

NASA funds grants to companies working on healthcare products - jaygarmon
http://medcitynews.com/2013/06/a-new-bridge-across-the-valley-of-death-non-dilutive-money-from-nasas-grant-fund/

======
velodrome
I like the idea of funding startups but it is a risky business.

It would be interesting if they had programs like DARPA, X-Prize challenges.

I think this method is more efficient and should be leveraged by the rest of
the government. It is basically a fixed-bid R&D contract.

------
danielweber
I'll give this one to NASA for free: start using artificial gravity instead of
watching how horrible micro-gravity is to each new group of astronauts.

~~~
kaybe
I'll contribute to your research for a gravity generator. Or to your research
into what different amounts of gravity in each body part does. Or in
stabilizing a huge and cost-effective rotating structure. (But I really want
the gravitiy generator..)

~~~
winter_blue
> Or in stabilizing a huge and cost-effective rotating structure.

So a ring-shaped vehicle that spun at just the right velocity so that the
outward centrifugal force would be more-or-less equal to earths' gravity. Is
that what you are implying here?

~~~
iamthad
Although this approach is obvious, there are complicating factors. The
Coriolis force makes high-RPM centrifugal gravity unpleasant and perhaps
dangerous to humans. So, to achieve 1g, structures would need to be very large
(224 meters). Nonetheless, this is probably the best approach.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity#Rotation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity#Rotation)

~~~
danielweber
Two modules separated by a tether requires much less mass. It makes Coriolis
effects hard to notice.

I readily admit they haven't done any of this. The lack of engineering work
into making spinning structures is criminal.

~~~
drakeandrews
In structures with a small radius, the "gravity" differential between your
feet and your head is a bigger issue than the Coriolis effect. Large
structures using the tether approach produce sufficiently large forces on the
tether that it becomes a significant engineering problem. Tether structures
also suffer the issue that they are much harder to stop and start than a ring
structure. This is important because you do not want the structure spinning
whilst you make course adjustments. There are modifications to the design that
compensate for this, but they add significant complexity to the design of the
ballast.

The ESA have put a lot of thought into this, as have Rosmoscos. I assume NASA
have put a fair amount of thought into it as well, but I've nothing to back
that up.

------
squozzer
Wasn't there a program in the previous admin where NASA solved YOUR problems?

