the Moon, we know there's vacuum there and abundant sunshine; I don't think a solar-powered smelter would be beyond our abilities to create. Given a reliable source of refined metal in 1/6 G, boosting from Luna to Mars is going to be a heck of a lot cheaper than starting on Earth.


Problem is, like so many of our potentialities, we are now burdened with a system that is just patches on the patches. We need-- NASA and the ESA and JSA need-- visionaries who can sell the public on the great good that come out of space exploration. NASA being a part of Dept of Commerce, there probably are people on staff right now who can figure out how to make it pay in the long run. Which might turn out to be not all that long after all.

PatCox
08-26-2009, 10:36 PM
yes its worth it, the spirit needs romantic endeavours to charge the imagination and give hope to dreams. I felt that there were no limits to the ambition of humanity during the Appollo program, I don't care if it was motivated by the cold war, it gave hope to dreams.

When I learn that we have actually lost some of the technology, could not even do it again without starting over, its sad, it dashes those hopes.

No, I think the spirit of humanity needs romantic, bold, adventures, we are lost with nothing but the hum drum of day to day without it.

We should go to mars, we should not just keep the Hubble alive, we should be building 5 more bigger and better Hubbles, we should be exploring, venturing, hoping, questing.

Gonzalo
08-27-2009, 04:15 PM
Thanks for the list. I had heard of a few of these, but not most.

George Roberts
08-27-2009, 06:21 PM
The question is not: "What was developed by NASA?" but rather "Which of the items developed for NASA would not have been developed at all?"

In all likelihood all of the developments made by NASA would have been developed. The cost of development would have been different and the cost to users would have been different.