Quote from: crispy on December 05, 2012, 09:06:39 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 05, 2012, 07:16:36 PM

Except it's so wrong. It has been shown that the government will fund things that corporations won't. Corporations typically will only engage in R & D that has a payoff within a certain amount of time, typically much less than government funded research might yield. This is known, and examples abound.

Here's an example for your edification: Samuel Pierpoint Langley (government funding) vs. the Wright brothers (private funding).

Quote

Langley attempted flight on October 7th, 1903. His huge 54-foot-long flying machine had two 48-foot wings -- one in front and one in back. It was launched from a catapult on the Potomac River, and it fell like a sack of cement into the water. On December 8th he tried again. This time the rear wing caved in before it got off its catapult.

Just nine days later, the Wright brothers flew a trim little biplane, with almost no fanfare, at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Their advantage was that they'd mastered the problem of controlling the movement of their plane, and they'd preceded their work with four years of careful experimentation with kites and gliders.

Source: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi32.htm

Another article explains why private funding worked *better* than government funding:

Quote

If lavish Federal subsidies had been unable to buy Dr. Langley success, what chance would the Wright brothers' unfunded venture expect to have? Surprisingly, their chances were a lot better than might be imagined. Freed from the subsidy-induced waste and indolence that plagues government funded operations, the Wright brothers' limited financial resources actually contributed to their success. Because they could not afford the costs associated with repeated flight tests of their airplane, they developed a wind tunnel to test aerodynamic designs. This saved them a great deal of time. The Wright brothers were the first men to compile data from which an airplane could be designed. With limited finances, it was far easier to correct errors on paper than to continually rebuild a test model that was improperly designed.

Source: http://www.economicthinking.org/technology/noballoonattached.html

Please explain how this relates to MIT's motor development which was funded by DARPA.