lfa@VIELLE.CRAY.COM (Lou Adornato) (12/19/89)
In SPACE Digest V10 #351 rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu (Paul Dietz) write: >In article <5941@timbuk.cray.com> lfa@timbuk.UUCP (Lou Adornato) writes: >> >>A while back someone (Tom Neff?) called the space program "techno-welfare". >>This might be true, but econometric studies have shown that every dollar spent >>on Apollo generated seven dollars worth of economic growth. No, I don't have >>the study, but Collins cited it in "Carrying the Fire" (I always meant to write >>him and get the name of the study...). >I called it technowelfare. I believe the "study" that "showed" the space >program paid off 7-1 just *assumed* that space R&D was as productive >as civilian R&D. >The supposed economic boon of the space program is an example of the >Big Lie technique, IMHO. I'm not about to argue the contents of that study when neither of us has a copy, but IF the authors felt justified to make that key assumption, (and >I< will assume that this assumption was justified (or at LEAST rationalized) within the study), I don't see why that assumption should be discarded out of hand. In fact, I don't see why space R&D wouldn't be >more< productive than civilian. By law, NASA research is available to the public (with the _major_ exception of that which is determined to be sensitive to National Security). The point I was trying to make is that the value of a national research and development project goes beyond the contract deliverables. The basic research, (albiet in limited areas), the engineering, and the new technologies all con- tribute to the economy. The more subtle contributions include a pool of experienced engineering talent, more interest in science and technology by the next generation of students, and national prestige. My major beef with the "technowelfare" slander was that welfare doesn't return ANYTHING to the economy except new generations of recipients. I humbly submit that, unless your host system uses vacuum tubes, disparaging the value of space research on this network is self defeating. Lou Adornato | Statements herein do not represent the opinions or attitudes Cray Research | of Cray Research, Inc. or its subsidiaries. lfa@cray.com | (...yet)
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) (12/20/89)
In article <8912181657.AA01075@aldrin.cray.com> lfa@VIELLE.CRAY.COM (Lou Adornato) writes: > In fact, I don't see why space R&D wouldn't be >more< productive than > civilian. By law, NASA research is available to the public (with the > _major_ exception of that which is determined to be sensitive to > National Security). Industry has a strong incentive to do R&D in areas that will lead to valuable products and services that can be sold for a profit. NASA does not. > The point I was trying to make is that the value of a national > research and development project goes beyond the contract > deliverables. The basic research, (albiet in limited areas), the > engineering, and the new technologies all contribute to the economy. There is no denying this. But how big is the contribution? One cannot just simply assume that all R&D is created equal. >My major beef with the "technowelfare" slander was that welfare doesn't return >ANYTHING to the economy except new generations of recipients. This thread started when it was suggested that the space program should be funded to soak up unemployment that would derive from curtailing of military expenditures. Spending to that purpose *would* be welfare. By the way, "slander" is the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations directed at a person. You can't slander a government program or an idea. > I humbly submit that, unless your host system uses vacuum tubes, > disparaging the value of space research on this network is self > defeating. Transistors were invented in 1948. ICs were invented in the late 1950's. Early IC development was nurtured by military and NASA spending, but it isn't clear to me that without NASA ICs wouldn't have come along anyway at about the same rate -- especially if the engineering talent that went into NASA had gone into other fields. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
brooks@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Michael B. Brooks) (12/21/89)
>From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) >Subject: Re: Techno-welfare >Message-ID: <1989Dec20.150503.27019@cs.rochester.edu> >Industry has a strong incentive to do R&D in areas that will lead to >valuable products and services that can be sold for a profit. NASA >does not. Agreed Paul, and therein lies the heart of the problem. Most Industrial R&D is for short term needs and short term profits (especially these days, in this country). In the bygone days of Apollo, relatively longterm investments were made without overriding attention to "business necessities". >Transistors were invented in 1948. ICs were invented in the late >1950's. Early IC development was nurtured by military and NASA >spending, but it isn't clear to me that without NASA ICs wouldn't have >come along anyway at about the same rate -- especially if the >engineering talent that went into NASA had gone into other fields. The collection of many engineers, in many companies, working on micro- minaturization of ICs for space applications, funded by NASA for Apollo, freed this pool of talent from the constraints of "business necessities". My suspicion is that the pace of the IC industry growth benefited enormously from this freedom, and that if IR&D had to fund the 4Mb DRAM antecedents and associated technology (rather than NASA & USGov.), we would not see these at this time. Apollo created a large body of of engineers, (and the public), aware of what microminiturized technology could do. "It put a man on the Moon" etc. The technical success of Apollo and micro-tech was demonstrated for all of the Corporate Boards of the world, and many of these decided to give more money to their IR&D people. After all, you might be able to make some interesting products from these smaller ICs, especially since NASA paid many basic research costs. In effect, Semitech, Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC), MITI, and DARPAs continued semiconductor research support, all mimic what NASA did at this time. It`s unlikely that IR&D would have carried us to this point, this fast, by itself if not for the politics of the space program, and its high visibility. Put another way, ICs were proved and sold by Apollo, in the biggest way possible. Great advertising! Mike Brooks/Stanford Electronics Labs (solid state)/SU
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) (12/22/89)
In article <1989Dec20.150503.27019@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <8912181657.AA01075@aldrin.cray.com> lfa@VIELLE.CRAY.COM (Lou Adornato) writes: >> In fact, I don't see why space R&D wouldn't be >more< productive than >> civilian. By law, NASA research is available to the public (with the >> _major_ exception of that which is determined to be sensitive to >> National Security). >Industry has a strong incentive to do R&D in areas that will lead to >valuable products and services that can be sold for a profit. NASA >does not. Like swept-wing aircraft? Supercritical airfoils? NASA/NACA innovations that make airline flights faster and cheaper. Winglets? Fly-by-wire? Highly-integrated engine control? NASA There aren't many _private_ hypersonic wind tunnels. In fact, there aren't many private transsonic tunnels. Wake turbulence research? We help keep your airplane from being thrown out of the sky, with our flight safety research. Downbursts? Wind shear? NASA research is of great economic value. It's just that others get the value. For example, NASA doesn't build airliners but the people who do use NASA's research. BTW, the printed circuit was first used in proximity fuses for shooting down V-1s, so here's yet another example of NASA/Defense innovation that really affected "real life." Small, but hot little blue flame: NASA is not just space! The first A is aeronautics and don't you forget it! Even if Headquarters sometimes does, I expect more from you-all. Happy Holidays, Space Cadets! -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov or ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (12/22/89)
Mary Shafer points out that NACA/NASA always has, and still does, excel at real honest-to-God aeronautical research like winglets, fly by wire, rain effects etc. Hurrah! Anyone can see this is NASA doing what it does best. Now where does space fit in. NASA is currently spending more time trying to do the end users' jobs FOR them, than researching how they can do it better themselves. Let NASA spend its time researching how to build better spacecraft, while science, industry and the military use the research results thus obtained to build and use the craft they need. Then we will get our money's worth. -- War is like love; it always \%\%\% Tom Neff finds a way. -- Bertold Brecht %\%\%\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
leech@cezanne.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (12/22/89)
In article <431@sierra.stanford.edu> brooks@sierra.UUCP (Michael B. Brooks) writes: >My suspicion is that the pace of the IC industry growth benefited >enormously from this freedom, and that if IR&D had to fund the 4Mb DRAM >antecedents and associated technology (rather than NASA & USGov.), we >would not see these at this time. How do you explain the Japanese dominance in 4MB DRAMs with this theory? MITI and JASDF aren't subsidizing the >$1G investment Toshiba and other companies are making in this area. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ "A compact set can be controlled by a finite police force no matter how dumb." H. Weyl ca. 1938
steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) (12/22/89)
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >Transistors were invented in 1948. ICs were invented in the late >1950's. Early IC development was nurtured by military and NASA >spending, but it isn't clear to me that without NASA ICs wouldn't have >come along anyway at about the same rate -- especially if the >engineering talent that went into NASA had gone into other fields. [Paul asked me to post this reply to the net. I changed the word "most" to "many" ;-). Enjoy.] You might be interested in this anecdote. Two friends of mine worked as consultants on the Apollo project in the '60's (something to do with batteries, I think). I remember them recounting how they were mildly surprised to discover that many of the switching systems on Apollo were electro-mechanical -- not solid-state. --Steve Emmerson steve@unidata.ucar.edu