Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (02/14/86)
Unfortunately, there is a fallacy that money for SDI is going towards
space development. Most of the money goes into research into high
energy physics, such as the nuclear-pumped X-ray laser, the neutral
particle beam, the charged particle beam, etc. As far as I know, very
little if any is going into space oriented design, except for such
things as orbiting mirrors to bounce lasers. One area that is sorely
lacking in the SDI budget is software, which I thinkis is going to be
the most important. What good is a high powered laser that can't hit
anything because the computer is down?
BTW, I never said that money that doesn't go to SDI would go to NASA. I
said "Wouldn't it be nice if ...".
Brett Slocum
(Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA)J.JPM@[36.21.0.13] (Jim McGrath) (02/14/86)
From: Slocum@hi-multics.arpa
If the space program got as much support as SDI does, we would be
living in space by now, practically. I hear that Reagan wants to
double the SDI budget in '87 and again in '88. And similar growth
thereafter. In '87, the SDI budget will equal the NASA budget, if
he gets his way and also if the NASA budget doesn't get cut. And
this is in three years from the start of the program. Just think
where we could be if NASA's budget had seen that kind of growth.
But it never will. One of the reasons I think SDI is a good idea is
that it is an excellent way to get funds for space activities. I
would rather see the same amount going to NASA, but reasoning that if
you could just cut SDI then NASA would get the money is nonsense -
rather, the money would just to to fund another dam in some
congresscritter's district.
Jim
-------