technology | AirSpace

Our lives are enhanced by technologies developed through the research and development supported by the necessities of spaceflight. NASA has documented since 1976 more than 1,300 technologies that have benefited U.S. citizens, improved our quality of life, and helped to advance the nation’s economic welfare.

Of course, much has been made over the years of what NASA calls “spin-offs,” commercial products that had at least some of their origins as a result of spaceflight-related research. Most years the agency puts out a book describing some of the most spectacular, and they range from laser angioplasty to body imaging for medical diagnostics to imaging and data analysis technology. Spin-offs were not Tang and Teflon, neither of which was actually developed for the Apollo program.

NASA has spent a lot of time and trouble trying to track these benefits of the space program in an effort to justify its existence. With the caveat that technology transfer is an exceptionally complex subject that is almost impossible to track properly, these various studies show much about the prospect of technological lagniappe from the U.S. effort to access and operate in space.

Whether good or bad, no amount of cost-benefit analysis, which the spin-off argument essentially makes, can sustain NASA’s historic level of funding. More interesting, and ultimately more useful, would be to explore in depth several key technologies used in spaceflight and trace whatever attributes might have found their way into other sectors. The point, of course, is that the past did not have to develop in the way that it did, and that there is evidence to suggest that the space program pushed technological development in certain paths that might have not been followed otherwise.

More useful, I would assert is a counterfactual question. How would your life today be different if we did not fly in space? There can be no fully satisfactory answer to that question. One person’s vision is another’s belly laugh. But perhaps we can begin with the elimination of instantaneous global telecommunications. Imagine no Internet, no easy international calling, no direct television, no up-to-the-minute sporting events or news from other parts of the world, no skyping to friends worldwide, and the list goes on and on.

The results of these investments in space technology are everywhere around us. It was in no small measure from government investment in miniature electronics technologies in the 1960s and 1970s that the many devices we use today, such as smartphones, sprang. It is from government investment in computing and telecommunications technology that the Internet emerged. It was from government R&D that our space-based system of navigation—the Global Positioning System, or GPS — has made reading a paper map obsolete. These are only a few examples among thousands that might be offered.

The Global Positioning System requires at least 24 satellites to be fully operational and provide global coverage. Satellites are placed in four orbital planes. The GPS satellite orbit at half the distance to geosynchronous orbit, thereby taking 12 hours to complete each orbit.

How our lives would be different had we never engaged in spaceflight from what they are at present cannot really be determined, but it is obvious that they would be quite different. Think of the many high technology capabilities we enjoy—starting with biomedical diagnostics and related technologies and ending with telecommunications breakthroughs—that might well have followed different courses and perhaps have lagged beyond their present breakneck pace as a result. Some of us might well think that a positive development, though I doubt most would want to go back to typewriters, problematic global communication, and the manner in which we lived our lives before the space age. Despite the nostalgia for bygone eras before the information and technology revolution—found in such popular television shows as Mad Men and Pan Am—I believe few would like to return to that time. I certainly wouldn’t.

This image depicts the geostationary equatorial orbit in which most communications and weather satellites are located.

What might the future hold? Without question, the U.S. is at a critical juncture regarding the long-term health of its science and technology. Knowledge is critical to maintaining America’s competitive edge in the world. It is only possible to maintain our leading edge by increasing investment in a comprehensive R&D program. I look forward to seeing that take place in the near future.

Roger D. Launius is a senior curator in the Space History Division of the National Air and Space Museum.

The rich collections of space artifacts at the National Air and Space Museum provide a remarkable resource for scholars who wish to understand the special place that deep space exploration has held in the imagination of not just Americans but people around the world. They show the complex interplay between the dreams of spaceflight, the limits to our knowledge of engineering and science, and the clever ways human beings have achieved some—but not all—of those dreams while keeping at least one foot grounded in reality. Here are some examples of space artifacts currently on display, and what they tell us about our future in space.

The German V-2 rocket was the world's first large-scale liquid-propellant rocket vehicle, the first long-range ballistic missile, and the ancestor of today's large rockets and launch vehicles.

Dr. Werhner von Braun

Space historians have given a central place to the writings and work of Wernher von Braun, one of the developers of the German V-2 ballistic missile during World War II, who came to the United States after the War and played a significant role in the development of the Saturn rockets, which took human beings to the Moon between 1968 and 1972. Von Braun was both an engineer and a tireless popularizer and promoter of space travel, writing a science fiction novel, magazine articles, and collaborating with Walt Disney on a television series about humanity’s future in space. In these efforts, he sketched a roadmap that became known as the “von Braun Paradigm”—a set of incremental steps that he argued ought to be taken to gain access to the heavens. In its simplest form, he argued for:

the development of a winged, reusable, piloted launch vehicle
which would shuttle crew, supplies, and fuel to and from a space station in Earth orbit
from which would depart crewed missions to the Moon
followed by a manned mission to Mars.

The paradigm held a powerful grip on NASA (founded in 1958) and still lurks behind current plans to return to the Moon and mount a crewed expedition to Mars. The reality of space history shows that it has been modified, abandoned, rediscovered, and modified again over the decades. The first modification came with the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957, which prompted a swift response from the United States. In the desire to get a human being in space quickly, the United States shelved a program to develop winged, piloted spacecraft, extending research being done with aircraft like the X-15. The result was a series of ballistic, wingless “capsules”: Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, with only limited ability to maneuver using aerodynamic forces. But the winged, aerodynamic paradigm did not die: it was resurrected as the space shuttle, first flown in 1981 and piloted to a landing using controls that were an extension of the X-15’s. Current plans call for a return to a ballistic capsule, but there are also plans for commercial access to space with winged vehicles, including the Burt Rutan design for ships that will carry paying passengers at least to the edge of space.

The North American X-15, a rocket-powered research aircraft, bridged the gap between manned flight in the atmosphere and space flight.

The first Space Shuttle orbiter, Enterprise, is a full-scale test vehicle used for flights in the atmosphere and tests on the ground; it is not equipped for space flight.

SpaceShipOne, the first privately built and piloted vehicle to reach space.

NASA and private companies are now proposing spacecraft of a variety of designs to replace the shuttle, which will be retired soon. Some proposals called for winged, reusable craft, others for ballistic capsules. It will be interesting to see how the “von Braun Paradigm” plays out in the coming years.

Paul Ceruzzi is a curator specializing in aerospace computing and electronics in the Division of Space History at the National Air and Space Museum.

AirSpace

Tag Archives: technology

Assessing the Spin-offs of Spaceflight

Trajectories of Space Flight