Comment Re:Man, it sorta sucks though. (Score 1) 160
styopa's off the mark: NASA does NOT "make quite a bit of money" from licensing their patents. NASA receives less than $1mil annually from the liscensing of patents, which has a negligible effect on the funding status of the agency, which receives more than $14bil in federal funds annually (GAO/RCED-99-173). NASA's subsidation of private industry is particularly aggregious, as NASA has simply released (licensed without royalty) thousands of technologies developed at enormous cost. What's more, massive federal R&D projects are grossly inefficient ways of developing technolgies that fulfill public needs. NASA, for example, has routinely been criticized by the US General Accounting Office for serious waste and mismanagement. Likewise, the US DOD has failed all 16 of the last 16 annual audits by the U.S. General Accounting Office, with more than 20% of the Department's inventory unaccounted for (lost or stolen).
And let's not forget that a full one-half of NASA's efforts go into military research, namely ballistic missle aeronautics, propulsion and guidance. Additionally, NASA has produced what can only be called an environmental disaster, as it is responsible for 913 contaminated sites at 22 of its field facilities in 10 states, with an estimated total public cleanup cost of $2 billion (GAO/NSIAD-97-98).
Finally, NASA has suffered from significant corruption. For example, in it's Internal Affairs investigative arm, NASA's Inspector General, William Colvin, resigned in 1994 after he and his office were found to be 'prenotifying' officials who were under investigation for conflict-of-interest and fraud, essentially allowing them to cover their tracks (GAO/OSI-95-9).
This is not an institution to idealize, nor to rely on to bring new and advanced toothbrushes to market.
And let's not forget that a full one-half of NASA's efforts go into military research, namely ballistic missle aeronautics, propulsion and guidance. Additionally, NASA has produced what can only be called an environmental disaster, as it is responsible for 913 contaminated sites at 22 of its field facilities in 10 states, with an estimated total public cleanup cost of $2 billion (GAO/NSIAD-97-98).
Finally, NASA has suffered from significant corruption. For example, in it's Internal Affairs investigative arm, NASA's Inspector General, William Colvin, resigned in 1994 after he and his office were found to be 'prenotifying' officials who were under investigation for conflict-of-interest and fraud, essentially allowing them to cover their tracks (GAO/OSI-95-9).
This is not an institution to idealize, nor to rely on to bring new and advanced toothbrushes to market.
