dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA (03/25/84)
Do I think giving money to winos is a good idea? No. My point was simply this: You seem to believe that ALL of that 7 to 14 times return on investment in NASA has come back in the form of new technologies. I hope I demonstrated that this is absurd; a best a very small fraction of the investment comes back in the form of spinoffs. The space program CANNOT therefore be justified by pointing to unintended technological benefits. This is not suprising. After all, building moon rockets seems like an EXTREMELY inefficient way to do basic research. If you want new plastics, materials, glues, etc., why not just look for them and chuck the space program? If most of that 7-14 times return was not in the form of new technology it must have been in the form of economic activity generated directly by NASA spending. The wino spending example was merely meant to show that the argument for NASA spending from multiplied economic activity is also absurd, since spending on NASA -- IN REGARDS TO DIRECTLY GENERATED ECONOMIC ACTIVITY -- is equivalent to wino spending (which is clearly not productive). My message was not intended to advocate anything, merely to point out that certain arguments for the space program are flawed.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/31/84)
".....building moon rockets seems like an EXTREMELY inefficient way to do
basic research. If you want new plastics, materials, glues, etc., why
not just look for them and chuck the space program?"
Because in practice, such research moves *much* farther and faster when
it has a specific objective in mind. The above argument has been given
a number of times in response to the argument that improved technology
is a major result of ambitious aerospace programs. (Not just space,
but high-technology military work too.) The fatal flaw in it is that,
by and large, such research simply does not get done without a specific
objective to motivate it. The argument is usually used as part of a
speech which urges budget cuts for specific projects but never proposes
anything to replace them as motivation/funding for research.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrystevel@haddock.UUCP (03/31/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-26600:haddock:16000011:000:1205
haddock!stevel Mar 29 12:07:00 1984
I agree that you don't get 7-14 times the return.
I don't agree that just spending the money on Basic Reasearch
is the way to get the same technological return.
Spinoff are different from basic reasearch. Spinoffs are
appication/real world applicable while basic reasearch is often
not directly relevant for many years. There needs to be a balance
between basic reasearch and advanced APPLICATION of technology.
The shuttle and space station are advanced application of
technology.
Advanced application of technology is more expensive than basic
reasearch but the return to knowledge and methods gained by
industry is much higher. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle, and
many other unmanned spacecraft have added new methods of fabrication
and materials to industry as a whole.
At the same time more money, and more EVEN funding is needed for
basic reasearch. I wish congress would give NASA an even budget
for the long run. Keep asking them what they are using it for
but keep the funding level even.
Steve Ludlum, decvax!yale-co!ima!stevel, {ucbvax|ihnp4}!cbosgd!ima!stevel
PS would people on the ARPAnet please sign thier notes. They headers
get stripped by the gateway from ARPA to USENET. Thanks.