[pfdietz]

Again, the problem with all those is establishing they would not have arisen without NASA.

Another problem is the transition from "NASA was involved with this technology somehow" to "NASA is entirely responsible for this technology".

Behind all this is the presumption that technological advancement is limited by the availability of inventions rather than the availability of markets.

[moffkalast]

Ah in that respect I'm sure just about all would have been invented eventually, just like aviation or calculus were by different people during the same time period, albeit a lot later and likely tied to a corporation with exclusive rights for 20 years (like FDM 3D printing was for example, which I still kinda consider almost a crime against humanity) instead of being freely available for licensing.

There are a few that are completely space dependant however, like GPS, orbital weather monitoring, communications, satelite imagery, knowledge about other planets, etc. the kind of thing that has space travel as a prerequisite. Before GNSS and satelite maps navigation was pretty much hell, detecting tropical cyclones early and evacuating has certainly saved a lot of lives.

Of course if NASA hadn't done these, then ESA or Roscosmos or whoever would've, but in terms of argument I think we're talking about space agencies in general.

[kube-system]

> Behind all this is the presumption that technological advancement is limited by the availability of inventions rather than the availability of markets.

This is one of the biggest advantages of spending lots of money on ambitious projects. It has the potential to creates a market where none currently exists, because the market doesn't realize there is potential. Also, there are situations where the barriers to entry are so high, and the potential risk so great, that no private investment would likely have ever done it.