🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8912181657.AA01075@aldrin.cray.com> lfa@VIELLE.CRAY.COM (Lou Adornato) writes:

> In fact, I don't see why space R&D wouldn't be >more< productive than
> civilian.  By law, NASA research is available to the public (with the
> _major_ exception of that which is determined to be sensitive to
> National Security).

Industry has a strong incentive to do R&D in areas that will lead to
valuable products and services that can be sold for a profit.  NASA
does not.

> The point I was trying to make is that the value of a national
> research and development project goes beyond the contract
> deliverables.  The basic research, (albiet in limited areas), the
> engineering, and the new technologies all contribute to the economy.

There is no denying this.  But how big is the contribution?  One cannot
just simply assume that all R&D is created equal.

>My major beef with the "technowelfare" slander was that welfare doesn't return
>ANYTHING to the economy except new generations of recipients.

This thread started when it was suggested that the space program
should be funded to soak up unemployment that would derive from
curtailing of military expenditures.  Spending to that purpose *would*
be welfare.

By the way, "slander" is the utterance of false charges or
misrepresentations directed at a person.  You can't slander a
government program or an idea.

> I humbly submit that, unless your host system uses vacuum tubes,
> disparaging the value of space research on this network is self
> defeating.

Transistors were invented in 1948.  ICs were invented in the late
1950's.  Early IC development was nurtured by military and NASA
spending, but it isn't clear to me that without NASA ICs wouldn't have
come along anyway at about the same rate -- especially if the
engineering talent that went into NASA had gone into other fields.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu