Is Government Technology More Advanced than Private Sector??

[DanC78]

Here me out.

Read an article last month about the Black Bird having a camera that was mounted on the bottom of the plane that could zoom in and read the words on a newspaper, practically all the way from space.

And then I was watching Homeland (yes I know it's a movie) last night and they made the CIA out to be way more advanced technology wise....or at least so it seemed.

So I guess my point is this. Are the people developing new technology for the government smarter than those who work for say, Google and Apple? Does the Government have more resources than the private sector? And when I say government, thinking more about NSA, NASA, CIA. etc.

I mean...maybe this is Apple and Oranges, idk.

But it just seems to me if a camera like that existed back in the day, we would have much better cameras for public consumption. And I"m not trying to limit this to only cameras, it just came to as the best example.

thoughts?

 

[vevois23]

When you have the ability to literally print money, you have the resources to go farther than anyone else.

 

[DanC78]

When you have the ability to literally print money, you have the resources to go farther than anyone else.

Yeah, but there isn't funding problem with Apple and Google either.

I now that I think about it, I'm assuming it's Lockheed Martin that is in charge of all this. So I guess it maybe it comes down to this, is Lockheed more advanced that Google/Apple etc?

 

[vevois23]

Apple/Google have to answer to shareholders if the product line fails.

Who has Lockheed had to answer to for the boondoggle that is the F-35?

 

[wdnole]

Almost everything the military/CIA/etc "develops" is done be private contractors. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, many others. Employees have to meet very strict secrecy requirements in many cases, in essence becoming a de facto government employee.

 

[vevois23]

Basically when you have a virtually unlimited "Do Over" button that DARPA, all the 3 letter agencies, and the DOD subcontractors have you can try and fail a lot.

Whereas public companies don't have that luxury.

Also what wd said

 

[Random_John]

I think folks would be surprised at the technology that companies have but haven't released and the same is true of our government.

Examples of past hidden technologies from the private sector would have been from Xerox's PARC.
1. Gui
2. Mouse
3. Ethernet
4. Laser Printer

 

[FSUTribe76]

Here me out.

Read an article last month about the Black Bird having a camera that was mounted on the bottom of the plane that could zoom in and read the words on a newspaper, practically all the way from space.

And then I was watching Homeland (yes I know it's a movie) last night and they made the CIA out to be way more advanced technology wise....or at least so it seemed.

So I guess my point is this. Are the people developing new technology for the government smarter than those who work for say, Google and Apple? Does the Government have more resources than the private sector? And when I say government, thinking more about NSA, NASA, CIA. etc.

I mean...maybe this is Apple and Oranges, idk.

But it just seems to me if a camera like that existed back in the day, we would have much better cameras for public consumption. And I"m not trying to limit this to only cameras, it just came to as the best example.

thoughts?

The U.S. Government is still well ahead of Apple and commercial providers of technology. The U.S. government has bullets that can curve and change directions like mini missiles, lasers that are going to be deployed publicly very soon, space drones that have stayed in space for years and come and go with ease (as opposed to SpaceX which can't even match 1960s era NASA), have been monitoring and recording every single phone call for years and have the ability to ferret out keywords, has both microwave and magnetic mass driver weapons and a ton more "Scifi" stuff including "force fields", and "invisibility cloaks" (at least from radar and allegedly from visible light as well).

So I'm a firm believer that the U.S. Government at least at the bloody edge is quite high tech. The interesting thing is that the regular front lines is so low tech I've always wondered if it was just cost savings or if it's a purposeful misdirection. Regular line military guys will pipe in and say the military is backwards because in the 2010s they're still using 1960s tech in a lot of places and they'll be 100% correct. But for the bloody tip they've got 2050s technology.

 

[Nole Lou]

I think it's as others have said...unlimited funds, plus no need to have to justify the development expense. It wouldn't be surprising for the government to have more advanced technology. Google might have seemingly unlimited cash, but they're not going to spend billions on a technology with a 5% of success, and potentially no commercial prospects.

Like cameras...97% of the population is more than satisfied with the picture that they get off the 2mp front facing camera on their cell phone. The market for extreme improvement in a handheld camera is so small that there's no way they would invest the $$$ that the government would invest for their spy technology.

 

[Nolebra Kai]

Government hands down. Stuff they declassify and let the public know they have is something they were developing 20-30 years ago. Think how badass Hubble was in the late 80s and they started working on that in the early 70s.

 

[FSUTribe76]

Government hands down. Stuff they declassify and let the public know they have is something they were developing 20-30 years ago. Think how badass Hubble was in the late 80s and they started working on that in the early 70s.

Very true. Think about how bad%*% the SR-71 and A-12 is even by today's standards...and that came out in the 1960s and the prototype was 1959.

We still don't "officially" have a plane as fast and can fly as high as the SR-71 and A-12. Unofficially, of course we do. Officially, that 1960s plane based on 1950s tech is still the best.

 

[Fijimn]

Yep; and when you question the wisdom of building a steal aircraft carrier or the F-35, when you primary enemy lives in a cave in Afghanistan and his/her primary weapon is a pipe bomb strapped to your just.....suddenly old cold war powers become enemy numero uno.

In Eisenhower's original speech, he warned of the Congressional Military Industrial Complex....but his advisors suggested to change that because it was too harsh....should have just left it.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Yes, unless you're talking about any part of the US government that interacts with the public.

 

[ReliableOstrich]

I think when you look at the military / defense complex of the US Govt, yes, it's absolutely more advanced than the private sector -- DARPA especially comes to mind. The government's research labs managed by the DOE (Livermore, LANL, etc...) have some of the nation's most brilliant minds working on such a broad array of technologies it's astounding.

Beyond that though, looking at just general government operations and departments - they're in the 1950s.

 

[ReliableOstrich]

Let's put it this way, a Boeing aircraft can vanish over the south pacific and Boeing never built anything to track it. How pathetic that a private sector company couldn't implement a simple technology to track in real time it's $100m aircraft.

Boeing is a great american engineering company, in total disarray.

 

[seminole97]

Yep; and when you question the wisdom of building a steal aircraft carrier or the F-35, when you primary enemy lives in a cave in Afghanistan and his/her primary weapon is a pipe bomb strapped to your just.....suddenly old cold war powers become enemy numero uno.

But you need stealth aircraft launched from carriers to evade the Russian air defenses setup to protect the UN recognized leader of Syria when you try to bomb his army without Congressional authorization.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Let's put it this way, a Boeing aircraft can vanish over the south pacific and Boeing never built anything to track it. How pathetic that a private sector company couldn't implement a simple technology to track in real time it's $100m aircraft.

"This is Aaron at OnStar, how can I help you today?"

"Yeah, umm, I locked myself out of the cockpit and the plane is going down."

"No problem sir, I just need to verify a few things first and we'll get you unlocked and on your way."

 

[seminole97]

Let's put it this way, a Boeing aircraft can vanish over the south pacific and Boeing never built anything to track it. How pathetic that a private sector company couldn't implement a simple technology to track in real time it's $100m aircraft.

Boeing is a great american engineering company, in total disarray.

I think you're conflating 'couldn't' with 'didn't'.

GM has the tech to track your car, but they expect you to pay for it.
Why not blame the airlines that didn't bother tracking their expensive planes?
They don't belong to Boeing after they sell them.
I'm sure Boeing would be happy to sell the same service.

 

[CobNole]

Since moving to the Huntsville AL, I can tell you the stuff I've seen being developed for the army blows away anything in the private sector especially with lasers, cameras, and drones.

 

[ReliableOstrich]

I think you're conflating 'couldn't' with 'didn't'.

GM has the tech to track your car, but they expect you to pay for it.
Why not blame the airlines that didn't bother tracking their expensive planes?
They don't belong to Boeing after they sell them.
I'm sure Boeing would be happy to sell the same service.

Boeing takes on significant reputation risk when one of its aircraft vanishes off the face of the earth. Boeing also uses ridiculously antiquated tracking technology right now. They'd need to update the technology and as a percentage of the aircrafts price, it's practically nothing.

When a flight goes missing, they don't say "a Malaysian airlines aircraft" on the news, they say "a Malaysian airlines Boeing-777".

In any event, this is a microcosm of short-sighted private sector engineering, at least among legacy blue chips. Short term profits outweighs long term investments and nearly anything that involves the word "risk".

 

[seminole97]

Boeing takes on significant reputation risk when one of its aircraft vanishes off the face of the earth.

Really?
What percentage of the flying public is checking the plane type when they book a flight?
I think you're misusing the word significant here.

In any event, this is a microcosm of short-sighted private sector engineering, at least among legacy blue chips. Short term profits outweighs long term investments and nearly anything that involves the word "risk".

If you can't generate profits in the short term you don't have to worry about the long term. This is the reality faced by non-government entities. The airline industry itself doesn't have great profitability.
You can only afford to cover every contingency when someone else is unwillingly on the hook for the bill.

 

[EveryoneBleedsGarnet]

Since moving to the Huntsville AL, I can tell you the stuff I've seen being developed for the army blows away anything in the private sector especially with lasers, cameras, and drones.

I don't think Uncle Sam wants competition from the private sector with regards to ultra advanced military technology and weapons... I would assume any private sector super advanced weaponry is either illegal or immediately scooped up into the government umbrella.

 

[mnole03]

No, government technology is not more advanced than that available in the private sector. The government can afford to pay more to implement available technology, though.

The only area I think the government has a leg up on private research is in cyber warfare and defense. There is often commingling of resources in this area, but the USNA and US Cyber-Warfare really are on the bleeding edge.

 

[ReliableOstrich]

Really?
What percentage of the flying public is checking the plane type when they book a flight?
I think you're misusing the word significant here.



If you can't generate profits in the short term you don't have to worry about the long term. This is the reality faced by non-government entities. The airline industry itself doesn't have great profitability.
You can only afford to cover every contingency when someone else is unwillingly on the hook for the bill.

Umm... the flying public isn't Boeing's consumer.

I don't think you're understanding this very well. There's really no point continuing this dialogue.

 

[seminole97]

Umm... the flying public isn't Boeing's consumer.

Ultimately they are, and if you want to buy more expensive planes and sell more expensive tickets for technology some of the public would go without given the choice from your competitor who keeps buying Boeing, you'll find there is a portion that will.
No matter how small the margin is, someone rides that margin, and ultimately is pushed into other choices. Just because you didn't ride Greyhound last year doesn't mean someone else didn't.
It's trade offs. Anybody can look on the past and put together a more perfect set of choices for a better future. Somewhere, somebody is buying more pizzas every month and less life insurance than he could. IF he drops dead at 42 that might not look to smart, but if he lives to be 102 who are you to say he didn't make the better choice?

 

[mnole03]

Boeing is the most technologically advanced aircraft manufacturer on the planet. Their consumer facing division is more focused on build costs and timing, fuel economy, and safety.

Their developmental and military divisions actually build and deploy the most revolutionary stuff going. The ScramJet being the most interesting.

 

[Random_John]

I liken released technology to released medicine. We know there are advanced technologies we do not have access to that will be game changers. Once upon a time ago the internet wasn't something everyone had access to and now look at it. Once upon a time ago small pox vaccine wasn't available to everyone and now look.

I feel like world leaders have to slowly release certain technologies and medicines as it is easier to control a society this way. Can you imagine how the world would have changed if the internet were available in the 1970's. Sure we can say the net would have been super slow back then but fiber technology was well on it's way and we would have pushed the limits earlier. So why wait on such things?

There has to be the infrastructure to handle such things. It has to be profitable. The first online grocery delivery service really tanked because it was released at the wrong time. They made super advances in logistics and still could not succeed because their technology was too advanced for the people to completely understand.

We all say we want certain things when it comes to technology but, hell, message boards were once thought to be the realm of lonely geeks with no social skills. Now it's all multi-millionaires talking about technology and the Seminoles.

 

[PoopandBoogers]

Boeing is the most technologically advanced aircraft manufacturer on the planet. Their consumer facing division is more focused on build costs and timing, fuel economy, and safety.

Their developmental and military divisions actually build and deploy the most revolutionary stuff going. The ScramJet being the most interesting.

Exactly. Don't forget that Boeing is also one of the big 3 in terms of DoD secret aircraft/satellite technology along with Lockheed and Grumman. This is a photo of their stealth plane dubbed the "Quiet Bird" from 1962. Think of what they have squirreled away in their test hangars now.