[sci.space] Spinoffs are irrelevant

isc0003@discg1.UUCP (John L. Guy) (07/18/89)

In article <26383@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
> 
> Over 133 thousand people had arthroscopic surgery on their knee in the
> US in 1987.  Ten years ago this surgery involved a hospital stay and
> small chance of a full recovery.  Now it is an outpatient procedure,
> with most patients walking the next day.  Much of the advance in this
> surgery is due to the frequency of knee injury in the NFL.
> 
> Does this mean that Congress should appropriate billions of dollars to
> support the NFL in order to benefit those in need of this surgery, or
> that the spinoff argument is absurd?
> 
	If the "spinoff argument" is that space spinoffs justify the 
space program, then, yes, the argument IS absurd.  If, however, one argues 
that the space program was without practical value, then that argument is also
absurd.  The space program is justified by the completion of its prescribed
missions.  The "spinoff argument" should merely be, that if one requires
PRACTICAL results to "justify" something, then look at the multitude of
spinoffs beyond the scope of mission accomplishment.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  JOHN L. GUY   (AV 442) 215/697-6732                               /\      *
*  Defense Industrial Supply Center                                 /  \     *
*  DISC-SPQ                                                        / /\ \    *
*  700 Robbins Avenue                                             / /  \/    *
*  Philadelphia, PA 19111-5096                              __   / /  ____   *
*                                                          / /  / /  /_  /   *
*  {bpa,osu-cis!dsacg1}!discg1!isc0003                   / /___/ /____/ /    *
*  {OPINIONS ARE MINE!  ALL MINE!}                     /______________ /     *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *