From: schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder)
Subject: Re: NASA spinoffs
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:45:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.173703.5046@brtph560.bnr.ca> ritz@brtph95.bnr.ca (Charles Ritz P215) writes:

>   Just what are the useful 'spinoffs' of the Apollo program.
>How much of the $ 24 billion spent on Apollo went to developing
>these wonderful new technologies?  Was the accelerated develop-
>ment of these 'spinoffs' really worth $ 24 billion (in 1960s
>dollars, around $ 100 billion in today's dollars)?  Could the
>'spinoff' technologies been built, at a much lower cost, without
>the Apollo program, e.g. is it really necessary to send a
>man to the moon in order to develop teflon?


While I don't think that you can justify a program entirely on its
spinoff potential, I think that it is the most obvious tangible benfit
to be given as an example.  How can we possibly quantify concepts like
"human achievement" and "bold exploration"?  These are romantic terms
that appeal to my sense of excitement, philosophy and adventure.  Yet,
these terms are generally not sufficient to asuage the fiscal grumblings
of a nation.

To answer your basic question, I've heard it said that as far as
spinoffs are concerned, Apollo would have been a bargain at twice the
price.  If you want to put the expenditure into perspective, take a look
at the U.S. military spending during those same 10 years that Apollo
recieved funding.  It's not even comparable.  It amazes me that people
are far more willing to critisze legitimate science spending quicker than
spending a hundred times that amount for more nuclear weapons and tanks.


While teflon most certainly would have been developed _at some point_,
it might not have been invented until 10 or 20 years later if no one had
needed it.  Necsessity is indeed the mother of invention.  Would I be
typing at a personal computer right now if it hadn't been for Apollo?
Would I have a digital CD player at home?  Maybe, maybe not.  Computer
technology, generic manufacturing processes and materials science
principles all experienced a generational leap resulting from the _need_
for that technology, and an urgent need at that.  I think that it just
goes to show that virtually any technical problem can be solved given
enough personnel, money and resources.  Hell, they knew in the early
60's that they didn't even have the technology necessary to travel to
the moon at that time, but were confident that it _could_be_developed_
sometime in the next 10 years.  

I think that you're missing the point if you ask whether men needed to
go to the moon so that we could have non-stick cookware.  I believe that
the historical significance of the Apollo project has yet to be realized
even 23 years after the fact.  This project will be given prominant
headlines in the encyclopedias of the future long after the United
States of America ceases to exist and no one knows what a "car" is. 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Schroeder	                |  Warning: prolonged exposure to this
schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov         |  .sig may cause retinal damage and 
Brookhaven National Laboratory  |  blistering skin rashes. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space