[net.space] Spinoffs -- fact or fiction?

dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA (03/29/84)

  Talk about flawed arguments!  Do you think that new plastics,
  materials, glues, etc.  come out of thin air?  No!  Have you ever
  heard the saying "Necessity is the mother of invention", i.e.,
  things do not get done until somebody wants them.

Of course I don't believe that new plastics, materials, glues, etc.
come out of thin air.  What I do believe is that a space program is a
stupid way to get these spinoffs.  Platitudes aside, do you have any
evidence that the Apollo program produced 7 x 60 billion dollars (1984)
(or indeed, any significant fraction of $60 billion) in spinoffs?

Is there any reason to believe that these new materials would have been
discovered without the space program?  Of course there is. People have
been discovering things on their own for thousands of years. Do you
believe that government programs are the source of all knowledge, and
that work done at NASA is somehow better at producing new technologies
than work done in the private sector?  Even if you do, wouldn't you
think that a government program with the purpose of developing new
materials would be far more efficient than NASA at doing so?  As an
example, look at the Japanese effort in high temperature ceramics.  I
fully expect most Japanese automobile engines to be made from these
ceramics soon and will operate at higher temperatures (up to 2300 F)
with greatly increased thermodynamic efficiency.  The US auto industry
will have to buy Japanese engines or die.

Let's get some hard facts into this argument.  Will someone document
that claim of 7-14x payback from the space program?  Also, could
someone document that actual value of spinoffs?