Nasa vs F1

[acela]

Comparisons between Nasa and F1 in terms of technology, quality engineers,management,research and developments and more.

[Becker4]

well, NASA has gone to F1 for help (Mclaren did consulting work on composite materials for the mars lander, if im not mistaken) but to my knowledge, F1 has never gone to NASA for help, so that should say something . . .

[seymour]

Really discussion of this topic has no substantive value. NASA is a government agency, and an F1 team is ultimately in the entertainment business.

McLaren has tried to reinvent itself as a technology company: McLaren Composites was begun in 1993 to construct the McLaren F1, but the first composite McLaren chassis was built by Hercules Aerospace in 1981, an american company whose primary customer is the US military-industrial complex. McLaren worked on the Beagle land rover, which crashed and burned, for the European Space Agency, not NASA. I'm pretty sure the American congress would not look kindly upon NASA sending any contracts overseas as long as an American company is capable of providing the same service for a reasonable price and possibly for an unreasonable price. And similar is obviously true for the ESA.

I can't speak to the technology NASA specifically develops, but they mostly buy their stuff from companies who are funded with military contracts in the billions. F1 had just discovered wings in 1969, while NASA was putting a man on the moon, a feat not since replicated.

This is not to say F1 teams don't now do what they do very well; they are driven by competition, and I think there is no better driving force. I like to see F1 teams compete because it is entertaining and its quite a spectacle. I don't like to see NASA compete, because in the past it was just a dog and pony show for the business of mutually assured destruction through global thermonuclear war, and in the future its likely to lead to the weaponization of space.

Sure F1 is competitive, but it has nothing on the competition that is war, open, cold or otherwise. Personally, I'd like to see NASA wallow in cooperation and never be pressured to compete again.

[Scuderia_Russ]

F1 had just discovered wings in 1969,while NASA was putting a man on the moon,a feat not since replicated

Mmm,did they though. Nasa went from having a 0.017% percent chance of success to a 100% success in about a month.Pictures of moon landers that looked like they had been pushed into place as well as 'moon rocks' with prop numbers on them,coupled with some seriously dodgy picture and light angles + the desperation for the kudos of being the first to achieve this world beating feat = a big swizz if you ask me! Sorry Seymour.

[Wildcard]

C'mon Russ, that's like telling my 2 year old there ain't no Father Christmas or Easter Bunny. I remember watching the TV set as a 5 year old just as Armstrong jumped off the ladder of the landing craft - let me have my childhood memories!!

Actually, I've always been bothered by the fact that if Armstrong was the first man on the moon, who was shooting the film footage - did he set the camera up first, go back up the ladder and then come back down again to utter those famous words, or was Buzz doing the camera work all along?

To bring this topic back to F1 - do we die-hards follow F1 to see the technology at work, or the drivers at work? If it's the latter, does technology really matter? If we went back to steel brakes, more mechanical and less aero grip, a control tyre and basic computer-controlled functions and systems (or even freeze technology at its current levels), but traded it for GP bike or CART-type racing, where up to 10 drivers could win each race and the lead swaps every lap, would the whole F1 show be better?

I suspect it would be a shitload better, assuming you want to watch the drivers race each other (remember Silvestone last year)? If I want to see technology, I'll go to a motor show or expo! So, will technology, or more precisely, the cost of technology, ultimately be detrimental to the sport?