Startup NASA
technology.nasa.gov
technology.nasa.gov
Sort of like the Tesla model with patents. i.e. Let's build a docking mechanism that all private companies will use as well because engineers have poured many hours into it and let's not re-invent the wheel. This provides a better outcome for both the governmental agency and private companies.
In the end, NASA's money is the public's money, sure it doesn't come directly from a private company all the time, but it will come from the individuals who make up that private company.
This will keep NASA innovating things that may have no commercial value, but also allow for more partnerships among private companies and NASA.
We do not patent things to make money. The most profitable patent that my organization (NIST) has makes in the low six figures of royalties per year. If we started pulling in real money, I suspect congress would shut that down.
The stated mission of our tech transfer office (and the whole organization) is to make US businesses more successful and competitive. The unstated mission of researchers is to figure out interesting things and to get our ideas into practice. Fulfilling both of those missions, we might patent something for a few reasons:
- So that we can license it to US companies and not German or Chinese companies. Not unreasonable, considering the US taxpayers paid for the work.
- So that we can offer an exclusive license to one company in exchange for commercializing the invention. Many inventions require more investment to be commercially useful, and corporations are more likely to put up the money if they can't get copied by a competitor.
- So that we can offer the invention royalty-free (or at least below market rates) to anyone who wants to use it. Sometimes this is easier and more reliable than trying to get the invention into the public domain via a journal publication.
- So that we can get the lawyers to do the writing for us instead of having to write a paper.
I've worked with public agencies before and multiple times we were mandated by freaking congress to open source our work for anyone to use and we were contractors working for a public agency. Charging licensing fees to a public agency seems insane to me.
I think they're learning from university tech transfer programs. A number of universities tried the exact approach you describe. What they found is that companies weren't interested in the ideas because of the substantial risk of someone out-developing them. A risk significantly increased by a lack of exclusivity. By patenting them and offering transfer of the patent, they got much better uptake.
So this is a case of ideals trading off against reality and results.
The same thing that "productized" research also got DARPA out of pure research. The Mansfield Amendment of 1973 and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act of 1980.
I imagine it would take a legislative / executive vote to open the patents for free to use.
That being said, it'd be an interesting economic impact study if all patents were free to use, as long as used by US registered companies and manufactured in the US.
But just for fun... Having a patent doesn't protect how my invention works, just how my invention is used. If someone lives in Pineland and wants to use a patent I filed for nothing is really stopping him. Regardless if my patent is free to use or not.
True, it doesn't seem explicitly say anywhere that only US companies can apply. But even if was the case, would this really target the technology benefits exclusively at US citizens? To do so might only be directing the commercial benefits to US corporations, who are only a sub-set of US taxpayers.
Would it not be better to share in the hope that this brings a net benefit to the people of the US?
After all, if you look outwards beyond your borders, I'm sure you will find some other non-US tech, paid for by others, available to benefit you.
I'm confused.
To me, and what I would guess were most of the engineers around me, the whole point was space exploration. Full stop. Not climate studies, not "science for science's sake", but engineering (not science) to get us into space.
Maybe there is a role for a government organization dedicated to researching quasi-commerical science and engineering, but I would hate for NASA to become that agency. I want NASA focused on putting men in space.
There's obviously another branch of Nasa, otherwise how does James Hansen ever work there?
There are multiple NASA centers who generally see the enterprise of space exploration differently. JSC and KSC are more focused on "putting men [sic] in space" (as the parent commenter said). GSFC is more focused on observing Earth and the Sun from space. JPL is more focused on robotic planetary exploration. Those are gross generalizations, because GSFC has been heavily involved with Hubble, and JPL does some Earth missions, etc.
I'm all in favor of Startup NASA. I'm merely asking for things to be done in a way that doesn't mess with what's being done right already.
My least favorite part about the traditional ways are that they tend to be very poor at estimating FTE/WYE needs for a body of work, and will more often than not err towards over-estimation. This ends up necessitating the creating of busy-work to make use of all assigned personnel. Mostly by adding extra checks and documentation that many would agree are not very beneficial.
It's hard to be lean when you're given 15 more people than you actually need, basically.
But you are right, nothing can go unbounded.
Let us hope commercial success won't change the motivations of the organization...
Commercialization is good, as long as it does not leak everywhere.
But I wanted to respond to a different thing you said in the first comment:
> why not try to commercialize existing NASA technologies
I never said commercialization of the technologies is a bad thing. In fact, I'm all for it. But it has to be done in a way that doesn't break what's already being done right.
The entire trend around public agencies trying to earn their own living on the market seems increasingly ridiculous. The whole point of having government agencies in a market economy at all is to have someone do the work that is necessary but doesn't make sense in market economy. Like feeding the poor, healing the sick, or doing basic research.
Agencies like NASA are one of two primary ways for society to tell the market: "you're a great optimization engine, but not perfectly aligned with our needs; sometimes you fail and we need to compensate - for instance, you rejected X, and yet we want X to be done". The other would be to become Elon Musk and keep shoving electric cars down market's throat until it gives up and suddenly there's a demand.
As Americans you can not - hell, as the world we can not afford agencies like NASA and ESA to drop basic research and pursue things that can be done by any random government contractor, but better, because said contractor would have less accumulated red tape.
One of the things about idea generation is that it is a muscle that needs exercise.
I'm glad to see the tech transfer program starting something new(ish).
Maybe let's just switch Sam Altman with Charles F. Bolden and skip the slow process? ;).
Also, BTW., ESA seems to be playing the same game too. Only few hours earlier I've been watching a video on international flight where ESA described their program of technology transfer and startup incubation...
If we already paid for the research, why should we have to license it at all?
The bar is very low, and there's alot of stupid work that gets funded essentially because of how NASAs budget works.