In April 2012 I wrote an op-ed for Space News on “The NACA Model for Technology Transfer.” I also emphasized it on this blog last year as well. Check that out here. I Am re-directing readers to it now because I keep seeing comments from various people, as well as in the media, that the future of NASA should be more oriented toward aerospace research as was the case with the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), NASA’s Immediate predecessor. The real question is, what does that mean; everyone seemingly has their own definition and there is little overlap between meanings from one person to another. I tried to lay out in this article what it meant for the NACA; if that is truly the consensus of what the future direction of NASA should be so be it. But I don’t see a consensus in the debate on this issue at present. Regardless, I offer this as a statement of the NACA model for technology transfer.
- Wednesday’s Book Review: “Bound for Santa Fe”
- A Clash of Engineering Cultures? NASA Engineers, R and D Culture, and the Space Shuttle as an Operational System
- Immediate Outcomes from the Columbia Accident in 2003
- Wednesday’s Book Review: “Print The Legend”
- What Happened to the Space Shuttle Columbia on February 1, 2003?
- Wednesday’s Book Review: “Bound for Santa Fe” launiusr.wordpress.com/2016/02/10/wed… https://t.co/JnvBVZaqsY 6 hours ago
- A Clash of Engineering Cultures? NASA Engineers, R and D Culture, and the Space Shuttle as… launiusr.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/a-c… https://t.co/njTNFbIpgJ 2 days ago
- Retweeted Paige Roberts (@paige_roberts): Some autobiographical reflections on doing academic history and... fb.me/2JCOS7uQj 2 days ago
- RT @paige_roberts: Some autobiographical reflections on doing academic history and writing history for public audiences https://t.co/4jaR8A… 2 days ago
- The Troubled Academic Job Market for History flip.it/vWD8D This is a very disturbing trend. 2 days ago