Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

JPL Begins Commercialization 136

Posted by CowboyNeal from the buy-yourself-a-piece-of-space-tech dept.
An anonymous reader writes "JPL has always been concerned with how their work has benefitted society and the Earth as a whole. Everything from developing tools to study what causes El Nino/La Nina to helping find sources of pollution in our environment. In an effort to continue their work while decreasing their burden on NASA's budget, JPL will introduce the JPL Commercialization Center. This means they will begin developing relationships with commercial entities to adapt their technologies for public use. The public benefit is two-fold since licensing fees will help ease NASA and taxpayer burden and life-enchancing technologies will be put into public use."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

JPL Begins Commercialization More

JPL Begins Commercialization

Comments Filter:
  • So does this finally mean i can finally buy my own space shuttle?

  • Call me cynical (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Marcus Erroneous ( 11660 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @10:33PM (#4384928) Homepage
    If JPL can generate some real income, I don't see the boys in DC letting it go for what it was intended. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see upper level management at JPL use the extra income to fund pet projects of their own rather that using it as intended. I can only hope that somehow I will be wrong. Be the best mistake of my life! ;)

    • Okay, you're cynical (Score:5, Insightful)

      by devphil ( 51341 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @10:48PM (#4384976) Homepage
      it wouldn't surprise me to see upper level management at JPL use the extra income to fund pet projects of their own rather that using it as intended.

      JPL is run by Caltech (a school) for NASA. I doubt that Caltech would be able to sweep that much money under the rug, or divert it for other uses, without massive outcry.

      Just because JPL is going commercial doesn't (necessarily) mean that all their decisions will be of the secret star chamber CEO-screws-the-world type. They will be in the public eye more than ever, over precisely these concerns.

      • Okay, I'm cynical, too (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SgtChaireBourne ( 457691 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @03:23AM (#4385697) Homepage
        Once the goal is to turn out money and, far worse, stock options, then doing actual research and development takes a far second or third place. And, as has been shown time and time again, research and development are essential prequisites for long term profitiability. Compare 3M versus Framfab.

        Privatizing brings additional risks by bringing in too many people lacking in domain expertise. If enough MBAs get involved, research may disappear altogether from the top ten actual priorities. The late Henry Ford did not get rich from designing new cars, he got rich from mass production of millions of identical cars using one design. This works until there is a new design for a better car, but if you planned ahead the design is by your research program.

        Their best chance to stay competitive in Aerospace would be to never go public. The CEO for Ikea goes into great detail about the advantages of not having share holders (even dumber than MBAs) interfering. Also, staying non-profit or not-for-profit ensures that any surplus is reinvested back into the company.

    • For some reason this news reminds me of the public land that is leased to mining companys for $5 an sq.mile or something like that. They keep telling us that doing so reduces our tax burden, etc. but I can't help but wonder how many tons of gold, silver, platinum, uranium, iron, copper, and so on comes out of that ground. Is my tax money just going to end up paying for some large corporations's R&D budgets?

  • JPL isn't GPL (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 03, 2002 @10:34PM (#4384932)
    so why would the average slashdot reader care?
    • JPL/Linux
    • Well SPLA, GPL, LGPL, X11, and VASDNFOFSDNNSL are obviously superior to the JPL.

      What ticks me off is that morons like you think that us programmers just use the license that sounds cool (GPL) and the OS that sounds cool (Debian GNU/Linux).

      We obviously bow to peer pressure faster than my sk8b0@rding younger brother. No, the bottom of our barrel did not invent 31337 $p3@k!!!
    • Java Public License, may be?
    • Actually, that might be of interest to a few slashdotters, depending on what patents are involved. Hardware is one thing, but software or other "IP" is another.

      Since JPL will be selling licenses to people who will presumably want to profit from their new purchase, we (the U.S. taxpaying public) will be paying for the technology twice. Once with our tax dollars to develop the technology, and once again to purchase it from the licensee.

      Oh well. You can't download Tang. I guess a lot of the space program stuff just doesn't lend itself to open source.
  • What's the IPO on JPL look like? ;)

    • Re:So... (Score:3, Funny)

      by jchawk ( 127686 )
      Well they have their business plan scribled down on a napkin, and they've got 50 programmers in the office ready to code something, and they seem just as good as all the other dot-coms out there that's stock is through the roof, oh wait wait wait, they have linux written on the napkin, this just has to be a winner!!!

      Oh wait. . . It's not 1998 anymore?
    • What's the IPO on JPL look like?

      Well, if they F-up the units-of-measure again, they might look pretty good until somebody discovers the mistake.

  • Life Enchancing technologies (Score:3, Funny)

    by JudasBlue ( 409332 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @10:40PM (#4384951)
    The public benefit is two-fold since licensing fees will help ease NASA and taxpayer burden and life-enchancing technologies will be put into public use.


    I hadn't realized that the JPL was doing weapons research.


    Actually, I normally don't cop on spelling errors, since I am not the world's best speller, but I really like this new term and think I shall use it frequently:


    Don't disturb Phil while he is in deep hack mode, it is life-enchancing.

    • Geez, thanks for letting me spill coffee on my keyboard while it squirted from my nose as I read your comment...

      In proper unix analogy: coffee | nose > keyboard .

      Thanks for the laugh... I might use "life-enchancing" too.. it has a kind of ring to it.

    • Aerogel [nasa.gov]
    • And couldn't help but think about the "life enchancing" technologies that have run amiss in the last few decades.

      A Freudian slip? Maybe, but in an armchair analysis, I see government control (i.e.: budget constraints and administrative failures) leading to the fatalities that document our brave and confident space travelers who've perished in the wake of "Enchancement..."

      No flame, just lament...one of my classmate had a cousin named Roger B. Chaffee. :-((

      • Umm, not to dig at old wounds, but _alot_ of people have died due to _private sector_ budget constraints & administrative failures (http://www.bhopal.net/welcome2.html).

        I think singling out the gummint maybe clouds the issue: it's ALWAYS deplorable when monetary concerns end up costing someone's life.

        In any event, I do think that this is exiciting news, one of the great promises of space research is that money spent on the cutting edge of survival will translate into better lives for all of us, sort of keeping the challenge of the old frontier alive.

        But I'm wondering if "Any U.S.-owned organization can access JPL's special technological expertise and specialized equipment through the Technology Affiliates Program." means that tax dollars will or won't be used to secure even more patents that lock technology away from the general (paying) public?

  • Commercialization != Sellout (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @10:40PM (#4384952)
    Some people may complain that commercializing aspects of the JPL is questionary, but the sad fact is that congress, in its infinite wisdom, does not see fit to provide NASA and JPL with the money they really need. I'm afraid this is probably a necessary move, but perhaps in the end it will be a positive thing.

    Personally, I'd like to see NASA as a whole be able to commercialize to some degree to help offset the lack of funding. I'd like to see NASA receive more funding. The money it will cost to pick a fight with Iraq would go a long way at NASA. Hell, it would go a long way to feed a lot of nations, but what can you do other than vote and protest.
    • you're right. commercialization does not equal sellout. it just equals...obscurity, irrelevance. i'm not sure how this could be a positive thing. anyone remember bell labs? they put out some kick ass stuff before they had to answer to the profit motive. if your department _has_ to show a profit, or is even just expected to, you aren't going to take risks. and most importantly, neither is the guy across the hall. or his neighbour. and then real science, where you do not know what the result is going to be, shrivels up.
      bell labs came out with brilliant (and profitable) stuff because nobody working there had to show a profit. NASA & JPL might survive commercialization, (is there a shorter word for that?), but their image will likely suffer.
      my $0.02 CDN
      • Honestly, I really can't think of a better thing to happen to the JPL. Call me a Ludite, but this is exactly the type of thing that should be in the private sector. My tax money should not be going to towards this, especially when there is a very real private sector interest in a fair amount of this technology. Yes I think it is nice that we are exploring space, and yes, I really like reading about the advances in space propulsion that people theorize, but let the private sector figure this all out, and foot the bill for it, rather than forcing me, and millions of other Americans, to foot the bill. If the public wants it, then they will pay for it and allow it to happen, if they don't want it, why charge them for it?

        Probably not going to be a popular opinion, but what the hell, I am wondering when they will privatize NASA.

  • NASA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jchawk ( 127686 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @10:40PM (#4384953) Homepage Journal
    Any commercialization of NASA research or technology is a *good thing*. NASA needs to go the route the post office went aka let NASA run like a business, but still be able to receive some funding from the government when it's needed. It's just not working anymore with the current setup (allocate fixed amount of funding every year). If you allow NASA to begin making money then they can further their research and development, they can plan more missions, and maybe just maybe we'll get to mars sometime in our life time.

    An added bonus, is maybe we can further kindle the private sector space exploration spark.
    • I am not disagreeing with you, but at the same time there is something deeply wrong and bogus about going into the US Post Office and having them handing out AOL software as they do here in Berkeley.

      It makes it seem like the US Post Office and AOL are somehow in cahoots.

      Actually now that I think about it, considering the efficency of both organizations...hmmmm...

      • Re:NASA (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jchawk ( 127686 )
        I'm not sure that I agree with you when you say "It makes it seem like the US Post Office and AOL are somehow in cahoots." AOL has paid the post office money in order to rent some space in there buildings to advertise for their service. The post office certainly is not endorsing AOL. They are just taking the opportunity to make some money off them by allowing them to advertise within their walls.

        Here's a situation for you, when you go to a sporting event and you see a billboard for "Budwiser" is that sports team that you came to see endorsing that beer? Or is the stadium just simply increasing the amount of money that they can make by renting some space out that would otherwise be empty?

        One more for you, everyday the post office delivers you a whole bunch of mail, your tv guide, electric bill, and a Fredricks of Hollywood catalog for your girlfriend. Now the post office delivered it to you, so does that mean they are endorsing Fredricks of Hollywood and more specificly your raunchy imagination?

        • Re:NASA (Score:2, Interesting)

          by JudasBlue ( 409332 )
          A sporting event isn't a government office, straight up. You think we should start selling that little logo behind Fleischer in those Whitehouse press breifings? Maybe make it a green screen like at ball parks so they can change the logo as he talks about different things?

          I personally feel that when you are dealing with government offices, a slightly different set of basic rules apply than when dealing with straight commercial entities.

          That said and back on the main topic, I am all about the JPL working with commercial entities, but appearing to endorse them just feels a little creepy to me, even if the USPO definitely needs the money and I understand why they are doing it.

          Plus, I just don't like anyone handing out AOL in general. I would rather hand out a CD full of virii. Oh, wait, basically the same thing...

    • Post office ?!?! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TamMan2000 ( 578899 )
      This would be catastrophic! The post office does not have to innovate, there is no profit in long term innovations in the aerospace industry (or execs are too focused on short term goals to acknowledge it...). NASA would eventually become another competitor for Boeing, Lockheed, Pratt & Whitney, and all of the other commercial aerospace companies in the US. Right now the aerospace industry relies on NASA to help them develop products on the distant horizon. They could not work with them nearly as effectively if NASA was out to sell the product themselves...

      You don't see UPS and FedEx jumping at the opportunity to work with the USPS do you?
    • Suddenly I'm picturing an MIB-type setup, where NASA discovers aliens and super-high technology, and slowly leaks it to the public over a number of years.

      Come to think of it....

      Hey, what if the moon landing -was- faked... to hide the existance of a secret NASA/MIB base?

    • Get NASA out of the launching business (Score:5, Insightful)

      by XNormal ( 8617 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @03:43AM (#4385738) Homepage
      Let NASA commercialize their cutting-edge stuff but for crissake get NASA out of the launching business. Let them deploy probes to other planets, study the Earth and environment, develop advanced interplanetary propulsion concepts, build space habitats, study space medicine - but don't let them anywhere near the drawing board of a launch vehicle. Ground to LEO transport should be off-limits for NASA.

      Cargo launch vehicles don't need to be cutting edge. They don't need to be advanced - they need to be dumb, big, reliable andcheap. Crew space taxis need to be ultra-reliable, small and relatively cheap. NASA is apparently incapable of achieving any of these goals.

      Subsidizing shuttle payloads has nearly killed the private space industry. Instead of competing with it with tax dollars NASA should promote it by buying launch services.

      See this report [dunnspace.com] by Lt. Col. John R. London III to find the historical reasons for the cost of launching and how it can be drastically reduced.

  • Since when... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tarth ( 445054 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @10:42PM (#4384957)
    Since when is Tang a life-enhancing product?

    I swear if I develop cancer it's the Tang's fault.
  • Um, I'm *about* to read the article, but...

    If the JPL is a gov't entity (and I'm not sure yet, haven't read the article) then isn't all their software already public domain? Isn't it impossible for them to have a copyright?

    I've posted here before ranting *against* gov't agencies releasing GPL software, for only this reason. I'd love to say that I could justify gov't funded GPL software, but I can't, because all government generated intellectual material must be in the public domain. We own the government, right? So it's our software.

    If this is a government agency, and they're going to sell someone their copyright, I'm going to be *livid*. Can a lawyer please tell me exactly when the goverment can and cannot hold a copyright on intellectual creations? I have no idea where I'd begin to research this question. If they can hold a copyright, then I'd support legislation that that copyrighted material should always be under some sort of open-source or free-software type license. If they cannot hold a copyright... good.

    Anyway. Now I'm going to go read the article and become informed. Unfortunately, that means I can't post on the subject, right?
    • Um, I'm *about* to read the article, but...

      If the JPL is a gov't entity (and I'm not sure yet, haven't read the article) then isn't all their software already public domain? Isn't it impossible for them to have a copyright?

      I've posted here before ranting *against* gov't agencies releasing GPL software, for only this reason. I'd love to say that I could justify gov't funded GPL software, but I can't, because all government generated intellectual material must be in the public domain. We own the government, right? So it's our software.

      If this is a government agency, and they're going to sell someone their copyright, I'm going to be *livid*. Can a lawyer please tell me exactly when the goverment can and cannot hold a copyright on intellectual creations? I have no idea where I'd begin to research this question. If they can hold a copyright, then I'd support legislation that that copyrighted material should always be under some sort of open-source or free-software type license. If they cannot hold a copyright... good.

      Anyway. Now I'm going to go read the article and become informed. Unfortunately, that means I can't post on the subject, right?
      • Eh. Imagine my surprise when I discovered... I'm a retard.

        The Jet Propulsion Lab is part of CalTech. It is decidedly an NGO. My post is completely offtopic. It might not look that way in metamod, so feel free to use "overrated" on it. As cowardly as I would normally consider that move, go ahead.

        Anyway, I'm still curious if a government agency is ever allowed to hold a copyright. But that curiousity is offtopic.

        I'll go sit down now.
        • From what I've read, [faqs.org]
          "With one exception, works of the United States government are public
          domain. 17 U.S.C. 105. The only exception is for standard reference
          data produced by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce under the Standard
          Reference Data Act, 15 U.S.C. 290e."

          But this only applies to things produced by the federal government. If it's a work produced by someone else (university, advertiser, etc) and the federal government licenses it, it doesn't become public domain. So those Sept 11th commercials are most likely not public domain, and university research done with federal money is not necessarily public domain.

    • JPL is a NASA lab, but operated by CalTech employees. It's neither entirely public sector nor private sector. JPL maintains some contracts with NASA, but is free to use its development for other purposes as well. Much of that has gone into other government-related work for DOE and the military, but there have been private contracts as well.

      • Re:Lawyers? (Score:4, Informative)

        by olafva ( 188481 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @01:28AM (#4385439) Homepage
        You are correct and it is something not widely known! Actually as I understand it, NASA HQ issues one big contract to Caltech to run JPL for NASA. There are very few NASA government employees at JPL but mostly Caltech employees whose paycheck is issued by Caltech, not NASA. This becomes even more complicated when JPL turns around and issues a subcontract to a 3rd party (i.e. Lockheed) for missions such as Mars Polar Lander etc. as Lockeed reports to Caltech (JPL) which in turn reports to NASA (NASA HQ plus a few bonefide NASA employees on-site to manage the JPL contract). My son, who graduated from Caltech suggested that missions run strictly by Caltech for NASA had a high success rate, but those subcontracted out by JPL to a third parties (i.e. Lockheed) often ran into management communications problems which the NASA inquiry pointed to in the two Mars failures. Hope this clarifies that JPL is not "strictly" NASA. Legally, since JPL (Caltech) is not a government entity but a contractor (just like Boeing or Lockheed) it owns all copyrights and inventions unless it's NASA HQ contract retains such rights for NASA. This is most likely as otherwise this slashdot story from the JPL (Caltech) Press Release would not have been issued in the first place.
    • If the JPL is a gov't entity (and I'm not sure yet, haven't read the article) then isn't all their software already public domain? Isn't it impossible for them to have a copyright?
      JPL is NOT a government Agency. JPL is an operating division of the California Institute of Technology and a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). The people are Caltech/JPL empoloyees, however the land, buildings, and property are all US Government owned.

      As for who owns what work, as will all Goverment grants, the Government owns everything that the Government pays for and can use it or give it to whoever it wants to for Government purposes. The Government can pay me to develop a widget, and then give that widget design to another company to build a bigger widget that will be sold to the Government. However, if that second company wants to use my widget to develop a product that it is NOT going to sell to the Government, then they have to negotiate a licence from me to use it.

    • Actually, no -- government held patents and copyrights are not public domain.

      As much as any real property, they are subject to the Condemnation/Privatization cycle of transferring property from poor people/businesses to wealthy people and businesses.

      As I remember, ("Surely you're Joking, Mr. Feynmann) during the Manhatten Project, they asked for and claimed the patent ideas of the scientists working on the projects. So Feynmann, in exchange for a tiny party, provided them with the patents for such things as nuclear powered ships, nuclear subs, nuclear airplanes, and such. Those aren't public domain; and the beneficiary of these patents is the US Government.

      Or think back to your own town: remember all those properties that the town council condemned? Remember all those lucrative contracts that went out to companies owned by members of the town council? And the $3000 dead-town-district lots that suddenly got sold as $120k "Parking"? Or the university that traded its valuable property between the university town and the nearest commercial center (on the main road), in an acre-for-acre swap for flood-plane land with its Athletic Director? Or the mayor who got free land from the city for "improving downtown", a free building from the feds for "a medical complex", put his own "doctor's office" on the top floor, and rented the rest to the US Park Service, moving them out of the US Post Office across the street?

      Ummm ... maybe your town wasn't quite like my town. Quite like it -- these were stories from Harrisonburg, VA, and VA Tech. But I'm willing to bet that it's not too different from ours. I've seen this kind of thing in too many places.

      Anything the government owns is NOT public domain. It is very specifically private domain, and headed into the hands of someone more powerful than you.

      • I think lspd [slashdot.org] might have it right when he quotes [slashdot.org] a copyright faq [faqs.org] as saying "With one exception, works of the United States government are public domain. 17 U.S.C. 105. The only exception is for standard reference data produced by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce under the Standard Reference Data Act, 15 U.S.C. 290e."

        The JPL can do this because they're a government contractor. All's fair in that case. I only brought up this offtopic question because I didn't realize that the JPL wasn't a gov't org. I hadn't read the article.

        I imagine patents and copyrights by gov't employees could easily be governed by differennt laws.

        On a side note, everyone knows that if a CEO gives away a part of the company in a manner that is obvioiusly not the most beneficial to the shareholder value, he can be sued, held criminally liable, and thrown in jail. Wouldn't it be nice if we could do that to politicians? Even if only in the most egregious cases? Makes me fantasize about the Singaporean meritocracy... if it were combined with a massive bill of rights.

  • JPL.com? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by coupland ( 160334 ) <dchaseNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Thursday October 03, 2002 @10:47PM (#4384968) Journal

    While I fully support non-profit organizations seeking public money I can't help but feel a bit violated by this.

    JPL is one of the last vestigates of "pure" science now that every other institute has sold out for cellular satellites, titties in space, and singings fags on the Space Center.

    If JPL sells out to the highest bidder then surely Linus or the GPL is next!

    • Re:JPL.com? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Paul Komarek ( 794 ) <komarek.paul@gmail.com> on Thursday October 03, 2002 @11:45PM (#4385155) Homepage
      Heh, my view of JPL is that they're a long way from pure. They seem to be as much or more an engineering-on-steroids shop than a research lab. And I think that's just what they need to be. As such, they're probably among the closest organizations in NASA to the commercial sector. JPL is in a good position to provide nearly-usable, nearly-mature technology to the relatively risk-adverse business sector.

      It's not like they're selling JPL (which in fact is run by Caltech, and is not administered by the government). They're selling technology and services. That's fine with me.

      Bonneville Power distributes energy from Army Core of Engineers dams to private power companies, and part of their mission as a federal organization is to keep the price as low as possible. As a result, the northwest has the cheapest electricity in nation. Furthermore, Bonneville doesn't get any tax money; their special federal privilege is to take loans from the US Treasury, which they have to pay back.

      I'm sure there's plenty of other federal, state, and local governmental organizations providing services to people for a fee. For JPL to do this is an intelligent use of resources.

      -Paul Komarek

      • Re:JPL.com? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by freshmkr ( 132808 )
        I worked there last summer.

        I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's an "engineering on steroids" shop. There's plenty of research that goes on there, from earth sciences [nasa.gov] to observation of space [nasa.gov] to novel robot research [nasa.gov] (PDF).

        I think there are two big reasons JPL may seem like more of an engineering shop. First, JPL and NASA are under pressure to demonstrate their relevance to Congress and the American public, and the more practical works are easier to relate in this way. Second of all, the highest profile, most expensive projects (e.g. MER [nasa.gov]) tend to use proven, existing technologies, making it looks like JPL focuses more on application than development. This is not actually the case--the science just gets less press.

        ObSelfLink: I have lots of pictures of the JPL and robots I met there here [skein.org].

        --Tom

        • You're right, and thank-you for the correction. I think I would have better stated my opinion using "engineering/applied-research" instead of "engineering". The basis for that opinion comes from complaints by researchers from JPL who don't have as much time for "research" as they would like. For me, however, JPL would be a great place to work if it weren't for the smog (thankfully the smog is decreasing).

          -Paul Komarek
    • They're selling technology and services to commercial entities. While it may not be completely obvious, this is what RMS spent most of the past two decades (until he got a grant) doing. Linus hasn't sold any Linux-related goods or services, but that's probably just because he got a good job at a hardware startup; otherwise, he'd probably be living by doing Linux consulting.

  • Should we have to pay for the tech? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So, I've paid for all this technology to be developed with my tax dollars. So now if I want to use it for some project, I've got to pay the government for the right to use it?????

    -k

  • How absurd... Nasa's budget is less than .5%... (Score:3, Informative)

    by JeremyYoung ( 226040 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @10:57PM (#4384992) Homepage
    NASA's budget is less than .5% of the entire federal budget, and JPL is worried about the taxpayer burden they are being??? How completely asinine. Why aren't all the meaningless bureaucratic positions in the Department of Commerce, the Export Import Bank, and all the other do-nothing federal agencies expressing this kind of worry over the taxpayer burden they pose?

    At least JPL help keep us at the forefront of various technologies for 40+ years. What has the Department of Commerce ever done for the average American?
  • Good Lord. Did you guys actually read this article? Excuse me, it's not an article, it's a press release, and a particularly self-aggrandizing one. It does *not* say that JPL is going to do anything new, it just announces the formation of a new bureaucracy to go on doing what it's been doing. What is the news here?

  • JPL has always farmed out developments. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Unbeliever ( 35305 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @11:17PM (#4385049)
    I speak as a random schmoe who likes to work at JPL, not as a JPL representative. Take my comments as editorial, not fact.

    JPL has always farmed out new technology to private industry. Its our secondary charter just under our NASA work. From what I've read of the press report linked, this just seems to be a re-organization and re-focus of the old Technology Affiliates Program. I've worked primarily for non-NASA reimbursable projects. In the 10 years I've worked at JPL, I've only charged to a NASA number ONCE. And then only for a summer. A reimbursable project is when an outside organinzation pays JPL (through NASA) to do work for for them, and they get something in return, like a research paper, technology, or a piece of hardware. JPL will do the work, and then will get reimbursed by the company at completion, IIRC.

    As an example of some of the work either I, or my co-workers have done under the TAP-like programs include things like systems, hardware, and behavior software for autonomous urban robots like Urbie [nasa.gov] under DARPA. Ford has funded my group to develop hardware for Engine Control, Emission Control, and diagnostics using Neural Networks. 3-Dimensional IC stacks with Irvine Sensors Corporation for novel Neural Network architectures. Quantum Well Infrared Photodetectors (QWIP) imagers by various companies. Active Pixel Sensors (APS, buzword category: CMOS Imagers) has been licenced to private companies like Micron [micron.com] (formerly Photobit, before they were bought by Micron). Our Micro Devices Lab has farmed out a metric buttload of MEMS instruments and sensors to more companies than I can remember.

    That said, JPL WILL NOT compete with private industry. We're not allowed to and it doesn't make sense to. We don't do manufuacturing or marketing. JPL does things that no-one else does. Once we figure out how to do something, we give it to someone else and figure out how to do something new. Since we are a Federally Funded Research and Development Center, it is unappropriate for us to steal business away from legitamate business. However it is appropriate for us to be in bleeding edge research areas that are still not financially or strategically desirable for private industry. The Government usually plays anchor tennant to most technolgies.

    As a peon looking up, I can see why they've started to emphasize more on reimbursable projects. NASA and Congress is getting more and more fickle on what and when to pay for new projects. The next rover is finishing up soon (The Mars Exploration Rovers, or Mars '03) and work is rolling off. Everyone coming off MER is looking for new jobs and the project that was supposed to pick everyone up (Mars '05) was pushed back to '07. So the scare of layoffs is real amongst us. I'm actually in the same boat since my projects had the misfortune of ending at the same time MER did, so I'm competing with them. (I believe I've got my funding covered, but I'm in the gap at the moment taking vacation). I'm not the only one I know in my situation. If JPL can get more reimbursable projects, I believe JPL can better weather the whims of congress.

    I am glad that JPL is re-emphasizing in comercialization. Although Space missions are fun, novel technology is much more satisfying to me. If we can get more industry to fund new technology, I believe the US will be much better off.

    • What Unbeliever says above here more or less jibes with what my dad, a 38-year JPL veteran and one of the higher-ups involved with TAP and its descendants told me. That is, there's no reorganization or even necessarily a refocus. JPL has always done commercial projects.

      This is press/PR opportunity and little more. There may even be a new phone number and URL, but little else.

      JPL continues on as before, so don't anyone get their panties in a bunch over a lab selling out or "going commercial" -- it's as it ever was.
    • Speaking as a researcher who has had a taste of both pure and "applied research", it seemed to me that sometimes applied research was just an excuse to get product development efforts done on the cheap with government funding, and it wasted the talents of people who were great at pure research but were bored by product development.

      What's your view on this, both in terms of JPL and the broader context?

      • Re:Is commercial work going to get in the way? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Unbeliever ( 35305 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @02:49AM (#4385604)
        Well, there are two fronts to reimbursable projects at JPL. Government funded, and Industry funded.

        If a private company wants to fund JPL, they're not funding JPL to do it on the cheap. Any work JPL does for them is paid for by them. If anything, they probably get a better workforce per dollar ratio in house than they do funding JPL. All the money that they give us goes through NASA because of the JPL Prime Contract with NASA. Industry pays NASA, NASA takes their cut, pays Caltech, Caltech takes their cut, give it to JPL, and then the standard burden overhead rates apply. We're still pretty good compared to industry for burden rates, but suck for FFRDCs and Universities in general. What industry is paying for is our experience and focus in new technologies. They're hoping we can leverage past work and our skills into a new technology.

        Now while I apreciate the Industry funding, I strongly believe that there should be more Government funding for raw new technology research and development. The Government has always been, and will always be an anchor tennant for technologies and that are too far into the future for common industry. Many of the technologies we take for granted today started out as wholly developed or heavily subsidized projects of the US Government. The telecommunications industry, the Internet, high performance computing in general, GPS, and the Airline industry just to name a very short list of things. I strongly believe that we can and should colonize space, however I think it is a big mistake to do it with manned exploration first. Although I don't think JPL will be the only organization to do it, I do think JPL will be and should be the foundation of solar system exploration and travel developments in the future.

        "Applied Research" is not the only thing JPL does, but it does do it well. We do have our dreamers that come up with things no one has thought before, those dreamers feed it to our second level visionaries in society that hopefully will have the wisdom to point us in the right direction and tell us (me) what to work on.

        There are also things called SBIRs (Small Business Innovative Research, IIRC). They're small, multi-level grants to small buisinesses that each large agency or organization that receives Government funding has to participate in. Grants are given in stages for new technology development.... Paper study, prototype, and so forth up the technology readiness levels. Those I believe are beneficial and allows industry to participate in the bleeding edge. Those are the types of programs are what I think you're talking about and those types of subsidies should continue. Why let the FFRDCs have all the fun. We get stagnant too.

        • I like to see quality responses like this: it told me more about the actual process that goes on there, and it actually does make a little bit of sense. I can see from this that you really do believe in your work, and probably belong where you are.

          BTW... Most of the stuff you do is pretty amazing; but at least as of 5-6 years ago, your planetary position predictions were lousy. I'm hoping you guys have, since then, upgraded your method with the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard iteration [aps.org].

          Quick Explanation of the method here [jmu.edu].

        • I know it was me who asked the question, but this is an informative answer from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
    • JPL WILL NOT compete with private industry.

      Until something like The National Science Trust [geocities.com] exists, methinks thou doth protest too much.

      We're not allowed to

      For very good reasons.

      and it doesn't make sense to.

      If you're receiving the benefit of a violation of law and/or ethics, does it "make sense" to engage in or encourage that voilation? Some would say it does.

      We don't do manufuacturing

      JPL has one of the largest machine shops in the country. Yes, it is all sitting idle -- that doesn't mean it can't be cranked up at any time under the guise of a high-sounding "public private partnership".

      or marketing.

      Hardly anyone I know in business knows the definition of "marketing" so I'll presume you mean what they mean when they say it: "sales". JPL engages in sales all the time -- with NASA HQ and Congress, not to mention PR. This story in /. is a form of sales. If you're a contractor with JPL who hasn't sucked up to the right guys within JPL and your competitor gets the subsidy while you get shut out of the use of JPL "spin-offs", JPL's sales ability is absolutely crucial. They can sell space enthusiasts, Congress and NASA HQ on the idea that JPL is their friend and of course friends deserve loyalty against evil outsiders like you.

      JPL does things that no-one else does.

      Yes and you also figure out how to do things that others might be able to figure out how to do given a market for it.

      Once we figure out how to do something, we give it to someone else and figure out how to do something new.

      Who do you "give" "it" to? You're friends who happen to be in the "private sector" this week? Since you got the capital for this from the government and the government got the capital for it from the public why not give it to the public -- put it in the public domain? Alien concept to you all? Remember what you said about not doing manufacturing? You can't tell us that "it" is anything but intellectual property. You also said "give" -- why "give" to some, and not others, all this marvelous intellectual property?

      Since we are a Federally Funded Research and Development Center, it is unappropriate for us to steal business away from legitamate business. However it is appropriate for us to be in bleeding edge research areas that are still not financially or strategically desirable for private industry.

      Don't confuse "research" with "development". That's the problem with you guys. Development is "bleeding edge" because the return is direct or not to the company funding the intellectual property development. Research produces stuff that's not patentable by definition. Laws of nature are not patentable. If you guys produce something patentable you'd better put it in the public domain directly and you'd better have a damn good reason why you didn't just get something off the shelf from the private sector.

      The Government usually plays anchor tennant to most technolgies.

      Oh, like the Commercially Developed Space Facility? Listen, kid, I was there doing space politics when Baldridge got killed and the NASA apparatchiks took the positions within it to kill off CDSF so the Space Station would have no competition. Don't tell me about the government playing anchor tennant to most technologies.

  • Technology transfer and commercialization of NASA technologies is not a new idea. in the mid-80's I was involved in two projects that used NASA's Small Business Technology Transfer Program (think that's the name). In fact the news release states "On average, JPL reports nearly 300 innovations per year and roughly 150 new business partnerships." Hopefully, the Commercialization Center will expidite the process.

  • JPL! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @11:29PM (#4385104) Homepage
    So now do we start demanding that all our software be JPLed?
  • Now I can finally buy a giant air bag so that I can jump out of the plane instead of wait for the landing, runway taxi, and checkout process.

  • Budget cuts suck. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Loudergood ( 313870 )
    Heh, the problem I have with NASA is that congress doesnt let there be enough of a taxpayer burden.

  • One worry (Score:2, Insightful)

    by adrenalinerush ( 518023 )
    One advantage of having publicly funded research facilities that do so much advanced, out-there research is that the scientists are pursuing things that they feel will make a difference, regardless of whether the fruits of the research will be lucrative. Of course, many of the things they develop can have some commercial application and make some money, but that's not the emphasis. (Of course, this also can produce an organization with a hugely bloated budget that may not be as efficient as we'd like with our tax dollars)

    One worry that I have about when this publicly funded organization joins up with the commercial sector: Do they start to focus on projects that can be turned into viable products sooner? Does their research start getting directed towards the more potentially lucrative products, at the expense of the projects that could change the way we live for the better?

    I'm glad to see that this initiative is being taken, partially for the cool stuff that I'll be able to buy as a result of it, and also because getting more for our tax-dollars always appeals to me. I just hope this doesn't go the way of some of the university research facilities that have deals with corporations, patents/other exclusive rights in return for funding.

  • The new commerialized version of NASA: Shuttle_vp.jpg [resumefactory.com]

  • Fastback (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Graymalkin ( 13732 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @12:37AM (#4385316)
    Hopefully any JPL commercialization doesn't work out the same way as the space shuttle. When someone pays beaucoup cash to send something up on the shuttle the money goes not back to NASA but instead goes back into the general fund. When someone pays to use the space shuttle Congress uses that cash to give themselves a raise or do whatever else they want. So not only is NASA given an insultingly tight budget but any money they make gets taken away from them.

    Hopefully the federal part of JPL's charter won't suck all the cash out of commercialization. JPL has a ton of cool things they could license out to commercial ventures. It'd be a shame if NASA and CalTech don't get to see any of the returns.
  • Drop all the paperpushers, let commercial companies do the mundane stuff like launching satellites, let the Russians run the space stations, let the Canadians build, install, and maintain the equipment, and let's get back to what NASA does best: space exploration.

    Enough bullshit, NASA needs to go back to being heroes only. If the JPL discovers anything important w/ publicly funded dollars, put it in the public fucking domain and let the vcs fuck each other for it. I don't see the free market putting people on Mars anytime soon.

  • I'm an ex-NASA employee because of Com. office (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I resigned from NASA 3 years ago because of the Com office. Nothing could be more anti-GPL or in general more plain Evil. My co-workers and I were always wanting to release things GPL, but the Com. office always wanted to try to sell it. On the extremely rare cases in which some bought something it was always from the exclusive rights for like 10 years for like $20k. This is a 100% rip-off for the Tax payer and only provides enough funding to keep Com. office going and holding hostage the rest of the Tech. (lots of s/w) that no-one else would pay for, but would be very nice additions to the Free software world

    When we would press them on the issue then they'd say it was National Security and we can't violate Export restrictions by releasing it GPL. What crap.

    BTW, all of NASA outside of JPL hates JPL. If they has a success it's was all JPL, when screwed things up it was NASA (not JPL). They suck down lots of NASA funding.

    Truth is, all the rest of NASA's money goes to Manned space program contractors. NASA has no money left to do any advanced research so there's nothing really left to commericalize. It seem like a good place to write Free software, but the damn com. office made sure that wasn't the case.

    Point is, the NASA com. office is a major enemy of Free Software and everyone should realized this. Tell your congressmen that the American public shouldn't have to pay twice for software written on their dollar.
  • I thought Slash would support characters like the ñ.
  • I really think it's fantastic that JPL has been commercialised. Now, perhaps they can get on with some real research. If they must monitor El Nino, McDonalds can pay them to find out how it will effect grain production on their farms. Coca Cola can hire them to do some proper science, and see if they can't work out how to finally put their billboard in space they once aspired to.


    Great news for all those who seek knowledge in it's purest form. I think it was Newton who theorized that: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction on the stock exchange." Something like that any way.

  • NASA has had an active role in technology utilization and commercialization for the private sector for a long long time. This kind of thing is not new except for the shiny new center in Pasadena. The NASA Spinoff Magazine [nasatech.com] describes the process and successfully transferred technologies.

    Additionally, the NASA Tech Briefs [nasatech.com] are published monthly for the purpose of announcing new technology developed by NASA or its contractors that is available for commercialization.

  • We are either going to be taxed to pay for research that is given away for free or we are going to pay for the liceinsing fee through the price of the consumed good. I would rather see research be given away for free rather than be tainted by corporate sponsorship.
  • But why should only JPL do this? And why couldn't the state own more companies (preferable jointly with the people who work there, i.e. the only way to get that stock is to be hired) and run them just like any other company, just that the profit goes smack right into the state and hence lowers the tax burden.

    Ok ok, our goverments are either too corrupt or to inept at doing anything useful for this to work. If the politicians actually could run a company, why wouldn't they already run companies? But then again, maybe we could get some good people in instead then.
  • This isn't anything new. NASA is Federally mandated to give technology back to the taxpayers that funded it. Technology Transfer programs existed almost from Day 1 at NASA. For example:
    http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/
    http://n ctn.hq.nasa.gov/
  • Larry Wall developed Perl while working for JPL. I wonder if Perl would have been free software if it had been developed there today.

    I think we lose something when government institutions get commercial.

  • NASA's budget is tiny compared to the military and is a damn sight more useful. I'd say that letting commercial interests interfere in pure research is not a desirable thing; it would be better to trim the huge piles of fat off the military budget and give it to NASA to do some good with.

    TWW

  • Great plan (Score:4, Interesting)

    by deblau ( 68023 ) <slashdot.25.flickboy@spamgourmet.com> on Friday October 04, 2002 @05:36AM (#4385940) Journal
    Current system:
    • No one can afford to get into space because the technology is too expensive.
    System after JPL privatization:
    • No one can afford to get into space because the licensing fees for the technology are too expensive.
    At least under the current system, NASA IP immediately enters the public domain. Which is why contests like the X Prize can even get "off the ground", so to speak. With this move, any new tech developed would almost immediately be patented, and you can kiss all your dreams of space goodbye, as the lawyers get involved and we argue for 50 years. What have we gained? New tech, but only for a few people, and that handful of people gets to decide the future of space exploration (or they sue you). Some plan.

    In a perfect world, I'd take all of NASA private (along with a lot of the rest of the government bloat), but this isn't that world.

    • Private? As in "pay Microsoft?" Geez.. I agreed with every word you said until the last paragraph. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "private" but this is what I envision:

      BillG: "I'll give you $XX Billion dollars for your NASA organization and all IP."
      NASA: "OK."

      MS-Nasa: "Where in space do you want to go today?"

      (shuddering) Vortran out
  • ...er, not to piss on the fire from afar, but I'm under the impression that NASA's public funding is something well under 1% of the US budget, meaning that it basically has no effect on your taxes at all.

    Hell, the US Government could triple NASA's budget and it wouldn't make a noticeable dent on your tax bill.

    I mean, hell, something close to 45% of your tax dollar goes towards the US war machine, to the tune of about $800 *billion* dollars. Whack that back to something reasonable, and you'd likely see your taxes drop significantly.
  • I've been informed by the comm. office at JPL that it is ok to make our software open source. The truth is that almost all of our research is published. Anyone working under a govt. grant, currently including many university grad. students can get licenses for our software, including source code.

    If you want the technology, develop it yourself--all the information is out there. JPL doesn't get paid to wrap it up nicely for you (unless the employee wants to, and JPL gets something out of it).

    Disclaimer: sleep deprived employee doesn't represent views of JPL.
  • "Has anyone had problems with the computer accounts?"
    "Yes, I don't have one."
    "Okay, you can send mail to one of the tutors ..."
    -- E. D'Azevedo, Computer Science 372

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Close