HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: NASA spinoffs
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:17:16 GMT
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: ritz@brtph95.bnr.ca's message of 17 Aug 92 17:37:03 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?

Comments like this tend to miss the point of the "spin-off"
argument. There are two factors that make spin-off valuable,
first they are produced as incidentals by somebody working on
solving a problem they're _interested_ in. Many of the people
involved will spend hundreds of hours figuring clever ways
of solving a nasty engineering problem if it is part of an
interesting problem, where they would not bother (or not try
as hard) if they were tackling that particular problem per se
 - teflon-metal bonding is not particularly inherently interesting
nor obviously valuable a priori (IMHO) but lubrication of
sliding metal surfaces in critical man-rated equipment operating
in hard vacuum is interesting.
	Secondly, spin-offs are often serendipidous - the 
"cheap" approach assumes that the need for the technology
and the development path is somewhat obvious - often it isn't
I'm quite sure, for example, that JPL was not intending to provide
Sony with their next generation of consumer electronics when they 
invented the CCD...

Of course the same argument shows why often spin-offs are
underutilised or commercialised by a third party...

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
|steinly@helios.ucsc.edu|Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
From: Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: 19 Aug 92 07:37 PDT
Subject: Re: NASA spinoffs
Nf-ID: #R:1992Aug17.173703.5046@brtph560.b:1090611913:cdp:1600000005:000:1597
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Aug 19 07:37:00 1992


To:    talk.politics.space
From:  Mark Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org)
Re:    NASA Spinoffs
Date:  19 Aug 1992
 
The question was raised about supposed spinoffs from the Apollo
project.  NASA claims that it payed for itself several times over
through the economic benefits of technological spinoffs.
 
As I understand it, the heart of NASA's claim comes not from
incidental spinoffs like teflon and Tang, but from direct
products, especially computers and communication satellites.  If
NASA could lay claim to these technologies it would have a strong
case, but the claim is debatable at best.
 
Let's take the computer.  As I understand it, the computer owes
much more to ARPA (now DARPA -- the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency) funding for the SAGE strategic air defense
system.
 
As for comsats, it is unclear whether Apollo accelerated their
development.  Perhaps it accelerated the development of launchers
necessary to put them into geosynchronous orbit.
 
The point is that even before Reagan, NASA underemphasized
commercially relevant technologies, instead seeing its mission as
putting people into space.  I think it would be much more
worthwhile to emphasize automated spacecraft, for example,
but NASA dislikes this because it undermines the value of people
in space.
 
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
|       Mark W. Goodman       | What a terrible thing it is |
| mwgoodman@igc.org -- econet | to lose your mind.          |
| goodman@ksgbbs.harvard.edu  |                             |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
From: vvallopp@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Vinod V Valloppillil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: liquid fueled rockets
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:28:07 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


 mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark Goodman)
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:35:00 GMT
 
>>ISRO has had problems with its Agni launcher system.  Purchase of
>>hardware and technology from Glavkosmos (xCCCP) for a cryogenic second
>>stage would give India the capability to deliver "payloads" to foreign
>>capitals, e.g., Beijing.
 
>>I'm not sure who has it wrong.  The important question is "Why does
>>India want this added launch capability for the Augmented Space Launch
>>Vehicle (ASLV), sometimes called the Agni (Fire).
 
>In the past, there has been some cross-fertilization between
>India's missile and launcher programs.  I don't recall the
>details, but I think the solid fuel rocket motor programs were
>essentially indistinguishable.  I believe that the same motor is
>used as a stage in Agni and in the ASLV.  I would expect that
>experience from space launches would be useful in India's missile
>program.  But it is extremely unlikely that India will use Russian
>cryogenic liquid fuel rocket motors or technology derived from
>them in its ballistic missile programs.
 
	It should be noted that one of the primary justifications that Reagan
was that the latest generation of Soviet ICBM's (SS-18?) were
liquid fueled.  The rational was that while solid fueled ICBMs
could sit on the ground for long periods of time and required
little pre-flight preparation (after they had been constructed,
of course) liquid fueled ICBMs were quite the opposite.
	A continual state of readiness like the solid fueled ICBM
makes it an ideal candidate for a second-strike or retaliatory 
weapon.  Precisely the type of weapon necessary for deterrence.
	Liquid fueled ICBMs (like the Soviet SS-18 -- I believe)
require a couple of hours of pre-flight fueling and prep.  This 
effectively makes them useful exclusively as a first-strike weapon.
Additionially, I believe that I read that you can get higher performance
and a lower cost per payload (in terms of the tech required) from
a liquid fueled ICBM.
	I guess that damns ISRO either way.  Solid fueld motors cna
be construed as a long term ICBM program while liquid fueled systems
are almost exclusively a first strike ICBM -- unless of course, both
are actually in the interest of increasing knowledge about space travel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinod Valloppillil (yes, the name is Indian)
vvallopp@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
ZZ  (whoops, I've gotta get out of command mode to exit vi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: NASA spinoffs
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:31:40 GMT

cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:

>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?

>I don't have a source handy, but I have read that spinoffs from the Apollo 
>program helped create new industries that generated gross revenues that 
>were quadruple the cost of Apollo.  It was about 1980 that I read this.

it can also be said that money invested in freeways returns to the
economy on a ratio of 10:1.  however, i have no idea if that it true.

>Developing new technolgy usually starts with a desired goal of what you 
>want to do.  As you reach towards that goal, you often run into a problem 
>for which there is no available solution.  A solution to that problem is 
>invented.  However, the solution may also have other uses that the 
>inventor did not envision and that is where the spinoff comes into play.

>When Bell labs invented the transistor, their goal was to improve 
>telephone switching systems.  They thought that maybe someone might want 
>to use it for a hearing aid,  but frankly they did not see a market for 
>transistor radios and other consumer products.  Sony expressed interest in 
>the transistor.  Bell told them to go make hearing aids.   Sony thought 
>there might be a market for small radios and the transistor radio was born.

>The need for permanently lubricated surfaces in a vacuum enviroment lead 
>to the invention of teflon, but no one envisioned using it in frying pans.

>The need to secure objects temporarily in 0G led to the invention of 
>Velcro which has found a multitude of uses on earth.

i recently found out that velcro pre-dates sputnik!  it was in a 1956 (or '58)
popular science "what's new".

>The need for small computers accelerated the miniturization of electronic 
>components.

>The need to monitor the health of the astronauts led to remote sensors and 
>the need to send medical data by radio telemetry.   Likewise, spacesuit 
>technology has been used in other life-supporting functions.

>The answer to your final question really can't be conclusively answered.  
>Someone else may or may not have run across a problem that would have led 
>to the development of teflon as a solution.   I doubt that the people who 
>jump onto Velcro lined walls would have developed Velcro just for that 
>purpose.

spin-offs aren't a justification, they are just a bonus.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder)
Subject: Re: "Race to the Moon" 
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:25:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.142309.23267@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.133434.8304@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov 
>(gary l. schroeder) writes:

>> I felt as though I were watching some kind of
>> fascinating Alternate Earth interviews mostly because the arguments
>> against were just the same then as they are now!  "We need to spend that
>> money on the homeless, on cures for [disease X], it has no scientific
>> justification", etc.  Fascinating.  These arguments were just as invalid
>> then as they are now.

>Nasa's official book on the Apollo program "Where no man has gone before" 
>also mentioned that several congressional opponents of the Apollo program 
>doubted that any useful spinoffs or technology would result from the space 
>program.  

Ha ha!  Yes, there was a senator interviewed for the "con" position
during the film at which time he also stated that no technology relevant
to the public sector would result from the effort.  Hysterical.



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Schroeder	                |  Warning: prolonged exposure to this
schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov         |  .sig may cause retinal damage and 
Brookhaven National Laboratory  |  blistering skin rashes.
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Russia/India Sanctions (2 of 2)
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:46:32 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992

One important distinction between the other missile technologies and the
current Russia-India deal is the type of rocket engine to be sold to India.
The actual engine technology is a cryogenic hydrogen burning system, rather
than a liquid storable system, as you implied in your commentary. Liquid
hydrogen has zero use as a military rocket fuel, whereas liquid storable fuel 
is almost ideal (solid fuel is even better).
 
Therefore the current administration's objections of the transfer of this
non-military technology to India are bogus, and serve only to crush the
Russian aerospace industry.
 
If you truly believe that transfer of military space technology to India is
worthy of sanctions, then why no complaints when Aerospatiale offered to
license the Viking rocket engine to India? This rocket engine uses storable
liquids, and would make a fine ICBM engine.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: ritz@brtph95.bnr.ca (Charles Ritz P215)
Subject: NASA spinoffs
Originator: ritz@brtph95
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:37:03 GMT

   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?
-- 

Charles Ritz   The opinions above do not necessarily represent the
BNR, Inc       views of my employer, but they should.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 14:24:00 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: bush is an idiot
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1600000001@igc.apc.org> mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark Goodman) writes:
>
>To:    talk.politics.space
>From:  Mark Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org)
>Re:    ISRO
>Date:  14 Aug 1992
> 
><<unsigned>> writes:
   ^^^^^^^^not sure what this means; my posting had my name and net
address in the usual locations.  Perhaps a cute signature was required

> 
>>ISRO has had problems with its Agni launcher system.  Purchase of
>>hardware and technology from Glavkosmos (xCCCP) for a cryogenic second
>>stage would give India the capability to deliver "payloads" to foreign
>>capitals, e.g., Beijing.

This statement still stands on its merits.
> 
>Richard Martin writes:
> 
>>And don't forget Pakistan--the Kashmir is such a nice place to holiday.
>>The same worries could be raised about the Americans--the rockets they're
>>building could be used against Ottawa.  Why are we trading with them?
>>We're even letting them use the Canadarm!
> 
>You both have it wrong.  India wants to use a high specific-impulse
>former Soviet CRYOGENIC LIQUID FUEL ROCKET MOTOR to improve the
>performance of its ASLV (Advanced? Space Launch Vehicle).  This type
>of motor is extremely ill-suited for use on ballistic missiles.  No
>one who knew how to make solid fuel motors -- as India does -- would
>use it.

I'm not sure who has it wrong.  The important question is "Why does
India want this added launch capability for the Augmented Space Launch
Vehicle (ASLV), sometimes called the Agni (Fire).

On various occasions, Indian spokesmen have stated that the upper stage
would be used:

  "only to launch communications satellites"

or

  "primarily for non-military purposes"  (interesting word, "primarily")

In a Reuters dispatch of 04/20/92, George Fernandes, a leader of the
Janata Dal party, said "Washington was interfering in India's national
security".

An article by Gary Milhollin (U. of Wisconsin, Madison) in the the
November 1989 issue of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists quoted
former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, 

  - "Agni is an R&D vehicle, not a weapons system"

and

  - "Agni is not a nuclear weapons system."

and

  - "What Agni does is afford is the option of developing the ability to
     deliver non-nuclear weapons with high precision at long ranges."

Note also that Delhi has refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
         
> 
>Furthermore, India and Glavkosmos offered to allow the United States
>to verify that the rocket motors were not being used for ballistic
>missiles.  This would have set an extraordinarily useful precedent.
> 
>Instead, the United States blew it and simply reinforced the widespread
>view that export control laws, which are supposed to be based on military
>security concerns, are really just a cover for a western technology
>cartel.
> 

Perhaps this situation is not quite as pure and simple as implied.
From: ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Reverse Engineering
Date: 23 Aug 92 15:09:54 GMT
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


A look at Jane's found me one example of reverse engineering.
The Chinese FB-1, a two stage liquid fuel rocket started off
as a launch vehicle, and was later converted to an ICBM.

-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu
From: ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Reverse Engineering
Date: 23 Aug 92 15:39:41 GMT
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA




In response to Gary Coffman:

I guess the point is that a cryogenic rocket engine would give
India improved weapon delivery in case it was used as a part of
a first-strike ICBM. So the question would be: does India have
any alternative that outweighs that advantage (so that using
the cryogenic engine for an ICBM wouldn't be advantageous) ?
and that should be the basis for deciding for or against a sale ?

How essential is the cryogenic engine for injecting a
satellite into its final orbit ? Are there alternatives
available there ?

-arun gupta
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Reverse Engineering
Date: 23 Aug 92 10:14:27 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <IeZJV0y00VB=M2HUMZ@andrew.cmu.edu> ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes:
>
>The claim was made in WL's article that reverse engineering a space
>vehicle to a ballistic missile is possible. All the examples given,
>however were the other way round -- the ballistic missile was reverse-
>engineered into a launch vehicle. Are there any examples the other way
>round ?

None that I know of, the military in this country has always had first
priority for funding, so they get the toys first.

>Secondly, the claim was made that making a launcher into a missile is
>easier than the other way round ? Is that true ? My own speculations are
>(i) a missile would have to survive re-entry.

No, the launcher does not have to survive re-entry, only the warhead
has to survive. 

>(ii) a missile would have to be much more precisely guided and controlled.
>After all, its no disaster if a satellite orbit is five miles on either side
>of nominal (or is it ?), but even with a small nuclear warhead, five
>mile radius would count as a miss for a missile (wouldn't it ?).

Guidance is always a tricky issue. It has a little to do with the type
of launcher, and much to do with the avionics and re-entry capsule design. 
CEP is primarily determined by time of release of the warhead from the
buss, and fine attitude control of the re-entry vehicle. Solid fuel
launchers always have considerable uncertainty in their boost phase
that must be compensated by mid-course corrections of the weapons bus.
Liquid fueled launchers *usually* have much finer control of the boost
phase and require less correction by the weapons bus.

>(iii) a missile would have to have a long shelf-life, might have to
>be designed to survive the EMP from nuclear blasts and so on.

A *deterrent* missile must be able to do these things, but a *first strike*
weapon system doesn't need to be instantly ready, or be able to ride out
first strikes. Liquid, or cryogenically fueled, launchers are perfectly
satisfactory for first strike weapons. If they have throttlable engines,
they are even better first strike weapons than any solid fueled missile
since their trajectory can be controlled much more precisely in the boost
phase for counterforce strikes.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark Goodman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: bush is an idiot
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:49:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:10702946.20.712898282@eng2.eng.m:-1562942818:cdp:1600000001:000:1739
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Aug 14 07:49:00 1992


To:    talk.politics.space
From:  Mark Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org)
Re:    ISRO
Date:  14 Aug 1992
 
<<unsigned>> writes:
 
>ISRO has had problems with its Agni launcher system.  Purchase of
>hardware and technology from Glavkosmos (xCCCP) for a cryogenic second
>stage would give India the capability to deliver "payloads" to foreign
>capitals, e.g., Beijing.
 
Richard Martin writes:
 
>And don't forget Pakistan--the Kashmir is such a nice place to holiday.
>The same worries could be raised about the Americans--the rockets they're
>building could be used against Ottawa.  Why are we trading with them?
>We're even letting them use the Canadarm!
 
You both have it wrong.  India wants to use a high specific-impulse
former Soviet CRYOGENIC LIQUID FUEL ROCKET MOTOR to improve the
performance of its ASLV (Advanced? Space Launch Vehicle).  This type
of motor is extremely ill-suited for use on ballistic missiles.  No
one who knew how to make solid fuel motors -- as India does -- would
use it.
 
Furthermore, India and Glavkosmos offered to allow the United States
to verify that the rocket motors were not being used for ballistic
missiles.  This would have set an extraordinarily useful precedent.
 
Instead, the United States blew it and simply reinforced the widespread
view that export control laws, which are supposed to be based on military
security concerns, are really just a cover for a western technology
cartel.
 
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
|       Mark W. Goodman       | What a terrible thing it is |
| mwgoodman@igc.org -- econet | to lose your mind.          |
| goodman@ksgbbs.harvard.edu  |                             |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Subject: Re: "Race to the Moon" 
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:23:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.133434.8304@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov 
(gary l. schroeder) writes:
> I felt as though I were watching some kind of
> fascinating Alternate Earth interviews mostly because the arguments
> against were just the same then as they are now!  "We need to spend that
> money on the homeless, on cures for [disease X], it has no scientific
> justification", etc.  Fascinating.  These arguments were just as invalid
> then as they are now.

Nasa's official book on the Apollo program "Where no man has gone before" 
also mentioned that several congressional opponents of the Apollo program 
doubted that any useful spinoffs or technology would result from the space 
program.  

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA