🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ewright.725647230@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Dec28.172953.26161@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Shuttle's costs were all accounted for too. The customer, the US
>>taxpayer, wanted R&D done to develop a reusable spacecraft. NASA
>>did it, and that public domain database of technologies is what
>>the taxpayer got for his money, not bent metal. 

[flamage deleted]
> 
>Furthermore, you are wrong in stating that the information is
>in the public domain.  It is the property of the United States
>Government.  Any taxpayer who wants to use this information has
>to pay (again) for the privilege.

How do they have to pay except for copying costs?  Certain parts of the
shuttle design may be either classified (i.e. the comm crypto gear) or
proprietary (some of the COTS equipment), but the bulk is available for
copying costs.  If I want a copy of the schematics, I find a copying
cost charge reasonable.
>
>>NASA is not supposed to be in the fabrication business.
>
>You're right.  So why do you support NASA being in a business
>that it is illegal for them to be in?
            ^^^^^^^
Please cite the _exact_ basis for this statement, i.e. the part of the
U.S. Code or the appropriations laws that make it illegal to fabricate
things.  Either that or be more careful in your flaming.  Accusing NASA
of illegal acts without basis is impolite at the minimum.

Also, this thread has gone about as far as it can go.  Please save
bandwidth and disk wear and tear and _drop it_.  Please.

-- 
Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
"You know, I think we're all Bozos on this bus."
"Detail Dress Circuits" "Belt: Above A, Below B" "Close B ClothesMode"