From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
X-Xxdate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 10:13:45 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:17:34 GMT

In article <C09FtM.6Ar@unix.portal.com> mike myke schwartz,
mykes@shell.portal.com writes:
>Read again.  There are two false assertions above:
>1)	Without the space program, there would be no microelectronics
>2)	That anyone made the statement that AT&T caused the microelectronic
>	revolution and the space program had nothing to do with it.
>
>The assertion 1) was made, and simply proven false.

You need to learn the definition of a proof.

>Without NASA we would
>have microelectronics.

Mere speculation. It was NASA that drove the cost of microelectronics
down to levels which made them commercially viable by increasing demand.
This, and the development contributions, are documented facts.

>
>: >
>: >: >: 
>: >: >: 2) The end goal is potentially very good.  A fully developed
space
>: >: >:    program would enable several things:
>: >: >:    a) Vastically reduced pollution.
>: >: >:       This would be achieved by moving polluting industries into
>: >: >:       orbit, and producing our energy needs on orbit.
>: >: >
>: >: >This is almost laughable...  the expense is outrageous...
>: >: 
>: >: And what do you call the cost of environmental clean-up?
>: 
>: Oh, I don't know....ask the people at Love canal, three-mile island,
>: Brazilians living in chemical filth, Exxon, ....
>: 
>
>What's the cost of rebuilding after a major earthquake or hurricane? 
What's
>the cost of cleaning the chicken shit (i.e. natural) from the Arkansas
Rivers
>so the fish there stop dying?  Shit happens, and we fix it.  Or do our
best.

Or do our worst which is often the case.

>
>: >Too bad YOUR job would
>: >be in jeopardy, though, or you would be less blind to the reality
outside
>: >the space program...
>: 
>: That is a cheap shot
>: having little to do with this debate. I can get a job doing other
>: things MAKING MORE MONEY tommorrow. I do this
>: job because I believe in it.
>: I am quite aware of the realities outside
>: thank you very much!
>: 
>
>No cheap shot at all.  And very relevant to the thread, or have you
missed
>the questioning of vision.  I don't begrudge the man the fact that he
>makes money - in fact I am glad he makes money AND does what he likes to
do.
>But it clearly taints his view.

Read again. I said I could make MUCH MORE MONEY outside of aerospace,
so the money does not "clearly taint my view". Learn some logic.

>
>Where our two visions differ is that I feel the space program should be a
>profitable venture.  My vision is that the free market will drive us as
>far into space as we will truly want to go.  If enough people are willing
>to pay for transit to mars, the technology for getting there will be
built
>and will be made cheaper - if it costs too much, people won't pay.  If
NASA
>stops tomorrow, AT&T will still launch satellites, as long as they can 
>ammortize the cost.  The Defense Department will still launch spy
satellites
>(or whatever).

I don't necessarily disagree. However, right now American industry is run
by a bunch of risk-adverse, panty-waists who won't even pay for simple
plant modernization and incremental development. These companies are
crumbling slowly because of it. They are failing in the free market and
they don't care. As long as the CEOs manage to pad the quarterly reports,
they
will continue to recieve bloated compensations. The results of the
short-sightedness will be left to the next generation while they enjoy
their retirements on yachts drinking Mai-Tais.... I don't want to trust my
future to people with alterior motivations who have proven themselves
to be incompetant in the free-market. I believe that
some space development projects should eventually
be turned over to free-enterprize.
However, right now the government is the
only organization with the will and means to make
the initial investment in order to attain practicality.


>
>: >I say use that 100x cheaper technology when it gets
>: >here, but only if it is economically viable.
>: 
>: Here's a free clue Mike: It won't get here unless we invest in it and,
>: at this time, corporations won't even fund their cheap
>: incremental development labs yet fund long-term research.
>: 
>
>I question your understanding of realities outside the space program when
>you make statements like this.  The government funding of the space
program
>eliminates competition, reduces invention, reduces access to space, and
is
>a money losing proposition.

OK Mike, go to any of the large corporations and suggest to them that they
should invest in the development of a commercial launch infrastructure...
see how far you get before they tell you that it will blow their R&D
budget. I have been trying to get several of the major aerospace
corporations
and IBM to form a consortium for three years to share the development cost
with no luck at all. Like I have stated, we are dealing with a bunch of
risk-
adverse panty-waists with selfish, alterior motivations. If the government
doesn't defray some of the long-term R&D necessary for commercial
viability, it will not happen, no matter what the potential.

>
>: >It costs $90/person to send
>: >an airplane from SF to LA...  At 100x cheaper, you are still
advocating
>: >spending tens of millions to send one person.
>: 
>: Here's another clue: A shuttle flight can hold 8 people plus PAYLOAD
>: and costs 100 million per flight. Now you do the math before you
>: embarass yourself further.
>
>A cost of $12.5 million per person.  And you want to sell me on how using
>the shuttle is the cheapest way we have now (or had in 1969 even) to get
>payload into space?  WISE spending of our tax dollars?
>
>Speaking of incremental improvements, you've still got 5 orders of
magnitude
>to catch up with the airplane cost.  And you've got orders of magnitude
to
>go for payload, too.  It is obvious why you talk about needing more than
>incremental improvement, you are projecting NASA's needs onto the world
>outside NASA.

OK Mike, now prove that it will never happen that vehicle development
technology will reach this goal. Also, do you really believe that the
commercial viability of aircraft sprung instantaneously from the
Wright flyer? Spacecraft are still in a relatively primitive state and
will remain so if attitudes like yours prevail.

>
>Let's talk about my incremental improvements - things that the free
market
>has driven.  2 years ago, my PC was 5 mips.  Today it is 30.  2 years
from
>now, I expect a $4000 computer to be 150 mips and capable of modeling
ideas
>you nor I can dream of.  At that price, that kind of computer will be
used
>by millions of people.  What you scoff at, I don't know.

I scoff at this being any big breakthrough. Our foreign competitors will
be
dogging our heals in these accomplishments, often surpassing us.
Secondly, this will happen with no help from the federal government.
Lastly, it is, as has been stated, a documented fact that the commercial-
viability of microelectronics was driven by the demands of NASA for
light-weight electronic components early on.
None of these so-called "breakthroughs"
of yours would even have been possible without this early investment.

>
>: 
>: >
>: >: >
>: >: >:    b) Very cheap power.
>: >: >
>: >: >Very cheap power is just as likely to happen without space
technology.
>: >: >Solar,
>: >: 
>: >: Which just happens to be most effectively converted in space...
>: >
>: >True.  But it doesn't make it cheaper per kilowatt.  Nor does it
require
>: >MANNED space craft to implement.
>: 
>: I suppose you wouldn't like to provide data for this assertion?
>
>I'll let the free market prove it.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for those clowns to develop
some gumption.

>
>
>: 
>: >
>: >: 
>: >: for example, or nuclear, etc.
>: >: 
>: >: Have you seen the cost of building nuclear plants?
>: >
>: >About the same as a space shuttle shot, but it generates useful power
>: >for decades.
>: 
>: If it's so wonderful, how come construction of these plants have
>: ground to a screeching halt? I suggest you learn more about the
>: history of the nuclear power industry and its failures.
>
>Wonderful how the free market works, isn't it.  The free market will
always
>seek safer (more conservative) and cheaper sources.

First you aspouse nuclear, now you deny it... So, which is it? By the way,
the free-market will also choose the most expedient route regardless of
future implications.

>
>: >
>: >
>: >: >
>: >: >:    d) Cheap materials. (gold etc)
>: >: >:
>: >: >
>: >: >Barry Bonds gets paid 5x his weight in gold.  Would be cheaper to
just
>: >: >send him around :)  Seriously... how do you come up with this?
>: >: 
>: >: Read recent reports on the mineral make-up of asteroids.
>: >
>: >OK, but still not an argument for manned space flights.  A manned
space
>: >station, for example, has little to do with a billion dollar satellite
>: >launch to bring back $2Billion in gold (or other mineral).
>: 
>: Show me where anybody has proposed that a robot spacecraft do this
>: kind of mining? Hint: robots are not sophisticated enough. Furthermore,
>: it will probably take longer and be more expensive to make them
>: sophisticated enough than it would to develop cheap access to space.
>: 
>
>Pardon me, but I pictured a robot spacecraft designed to bring the
asteroid
>to Earth orbit.  But the point is that if you send up a $100 million
rocket,
>plus some cost for payload, you better bring back the investment PLUS
enough
>return to warrant the risk.  In other words, a % return on the investment
>to encourage the market to invest.

Obviously.

>
>: >When it becomes economically viable, the free market will naturally
bring
>: >us out there.
>: 
>: Oh yeah... our corporatios can't even look past their quarterly reports
>: and
>: you are telling me that these incompetant, short-sighted panty-waists
>: are going to lead us to the stars? I don't think so. They're to timid
and
>: risk-adverse to make the initial investment it takes to achieve this
>: ambitious goal. NASA IS making this investment.
>: 
>
>Are you talking about those high-tech sillycon valley executives who
came out
>in favor of Clinton?  You win this point.  But besides those turkeys,
there
>are plenty of people with vision who do great things.

No, I don't mean these "turkeys". Apple is one of the boldest companies in
America.

> Because of free market
>principles, people build things that other people want.  People invent
new
>things that people want all the time.  People do it in their garages just
>as well as companies do it in labs.

OK, build a cheap, reliable, reusable launch infrastructure in you
garage...
Let's get real here. We are not talking about PCs, we are talking about
spacecraft. McDonnell Douglas didn't build the DC-3 in a garage and it
took some guts to do this ambitious project. The potential was there,
but certainly not assured by proof. The accounting and Marketing
dweebs running
our major corporations seem to lack this kind of guts and vision.

>
>: >Infrastructure spending on a worldwide fiber optic net,
>: >and improving that technology is economically viable now.
>: 
>: Timid incremental development....the reason our nation is losing
>: its technology lead. Surely you have more vision than this...
>
>Another statement that leads me to believe that you are unaware of the
real
>world.  Our nation is not losing its technological lead.  Other nations
are
>simply gaining in technological ability.

Oh, and I suppose it was natural for us to just sit there
and let them catch up?
Our abysmal investment in R&D, modernization, and quality
control over the last 2 decades is a
documented fact.

>And we're helping them and benefiting
>from it.  When I went to UofI in 1978, there were 15,000 Japanese
enginering
>students - not Japanese Americans, but Japanese citizens.  They got the
best
>US education in technology possible and took it back to Japan to teach
and
>apply to real world applications.

And kick our butt with it because the Japanese don't have our timidity.
So how are we as Americans "benefitting"?

>
>Where you are as wrong as you can be, you would reduce our competition
>so our ability to compete is naturally going to be impaired.  What do
you 
>expect?

I never suggested any such thing. I have suggested the opposite. I have
suggested that we compete instead of tread water....that we take bold
initiatives instead of timid groping. That, my friend, is the key to
being competitive. I suggest you do some reading on early
industrialization
in America. Our forefathers understood this. You, obviously, do not.

>
>: 
>: >The money would
>: >be much better spent on that.
>: 
>: Fine, keep deluding yourself into thinking that this is some kind
>: of great achievement and will be a major economic boon.
>: 
>
>I bet 40 years ago, you would have been one of the opponents of building
the
>interstate highway system :)

No I would not have. I believe in projects with long-term benefits.

>There is NO doubt that it would be a great
>achievement and a massive economic boom.

Funny... Did you mean to type that?

>Soooo many new industries, that you
>apparently don't conceive of, would be born.

Don't be naive. I suggest you learn some history so you can see that this
phenomenon almost always happens with bold, ambitious exploration
and science. Mocking my explanation of it does not make it
any less factual.

>And industries that would force
>the free market into a significant amount of worker training.

This is true of any new technology or industry.

>It would 
>reduce the need to (gasp) launch a lot of communications satelittes,
though... 

Huh?

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc