Science and Pure Research by Government

[amicus]

I just watched the launch of NASA's latest space probe, one that will take nearly 10 years to reach Pluto, the outermost planet in our solar system.

Two days ago, I watched the return of 'Star Dust' another NASA probe that collected comet dust.

I have been an avid follower of science fiction since my boyhood days of discovering Heinlein and Asimov, read just about every science fiction book in the library.

Some of the research I find fascinating as astronomers attempt to gain an understanding of the universe we live in.

And I am not one who makes the blanket statement that all research should be conducted with a productive purpose in mind.

But I do have my doubts about the efficacy of NASA as a government organization performing research with no purpose in mind other than asking the question.

I am well aware of the history of rocket research in the United States, with Goddard, in the 20's and 30's and into the war years in the 1940's. I am also aware that Werner Von Braun, father of the German V-1 and V-2 rockets, came to the US after world war two and basically created the US space agency, which later became NASA.

It appears evident that government research through the military was instrumental in developing rocket propulsion and satellite technology, along with many practical spin-offs from that research.

I did not post the articles, but there is a great deal of criticism concerning NASA and the government monopoly on space research and exploration; many feel it has limited research that if done by private enterprise, would have cost much less and produced much more in terms of practical aspects.

These thoughts were keyed by the two events I mentioned and by a statement I heard that some 30 space projects are either underway or planned for the near future by NASA and it seemed to me to be a rather large number for the amount of publicity the efforts receive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-16-97.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA#Robotic_space_missions



Human spaceflight

• Mercury program
• Gemini program
• Apollo program
• Skylab
• Space Shuttle
• International Space Station (working together with Russia, Canada, ESA, Rosviakosmos and JAXA)
• Project Constellation
[edit]

Robotic space missions

• Earth Observing
o Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite
o TIMED (Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and

Dynamics)
• Lunar missions

o Ranger
o Surveyor
o Lunar Orbiter
o Clementine
o Lunar Prospector
o Moon Mineralogy Mapper (Planned for 2007)
o Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (Planned for 2008)

• Mercury missions
o Mariner 10
o MESSENGER

• Venus missions

o Mariner 2, 5 and 10
o Pioneer Venus
o Magellan

• Mars missions

o Mariner 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9
o Viking 1 and 2
o Mars Observer
o Mars Pathfinder
o Mars Climate Orbiter
o Mars Polar Lander
o Mars Global Surveyor
o 2001 Mars Odyssey
o Mars Exploration Rovers
o Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
o Phoenix Lander (Planned for 2007)
o Mars Science Laboratory (Planned for 2009)
o Mars 2011 (Planned for 2011)
o Astrobiology Field Laboratory (Planned for 2013 or 2015)

• Jupiter missions

o Pioneer 10
o Galileo
o Juno (Planned for 2010)

• Saturn missions

o Cassini-Huygens together with ESA

• Pluto missions

o New Horizons (mission that launched today 01/19/06)

• Multi-planet missions

o Pioneer 11 – Jupiter and Saturn
o Mariner 10 – Venus and Mercury
o Voyager 1 – Jupiter and Saturn
o Voyager 2 – Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune

• Asteroidal/cometary missions

o NEAR Shoemaker
o Deep Space 1
o Stardust
o Deep Impact
o Dawn (Planned for 2006)

• Proposed or canceled planetary-asteroid missions

o Mars Telecommunications Orbiter (cancelled)
o JIMO (cancelled)
o CRAF (cancelled)
o NetLander (cancelled)
o Pluto Kuiper Express (cancelled; New Horizons is replacement)
o Neptune Orbiter (proposed)
o Glory (proposed)

• Sun observing missions

o SOHO – ESA partnership
o Ulysses – ESA partnership
o STEREO (Planned for 2006)

• Great Observatories for Space Astrophysics

o Hubble Space Telescope – ESA partnership
o Compton Gamma Ray Observatory
o Chandra X-ray Observatory
o Spitzer Space Telescope (formerly known as the Space Infrared Telescope Facility, SIRTF)

• Other observatories

o COBE
o FUSE
o Infrared Astronomical Satellite
o James Webb Space Telescope – ESA partnership
o WMAP

In addition to headquarters in Washington, D.C., NASA has field installations at:

• Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California
• Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California
• John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, Cleveland, Ohio
• Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
o Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York
o Independent Verification and Validation Facility, Fairmont, West Virginia
o Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Virginia
• Jet Propulsion Laboratory, near Pasadena, California
o Deep Space Network stations:
 Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex, Barstow, California
 Madrid Deep Space Communication Complex, Madrid, Spain
 Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
• Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas
o White Sands Test Facility, Las Cruces, New Mexico
• John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida
• Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia
• George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama
o Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans, Louisiana
• John C. Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/4/123904.shtml
NASA budgets since fiscal year 1992:

• 1993 $14.309 billion, existing NASA budget when Clinton took office;
• 1994 $14.568 billion, $259 million increase, first Clinton budget;
• 1995 $13.853 billion, $715 million decrease;
• 1996 $13.885 billion, $32 million increase;
• 1997 $13.709 billion, $176 million decrease;
• 1998 $13.648 billion, $61 million decrease;
• 1999 $13.654 billion, $6 million increase;
• 2000 $13.601 billion, $53 million decrease;
• 2001 $14.253 billion, $652 million increase;
• 2002 $14.892 billion, $639 million increase, first Bush budget;
• 2003 $15.000 billion, $108 million increase (estimated);
• 2004 $15.469 billion, $469 million increase (proposed);

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

13 to 15 billion dollars annually, hundreds of thousands of employees and subsidiaries and dozens of installations.

Part of me is very pleased that NASA has undertaken and is undertaking such a large space exploration program. Another part of me wonders what private enterprise might have accomplished without using such vast amounts of tax payers monies.

Again while I do not espouse a blanket disagreement with what is called, 'pure' research, I suggest that a profit driven process would be financially more responsible and might even return some of those dollars.


amicus....

 

[Boota]

Private enterprise has become more involved lately in space travel, but I doubt if research would be the guiding directive of a private space administration. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would see it more as someone wanting to have a space station resort for the ultra-rich than any true research. Nothing wrong with that if they want to take the risks and can make it work on their own dime. The sheer scale of the financial and legal ramifications virtually leaves it in the governments hands, though. Who wants to risk their billions on something so hit or miss at this point?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I just watched the launch of NASA's latest space probe, one that will take nearly 10 years to reach Pluto, the outermost planet in our solar system.

Two days ago, I watched the return of 'Star Dust' another NASA probe that collected comet dust.

I have been an avid follower of science fiction since my boyhood days of discovering Heinlein and Asimov, read just about every science fiction book in the library.

Some of the research I find fascinating as astronomers attempt to gain an understanding of the universe we live in.

And I am not one who makes the blanket statement that all research should be conducted with a productive purpose in mind.

But I do have my doubts about the efficacy of NASA as a government organization performing research with no purpose in mind other than asking the question.

I am well aware of the history of rocket research in the United States, with Goddard, in the 20's and 30's and into the war years in the 1940's. I am also aware that Werner Von Braun, father of the German V-1 and V-2 rockets, came to the US after world war two and basically created the US space agency, which later became NASA.

It appears evident that government research through the military was instrumental in developing rocket propulsion and satellite technology, along with many practical spin-offs from that research.

I did not post the articles, but there is a great deal of criticism concerning NASA and the government monopoly on space research and exploration; many feel it has limited research that if done by private enterprise, would have cost much less and produced much more in terms of practical aspects.

These thoughts were keyed by the two events I mentioned and by a statement I heard that some 30 space projects are either underway or planned for the near future by NASA and it seemed to me to be a rather large number for the amount of publicity the efforts receive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-16-97.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA#Robotic_space_missions



Human spaceflight

• Mercury program
• Gemini program
• Apollo program
• Skylab
• Space Shuttle
• International Space Station (working together with Russia, Canada, ESA, Rosviakosmos and JAXA)
• Project Constellation
[edit]

Robotic space missions

• Earth Observing
o Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite
o TIMED (Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and

Dynamics)
• Lunar missions

o Ranger
o Surveyor
o Lunar Orbiter
o Clementine
o Lunar Prospector
o Moon Mineralogy Mapper (Planned for 2007)
o Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (Planned for 2008)

• Mercury missions
o Mariner 10
o MESSENGER

• Venus missions

o Mariner 2, 5 and 10
o Pioneer Venus
o Magellan

• Mars missions

o Mariner 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9
o Viking 1 and 2
o Mars Observer
o Mars Pathfinder
o Mars Climate Orbiter
o Mars Polar Lander
o Mars Global Surveyor
o 2001 Mars Odyssey
o Mars Exploration Rovers
o Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
o Phoenix Lander (Planned for 2007)
o Mars Science Laboratory (Planned for 2009)
o Mars 2011 (Planned for 2011)
o Astrobiology Field Laboratory (Planned for 2013 or 2015)

• Jupiter missions

o Pioneer 10
o Galileo
o Juno (Planned for 2010)

• Saturn missions

o Cassini-Huygens together with ESA

• Pluto missions

o New Horizons (mission that launched today 01/19/06)

• Multi-planet missions

o Pioneer 11 – Jupiter and Saturn
o Mariner 10 – Venus and Mercury
o Voyager 1 – Jupiter and Saturn
o Voyager 2 – Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune

• Asteroidal/cometary missions

o NEAR Shoemaker
o Deep Space 1
o Stardust
o Deep Impact
o Dawn (Planned for 2006)

• Proposed or canceled planetary-asteroid missions

o Mars Telecommunications Orbiter (cancelled)
o JIMO (cancelled)
o CRAF (cancelled)
o NetLander (cancelled)
o Pluto Kuiper Express (cancelled; New Horizons is replacement)
o Neptune Orbiter (proposed)
o Glory (proposed)

• Sun observing missions

o SOHO – ESA partnership
o Ulysses – ESA partnership
o STEREO (Planned for 2006)

• Great Observatories for Space Astrophysics

o Hubble Space Telescope – ESA partnership
o Compton Gamma Ray Observatory
o Chandra X-ray Observatory
o Spitzer Space Telescope (formerly known as the Space Infrared Telescope Facility, SIRTF)

• Other observatories

o COBE
o FUSE
o Infrared Astronomical Satellite
o James Webb Space Telescope – ESA partnership
o WMAP

In addition to headquarters in Washington, D.C., NASA has field installations at:

• Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California
• Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California
• John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, Cleveland, Ohio
• Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
o Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York
o Independent Verification and Validation Facility, Fairmont, West Virginia
o Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Virginia
• Jet Propulsion Laboratory, near Pasadena, California
o Deep Space Network stations:
 Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex, Barstow, California
 Madrid Deep Space Communication Complex, Madrid, Spain
 Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
• Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas
o White Sands Test Facility, Las Cruces, New Mexico
• John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida
• Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia
• George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama
o Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans, Louisiana
• John C. Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/4/123904.shtml
NASA budgets since fiscal year 1992:

• 1993 $14.309 billion, existing NASA budget when Clinton took office;
• 1994 $14.568 billion, $259 million increase, first Clinton budget;
• 1995 $13.853 billion, $715 million decrease;
• 1996 $13.885 billion, $32 million increase;
• 1997 $13.709 billion, $176 million decrease;
• 1998 $13.648 billion, $61 million decrease;
• 1999 $13.654 billion, $6 million increase;
• 2000 $13.601 billion, $53 million decrease;
• 2001 $14.253 billion, $652 million increase;
• 2002 $14.892 billion, $639 million increase, first Bush budget;
• 2003 $15.000 billion, $108 million increase (estimated);
• 2004 $15.469 billion, $469 million increase (proposed);

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

13 to 15 billion dollars annually, hundreds of thousands of employees and subsidiaries and dozens of installations.

Part of me is very pleased that NASA has undertaken and is undertaking such a large space exploration program. Another part of me wonders what private enterprise might have accomplished without using such vast amounts of tax payers monies.

Again while I do not espouse a blanket disagreement with what is called, 'pure' research, I suggest that a profit driven process would be financially more responsible and might even return some of those dollars.


amicus....

Without pure research, there is no applied research, no advacnement in technology or knowledge, no breakthroughs in medicine or advacned warning gear for disasters.

Dopplar radar, so instumental in early warning of tornados dosen't ever come about, if early research in radio waves hadn't noted, inquired about, and documented the phenomena of radio waves bouncing off metal objects.

Yellow fever still decimates populations in the tropics, if the sufferes aren't subjected to testing, which allows us to discover the symptoms, the cause and eventually, the transmission vector.

There is no GPS, or satelite TV or instant communications, if someone dosen't define gravity and the way it works on objects.

The private sector is the beneficiary of government pure research. No company would fund pure research, it is not profitable, but they all cash in on pure research, be it Merc studying case studies and CDC inquirys or Firestone, benefiting from applied phsyics research on tires and road conditions at Berkly.

My alma mater would still be a flyspeck in a vast co pasture, if it weren't for research grants that have turned it into one of the leading schools in chemical and aerospace engineering.

The government sponsors and conducts pure research. the private sector is able to take that research pertinent to what they do and apply it towards new drugs, or better cars, or stronger buildings.

No private company in my reading has ever undertaken pure research and shared the results freely.

My taxesa re wasted daily on a boatload of things that have no redeeming value whatsoever. from refurbishing a monument in birmgingham to keeping a naval air station open in a state miles removed from any significant body of water. At least that spent on research benefits everyone if only tangenitally.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Colleen Thomas]Without pure research, there is no applied research, no advacnement in technology or knowledge, no breakthroughs in medicine or advacned warning gear for disasters.

Dopplar radar, so instumental in early warning of tornados dosen't ever come about, if early research in radio waves hadn't noted, inquired about, and documented the phenomena of radio waves bouncing off metal objects.

Yellow fever still decimates populations in the tropics, if the sufferes aren't subjected to testing, which allows us to discover the symptoms, the cause and eventually, the transmission vector.

There is no GPS, or satelite TV or instant communications, if someone dosen't define gravity and the way it works on objects.

The private sector is the beneficiary of government pure research. No company would fund pure research, it is not profitable, but they all cash in on pure research, be it Merc studying case studies and CDC inquirys or Firestone, benefiting from applied phsyics research on tires and road conditions at Berkly.

My alma mater would still be a flyspeck in a vast co pasture, if it weren't for research grants that have turned it into one of the leading schools in chemical and aerospace engineering.

The government sponsors and conducts pure research. the private sector is able to take that research pertinent to what they do and apply it towards new drugs, or better cars, or stronger buildings.

No private company in my reading has ever undertaken pure research and shared the results freely.

My taxesa re wasted daily on a boatload of things that have no redeeming value whatsoever. from refurbishing a monument in birmgingham to keeping a naval air station open in a state miles removed from any significant body of water. At least that spent on research benefits everyone if only tangenitally.[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Knowing that just saying so would not convince you, I took a few moment to document what I already know:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur#Biographies

Pasteur's doctoral thesis on crystallography garnered him a position of professor of chemistry at the Faculté (College) of Strasbourg.
In 1854, he was named Dean of the new College of Science in Lille. In 1856, he was made administrator and director of scientific studies of the École Normale Supérieure.


http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/history/#quinine

Following their arrival in the New World, the Spanish learned of a medicine used for the treatment of fevers. Spanish Jesuit missionaries in South America learned of a medicinal bark from indigenous Indian tribes. With this bark, the Countess of Chinchón, the wife of the Viceroy of Peru, was cured of her fever. The bark from the tree was then called Peruvian bark and the tree was named Cinchona after the countess. The medicine from the bark is now known as the antimalarial, quinine. Along with artemisinin, quinine is one of the most effective antimalarial drugs available today.


http://www.sparkmuseum.com/HERTZ.HTM


nrich Hertz was the first to send and receive radio waves. James Clerk Maxwell had mathematically predicted their existence in 1864. Between 1885 and 1889, as a professor of physics at Karlsruhe Polytechnic, he produced electromagnetic waves in the laboratory and measured their wavelength and velocity. He showed that the nature of their reflection and refraction was the same as those of light, confirming that light waves are electromagnetic radiation obeying the Maxwell equations.


The Origin of Radar (Science Study Series) (Hardcover)
by Robert Morris Page

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031320781X/104-6794261-4224766?v=glance&n=283155

Dr. Page tells the full story of the discovery and development of radar, the most valuable weapon of World War Two and one of the marvels of our technological age. He starts with the accidental discovery of radar when in 1922 A.H. Taylor and L.C. Young noticed that ships on the Anacosta River interrupted radio transmission and follows the development of pulse radar to its present applications in navigation, weather forecasting, astronomy and other technical fields. Woven into the story is a clear explanation of radar equipment and the physical principles involved.



http://library.thinkquest.org/C006224/historydescriphtml.htm
The history of the transistor, arguably one of the greatest inventions of all time, can be traced back two hundred years to the beginning of the 19th century. It was during this period that famous inventors such as Maxwell, Hertz, Faraday, and Edison began to experiment with electricity, coming up with ideas as to how electricity could be harnessed for human uses.
It was then that later inventors such as Braun, Marconi, Fleming, and De Forest developed upon the fundamentals established by the earlier generation of inventors to more practical and useful appliances such as the radio. This laid the foundation for groups of scientists working at Bell Laboratories, such as William Shockley, Walter Brattain, John Bardeen, and numerous others. This led to the advent of the Information Age...

It was the Italian electrical engineer, Guglielmo Marconi, one of the early pioneers and inventors of the radio who, using a new technology invented by Nikola Tesla, sent a radio signal one mile fore the first time. This achievement heralded the birth of wireless communication. In spite of this, there were still countless technological barriers to overcome in the quest to perfect wireless communication and make the technology practical.


Discovery of Electricity: http://www.codecheck.com/pp_elect.html

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blradar.htm

Search
Inventors

RADAR

History of Radar


Heinrich Hertz
Heinrich Hertz in Germany calculated that an electric current swinging very rapidly back and forth in a conducting wire would radiate electromagnetic waves into the surrounding space (today we would call such a wire an "antenna"). With such a wire he created (in 1886) and detected such oscillations in his lab, using an electric spark, in which the current oscillates rapidly (that is how lightning creates its characteristic crackling noise on the radio!). Today we call such waves "radio waves". At first however they were "Hertzian waves, " and even today we honor the memory of their discoverer by measuring frequencies in Hertz (Hz), oscillations per second--and at radio frequencies, in megahertz (MHz).
Heinrich Hertz
Hertz lived from 1857 to 1894 and was the first to demonstrate experimentally the production and detection of Maxwell's waves. This discovery of course lead directly to radio.
Heinrich Hertz
In recognition of his work, the unit of frequency of a radio wave - one cycle per second - is named the hertz, in honor of Heinrich Hertz.
RADAR History
In 1887, a physicist named Heinrich Hertz began experimenting with radio waves in his laboratory in Germany.


Sir Robert Alexander Watson-Watt (1892--1973)
Watson-Watt was the Scottish physicist who developed the radar locating of aircraft in England. He was born in Brechin, Angus, Scotland, educated at St Andrews University in Scotland, and taught at Dundee University. In 1917, he worked at the British Meteorological Office, where he designed devices to locate thunderstorms. Watson-Watt coined the phrase "ionosphere" in 1926. He was appointed as the director of radio research at the British National Physical Laboratory in 1935, where he completed his research into aircraft locating devices. Watson-Watt's other contributions include a cathode-ray direction finder used to study atmospheric phenomena, research in electromagnetic radiation, and inventions used for flight safety.
- Radar was patented (British patent) in April, 1935.

Christian Andreas Doppler
Doppler RADAR is named after Christian Andreas Doppler. Doppler was an Austrian physicist who first described in 1842, how the observed frequency of light and sound waves was affected by the relative motion of the source and the detector. This phenomenon became known as the Doppler effect.
This is most often demonstrated by the change in the sound wave of a passing train. The sound of the train whistle will become "higher" in pitch as it approaches and "lower" in pitch as it moves away. This is explained as follows: the number of sound waves reaching the ear in a given amount of time (this is called the frequency) determines the tone, or pitch, perceived. The tone remains the same as long as you are not moving. As the train moves closer to you the number of sound waves reaching your ear in a given amount of time increases. Thus, the pitch increases. As the train moves away from you the opposite happens.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`


Government, outside the University and the Hospital, played no role in the seminal discoveries in what you might call 'pure' science. In fact there really is very little history of useful discoveries stemming from 'pure' research, all the above discoveries were purpose driven, to answer specific questions about specific problems.

In essence, by definition, government cannot conduct 'pure' science, they can however fund research at various laboratories and the funding is a very political process.

Almost every area you mentioned was the result of individual, private research and none of it was the result of pure, unguided, undirected scientific inquiry.

sorry....



amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Knowing that just saying so would not convince you, I took a few moment to document what I already know:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur#Biographies

Pasteur's doctoral thesis on crystallography garnered him a position of professor of chemistry at the Faculté (College) of Strasbourg.
In 1854, he was named Dean of the new College of Science in Lille. In 1856, he was made administrator and director of scientific studies of the École Normale Supérieure.


http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/history/#quinine

Following their arrival in the New World, the Spanish learned of a medicine used for the treatment of fevers. Spanish Jesuit missionaries in South America learned of a medicinal bark from indigenous Indian tribes. With this bark, the Countess of Chinchón, the wife of the Viceroy of Peru, was cured of her fever. The bark from the tree was then called Peruvian bark and the tree was named Cinchona after the countess. The medicine from the bark is now known as the antimalarial, quinine. Along with artemisinin, quinine is one of the most effective antimalarial drugs available today.


http://www.sparkmuseum.com/HERTZ.HTM


nrich Hertz was the first to send and receive radio waves. James Clerk Maxwell had mathematically predicted their existence in 1864. Between 1885 and 1889, as a professor of physics at Karlsruhe Polytechnic, he produced electromagnetic waves in the laboratory and measured their wavelength and velocity. He showed that the nature of their reflection and refraction was the same as those of light, confirming that light waves are electromagnetic radiation obeying the Maxwell equations.


The Origin of Radar (Science Study Series) (Hardcover)
by Robert Morris Page

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031320781X/104-6794261-4224766?v=glance&n=283155

Dr. Page tells the full story of the discovery and development of radar, the most valuable weapon of World War Two and one of the marvels of our technological age. He starts with the accidental discovery of radar when in 1922 A.H. Taylor and L.C. Young noticed that ships on the Anacosta River interrupted radio transmission and follows the development of pulse radar to its present applications in navigation, weather forecasting, astronomy and other technical fields. Woven into the story is a clear explanation of radar equipment and the physical principles involved.



http://library.thinkquest.org/C006224/historydescriphtml.htm
The history of the transistor, arguably one of the greatest inventions of all time, can be traced back two hundred years to the beginning of the 19th century. It was during this period that famous inventors such as Maxwell, Hertz, Faraday, and Edison began to experiment with electricity, coming up with ideas as to how electricity could be harnessed for human uses.
It was then that later inventors such as Braun, Marconi, Fleming, and De Forest developed upon the fundamentals established by the earlier generation of inventors to more practical and useful appliances such as the radio. This laid the foundation for groups of scientists working at Bell Laboratories, such as William Shockley, Walter Brattain, John Bardeen, and numerous others. This led to the advent of the Information Age...

It was the Italian electrical engineer, Guglielmo Marconi, one of the early pioneers and inventors of the radio who, using a new technology invented by Nikola Tesla, sent a radio signal one mile fore the first time. This achievement heralded the birth of wireless communication. In spite of this, there were still countless technological barriers to overcome in the quest to perfect wireless communication and make the technology practical.


Discovery of Electricity: http://www.codecheck.com/pp_elect.html

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blradar.htm

Search
Inventors

RADAR

History of Radar


Heinrich Hertz
Heinrich Hertz in Germany calculated that an electric current swinging very rapidly back and forth in a conducting wire would radiate electromagnetic waves into the surrounding space (today we would call such a wire an "antenna"). With such a wire he created (in 1886) and detected such oscillations in his lab, using an electric spark, in which the current oscillates rapidly (that is how lightning creates its characteristic crackling noise on the radio!). Today we call such waves "radio waves". At first however they were "Hertzian waves, " and even today we honor the memory of their discoverer by measuring frequencies in Hertz (Hz), oscillations per second--and at radio frequencies, in megahertz (MHz).
Heinrich Hertz
Hertz lived from 1857 to 1894 and was the first to demonstrate experimentally the production and detection of Maxwell's waves. This discovery of course lead directly to radio.
Heinrich Hertz
In recognition of his work, the unit of frequency of a radio wave - one cycle per second - is named the hertz, in honor of Heinrich Hertz.
RADAR History
In 1887, a physicist named Heinrich Hertz began experimenting with radio waves in his laboratory in Germany.


Sir Robert Alexander Watson-Watt (1892--1973)
Watson-Watt was the Scottish physicist who developed the radar locating of aircraft in England. He was born in Brechin, Angus, Scotland, educated at St Andrews University in Scotland, and taught at Dundee University. In 1917, he worked at the British Meteorological Office, where he designed devices to locate thunderstorms. Watson-Watt coined the phrase "ionosphere" in 1926. He was appointed as the director of radio research at the British National Physical Laboratory in 1935, where he completed his research into aircraft locating devices. Watson-Watt's other contributions include a cathode-ray direction finder used to study atmospheric phenomena, research in electromagnetic radiation, and inventions used for flight safety.
- Radar was patented (British patent) in April, 1935.

Christian Andreas Doppler
Doppler RADAR is named after Christian Andreas Doppler. Doppler was an Austrian physicist who first described in 1842, how the observed frequency of light and sound waves was affected by the relative motion of the source and the detector. This phenomenon became known as the Doppler effect.
This is most often demonstrated by the change in the sound wave of a passing train. The sound of the train whistle will become "higher" in pitch as it approaches and "lower" in pitch as it moves away. This is explained as follows: the number of sound waves reaching the ear in a given amount of time (this is called the frequency) determines the tone, or pitch, perceived. The tone remains the same as long as you are not moving. As the train moves closer to you the number of sound waves reaching your ear in a given amount of time increases. Thus, the pitch increases. As the train moves away from you the opposite happens.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`


Government, outside the University and the Hospital, played no role in the seminal discoveries in what you might call 'pure' science. In fact there really is very little history of useful discoveries stemming from 'pure' research, all the above discoveries were purpose driven, to answer specific questions about specific problems.

In essence, by definition, government cannot conduct 'pure' science, they can however fund research at various laboratories and the funding is a very political process.

Almost every area you mentioned was the result of individual, private research and none of it was the result of pure, unguided, undirected scientific inquiry.

sorry....



amicus...

Purpose driven, but based on earlier pure research.

You cannot have applied research without the pure research as back drop. You don't know what questions to ask, how to investiate them or what modles deserve more of your time without it.

Pastier was following work done by earlier scientists Amicus. The only person I can come up with, off the top of my head, who did not have a substantial body of pure research before him was galen. And even he had earlier greek and egyptian sources.

The spanish learned medicine, from your favorite whipping folk, the indians. they learned it from observation of and then application of natural phenomena.

No one in your list wasn't building on earlier research.

The people who walked out, without previous inquiry and discovered something is a list only rivalved by such lists as Argentine Military geniuses and famous french tanks.

 

[Aaron Kyle]

Some things are done well by government, some things are done well by private corporations.

No private corporation would have ever built the Hoover Dam, liberated Europe from the Nazis, landed men on the Moon, or set up the internet. It's too big an investment and too long-term a committment for a corporation.

Plus, if a private corporation did rocket and space research, it'd all be patented and copyrighted. We'd have to pay a fee just to see pictures of Jupiter. With the government, a lot of it is public domain.

 

[JamesSD]

More funding for all science I say! Especially the NIH and NSF.

(I may be speaking with my own pocketbook)

 

[amicus]

Colleen Thomas]Purpose driven, but based on earlier pure research.

You cannot have applied research without the pure research as back drop. You don't know what questions to ask, how to investiate them or what modles deserve more of your time without it.

Pastier was following work done by earlier scientists Amicus. The only person I can come up with, off the top of my head, who did not have a substantial body of pure research before him was galen. And even he had earlier greek and egyptian sources.

The spanish learned medicine, from your favorite whipping folk, the indians. they learned it from observation of and then application of natural phenomena.

No one in your list wasn't building on earlier research.

The people who walked out, without previous inquiry and discovered something is a list only rivalved by such lists as Argentine Military geniuses and famous french tanks.

[/I]

At least you disagree with a sense of humor and I am writing another book about native americans and not because I consider them 'whipping folk' I was just curious about why they remained basically stagnant for thousands of years while other groups in europe and asia were progressing scientifically.

I fully accept 'earlier research' as a necessity, as all science builds upon previous accomplishments. But that still begs the point of 'pure' research.

Perhaps it is only a political point after all, research funds devoted to ecological causes, brazilian rain forest research, all can be said to have 'some' purpose, even if the premise is a false one.

I guess my real objection is an economic one: there is only so much excess capital to invest in R&D, logical tells me it should be well spent, practicality tells me that if it is my money, I should like a return on my investment, otherwise, why should I invest?

Yes, I know, I could be a humanitarian, a philanthropist and many wealthy men do just that as they fund scholarships, universities and research foundations, all well and good.

But I notice in another thread, tongue in cheek at that, [pure research) even the flaming liberals have limits to their generosity.

The power to tax and spend is a tremendous impetus to corruption, you know that as well as I. I look at the people on these archeological digs around the world and always find one or two supple blonde girls digging in the mud and sometimes think I chose the wrong profession.

Not sure if they get coffee or not.

smiles...


amicus...

 

[elsol]

Please give me the name of a company that could afford to spend... are you ready for it...

BILLIONS!!!

On getting a man on the moon?

Private research into rockets had one goal in mind... sell to the government.

Who are you selling the 'man on the moon' thing to?

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Colleen Thomas]

[/I]

At least you disagree with a sense of humor and I am writing another book about native americans and not because I consider them 'whipping folk' I was just curious about why they remained basically stagnant for thousands of years while other groups in europe and asia were progressing scientifically.

I fully accept 'earlier research' as a necessity, as all science builds upon previous accomplishments. But that still begs the point of 'pure' research.

Perhaps it is only a political point after all, research funds devoted to ecological causes, brazilian rain forest research, all can be said to have 'some' purpose, even if the premise is a false one.

I guess my real objection is an economic one: there is only so much excess capital to invest in R&D, logical tells me it should be well spent, practicality tells me that if it is my money, I should like a return on my investment, otherwise, why should I invest?

Yes, I know, I could be a humanitarian, a philanthropist and many wealthy men do just that as they fund scholarships, universities and research foundations, all well and good.

But I notice in another thread, tongue in cheek at that, [pure research) even the flaming liberals have limits to their generosity.

The power to tax and spend is a tremendous impetus to corruption, you know that as well as I. I look at the people on these archeological digs around the world and always find one or two supple blonde girls digging in the mud and sometimes think I chose the wrong profession.

Not sure if they get coffee or not.

smiles...


amicus...

I'm a big believer in research, just to know. I think every addition to our knowledge base allows inquiry or facillitates applied sceince. If the pluto exploere finds some concrete evidence that the planet formed via accretion, but this mechanism ewas arrested, then we can extrapolate that all the rocky planets were formed by a similar mehanism. That means we can throw out some theories of planetary evolution and concentrate on those that hold more promise.

If we know how the planet formed, then we aide research into vulcanology, planetary geology, etc.

Man wants to know things, it drives us as surely as greed, and love & hate& lust. It's a very primal urge, to understand things.

If a priovate concern was willing to spend the money, make the knowledge public domain and share the methodology, it would be cool. No private company will, because it defies the business modle. You don't increase spending with no percieved payout coming to offset expenditures.

 

[amicus]

Aaron Kyle]Some things are done well by government, some things are done well by private corporations.

No private corporation would have ever built the Hoover Dam, liberated Europe from the Nazis, landed men on the Moon, or set up the internet. It's too big an investment and too long-term a committment for a corporation.

Plus, if a private corporation did rocket and space research, it'd all be patented and copyrighted. We'd have to pay a fee just to see pictures of Jupiter. With the government, a lot of it is public domain.

[/I]

Another new SN from Australia, welcome...


Basically, private corporations did build the Hoover Dam, built the weapons that liberated Europe set up the internet and had the desire to travel to the moon long before Kennedy made it a national priority.

Private corportations built the railroads that tied a nation together, albeit with the advantage of land grants from the government. Private corporations created the oil and coal industry in the nation and cut the timber that built a million homes.

Private corporations also built the sky scrapers, the radio and television industry and the automobile and airline industry.

Robert Heinlein, a science fiction author, wrote about private enterprise conquering the moon, way back in the 40's and noted in later life that it would have been done earlier if government had not classified all the rocket research.

Even huge dams are emminently profitable and I am sure sufficient corporate money was available but the power of condemning land was available only to government.

It is true that the government might 'waste' the money to go to the moon just for the sake of gaining knowledge, but I am aware of several concerns that are convinced there are valuable mineral deposits that might support a commercial venture.

Not only do I not trust government to carry out big projects, it is, in fact, limited by our laws from taking an active role in the economy. Although that fact escapes both political parties at times....


amicus...

 

[amicus]

Colleen Thomas]I'm a big believer in research, just to know. I think every addition to our knowledge base allows inquiry or facillitates applied sceince. If the pluto exploere finds some concrete evidence that the planet formed via accretion, but this mechanism ewas arrested, then we can extrapolate that all the rocky planets were formed by a similar mehanism. That means we can throw out some theories of planetary evolution and concentrate on those that hold more promise.

If we know how the planet formed, then we aide research into vulcanology, planetary geology, etc.

Man wants to know things, it drives us as surely as greed, and love & hate& lust. It's a very primal urge, to understand things.

If a priovate concern was willing to spend the money, make the knowledge public domain and share the methodology, it would be cool. No private company will, because it defies the business modle. You don't increase spending with no percieved payout coming to offset expenditures.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I find it difficult to disagree with most of what you say, Colly, man is indeed a curious critter; knowledge does accumulate and good things can happen from that.

But, underlying your assertions is a belief or a mindset that I do not share, your trust of government employees. Secondly, your giving equality to government and the private sector.

In most every other nation on earth, they have no choice but to accede to the power of government. We among all, are different; we limited the power of government by law. We, or shall I say the founding fathers, did not want government to play an active role in society outside protecting our freedoms, liberties and rights.

Most everyone I ever met seems to think government by fiat has an equal standing opposed to individuals and corportations; by law, it does not.

Maybe you think modern times have outdated those original concepts, maybe you distrust corporate entities to the point of hatred, maybe you believe man is intrinsically evil and must be controlled, I can't really know where you come from.

My position, now as always, rests on a strict interpretation of the function of our government, under our constitution and nowhere outside military uses of space do I see a constitutional authority for NASA to conduct science.

Perhaps you can point it out?


amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I find it difficult to disagree with most of what you say, Colly, man is indeed a curious critter; knowledge does accumulate and good things can happen from that.

But, underlying your assertions is a belief or a mindset that I do not share, your trust of government employees. Secondly, your giving equality to government and the private sector.

In most every other nation on earth, they have no choice but to accede to the power of government. We among all, are different; we limited the power of government by law. We, or shall I say the founding fathers, did not want government to play an active role in society outside protecting our freedoms, liberties and rights.

Most everyone I ever met seems to think government by fiat has an equal standing opposed to individuals and corportations; by law, it does not.

Maybe you think modern times have outdated those original concepts, maybe you distrust corporate entities to the point of hatred, maybe you believe man is intrinsically evil and must be controlled, I can't really know where you come from.

My position, now as always, rests on a strict interpretation of the function of our government, under our constitution and nowhere outside military uses of space do I see a constitutional authority for NASA to conduct science.

Perhaps you can point it out?


amicus...

I would point to the neccessary and proper clause, which allows the federal body to pass laws that are neccessary and proper. It has been used to exapnd the role of governemnt and, in my opinion, is one reason we still have our government. It provides some flexibility in meeting a changeing world.

Space research, is beyond the ability of most private citisens to fund. It is also outside the interests of most corporate concerns. Since I consider gaining knowledge both neccessary and proper, and given that research into space and astrophysics is beyond the pocket book of most privcate citizens and beyond the interest of most corporations, I see it as neccessary and proper that the government assume the cost and the responsibility for carrying out such research.

As the results are freely shared and some of them have produced viable products (I can think of tang and velcro, right off the top of my head) for use in the corporate sector, consumers have been given some tangible result for their tax dollars spent. Since Nasa contracts the building, design, and production of almost all it's gear to the private sector, bussiness sees a tangible result in the form of remuniration for it's efforts. thi has been a particular boon to the aerospace industy, since they often suffer in times of peace of defense spending cuts. And everyone benefits from the acrued knowledge that has been aded to man's overall knowledge.

Providing tangible benefit to the individual, via new and innovative products, and to buissiness via contracts and new products where they didn't have to pay for the R&D, and new knowledge given to the benefit of mankind in general, I think NASA is probably one of the most obviously productive uses of the necessary and proper clause.

 

[oggbashan]

Marconi

Amicus,

You are wrong about Marconi.

He was sponsored and financially supported by the British General Post Office, then a Civil Service Department wholly owned by the UK's government.

Og