From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:41:38 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Xxdate: Tue, 5 Jan 93 09:37:49 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12

In article <C0DC5p.3A7@unix.portal.com> mike myke schwartz,
mykes@shell.portal.com writes:
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave (lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>: In article <C09FtM.6Ar@unix.portal.com> mike myke schwartz,
>: mykes@shell.portal.com writes:
>: >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.
>: 
>
>Like blowing tons of needlessly wasted money on the shuttle program?

What does this have to do with the environment? Changing the subject is a
poor excuse for a rebuttal.

>
>: >
>: >: >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.
>
>You would NOT be doing what you LIKE to do most if there was NO money in
>it.

Well, if there were NO money in it, I wouldn't be doing it. That is a
statement of the obvious. I am not rich and I have a family to
support.

>It does taint your view.

Illogical. I am quite critical of the present implementation of the space
program but I believe in the concept of a healthy, aggressive space
effort. I believed in that LONG before I worked on it.

>Read below how you berate corporations as
>"panty-wastes" and the like

and give well-documented reasons for doing so.

>and then read how your personal experience and
>frustration at getting your way "tainted" your view.

This is a ridiculous arguement. If we were going to resort to this
kind of speculation and character assasination, I could claim that
your lack of flexibility when presented with documented facts proves
that your view is tainted. I won't, because I can't prove such an
assertion. I'll leave the groundless accusations to you.

>
>: 
>: >
>: >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.
>: 
>
>Screed against corporations and CEOs noted many times over.  The
government
>income is 22% of GNP.  That other 78% is where your win will (or won't)
>come from.  If the government cuts of NASA entirely tomorrow,
practicality
>will arise.  Just not as soon as you want.

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything above. You contend that
the free-market will bring about space exploration without government
help. I contend that recent corporate history proves otherwise.
Furthermore, cutting the measely <1% of the tax dollar which constitutes
the NASA budget won't solve the deficit, won't educate our children,
won't solve the health care problem,......etc.  All it will do is
eliminate one more critically needed source of long-term
R&D. Agricultural subsidies are 30%,
defense spending is 28% (last time I looked), entitlements are 20%....
Some of these budgets have more waste and redundancy to carve out
than NASA's entire budget. If you think anything will really be solved
with
the cuts you want, you are trying to justify a meal at a 4 star restaurant
by eliminating the after dinner mints. I suggest that your efforts would
be
more fruitful elsewhere.

>
>: >: 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.
>: 
>
>They just don't choose YOUR risk, right?  You have my best wishes at
future
>attempts, but if you can show a bottom line plus figure, you will get
some
>support.

It's a good thing Edison didn't operate that way or we would be sending
these
messages by carrier pidgeon.

>
>: >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.
>: 
>
>Prove that vehicle development technology will reach the goal.

I don't have to prove it. The DC-X nonorbital prototype of a single-stage
to orbit vehicle will be tested this spring. Most engineers and scientists
working on the program are extremely confident that the technology will
work. The advent of highly efficient engine technology, high strength-
to-weight ratio materials (developed by the National Aerospace Plane
program), new computational CFD methods, and new light weight
heat resistant material have made this technology possible and probable.
Ask Allen Sherzer or Henry Spencer on sci.space and they will gladly send
you the details.

>Or prove
>it is even close enough for viability NOW.

Done.

>Give me a date and cost of when
>it will be viable even.

What is todays date.

>I never made any such contention that vehicles
>won't continue to imrpove or get cheaper.  Just that the free market will
>drive it there.

That's crap. This same "free-market" has allowed Ariane to capture much
of the highly-profitable commercial launch business by not investing in
launch technology. You seem to think the Marketing and Accounting dweebs
running our corporations are concerned enough to make such long-term
investments. However, their failure to do so is well documented.

>
>I believe the commercial viability of aircraft was driven by the free
market.

Wrong. It was first driven by the military.

>ANd without intervention from the government.  Driven by the free market,
>many uses have been found for it, and it has gotten better and cheaper.

BUT, it started with military application and spending. Learn some
history before you embarass yourself.

>I say the same is true for space technology, if you let the free market
>do its thing.  
>
>You screed against the free market, yet it works.  Men like Henry Ford
>take expensive technology and make it economically viable.

Henry Ford took risks, made bold plans. Our present corporations are
failing to do just that.

>And no matter
>how rich/powerful the competition is, the best/cheapest technology wins
>every time - especially without government interference.

I suppose you wouldn't like to prove this statement.

>In spite of no
>government intervention, or even antitrust laws and the like, Ford won
out
>in spite of the CEOs of BuggyWhip corporations.


Ford was a visionary. Ford understood the value of risk, the value of
innovation, and the value of investment. He supports my point.

>
>
>: >
>: >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.
>: 
>
>You scoff?  My view of computers is that faster, more colors, more
graphics,
>more sensual clues, the better suited they are to model and present more
and
>more complex information.  

Computers will make the incremental changes you want due to the market
forces. However, bold breakthroughs like superconductivity went years
before
corporations would drop a dime on it. It took NSF funding to achieve much
of
the knowledge to make high-temperature superconductivity possible.

>
>Secondly, elimination of government intervention is something you now
approve
>of?

I SAID: SAFE, SHORT-TERM, INCREMENTAL R&D will occur without government
intervention because it has no risk and is required to keep their
corporate
heads above water. I really wish you would read before responding.

>Eliminate NASA then :)  <- note smiley.  Perhaps you are starting to see
>my point that it happens without government intervention.

I never said incremental R&D should be gov supported. I said that
long-term,
high-risk, high-gain R&D is NOT being funded adequately by corporations
alone
because of the quarterly report effect. This is a documented fact.

>
>Your documented facts are not facts.  They are evidence.  There was no
Control
>experiment to prove NASA's level of responsibility, or that other forces
would
>have naturally accomplished the same things...

I suggest you read the recent history of Bell Labs and Watson labs, our
two
largest corporate research laboratories. They have cut almost all
long-term
R&D and have turned their best scientists into glorified marketing slugs.
These labs were the pride of corporate America and have been reduced to
mere
incremental technology development centers. Furthermore, almost all
of our corporations have made similar cuts to their long-term R&D efforts.
This is a fact and evidence.

>
>: >I'll let the free market prove it.
>: 
>: I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for those clowns to develop
>: some gumption.
>: 
>
>I won't hold my breath for NASA to make it cheap enough for ME to access
>space at will, either.

NASA may not but the DC program, funded by SDI and using NASA's
NASP technology, will sooner than you think. You are not very knowledgable
about the state of the art in aerospace. I suggest you do some reading
before you back yourself further in the corner.

>
>: >: 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.
>: 
>
>My only feeling about nuclear power is that it works, but is dangerous.
>As long as no crimes are comitted (like radiating people, etc.), then if
>the free market wills nuclear power, let them build nuclear power plants.

How trusting of you.

>Nuclear waste disposal issues will drive the free market to build as many
>or few as we can bear.  Eventually there will be newer and better energy
>production and nuclear will go away.  I am neither for it or against it.

When they run out of illegal dumping sites.

>
>I'll gladly take free market direction than governmental burocratic and
>politically motivated direction in a heartbeat.

On what grounds? At least in the case of the government we can vote them
out if they do something contrary to our will.

>
>Comment if you like, but on TV just now, a documentary on scientists
>studying Mount St. Helens claimed that the blast was the equivalent of
>40,000 atomic bombs - more than all the nukes we've ever built as a human
>race...

What in hell does this have to do with anything we are discussing? You're
beginning to ramble. I suggest slow breathing.

>
>
>: >: 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.
>: 
>
>Yeah, they boldly go to court and sue anyone with deep pockets.  And
they've
>lost market share every year since the Mac was introduced.  Bold...  you
>picked the WORST example.

You are the biggest spewer of unfacts I have seen on the network. Apple
has, in one year, become the market leader in notebook computing, it's
GUI operating system and toolbox are being copied by other large
companies, they have innovated a personal digital assistant which
may revolutionize the portable office... Furthermore, they are working on
three very ambitious operating systems---a voice activated system
(Casper), a plug and play operating system (Taligent), and a pen-based
system. They have always been leaders in innovation.

>
>: > 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.
>: 
>
>In keeping the technology OUT of the hands of common people (like Henry
>Ford or Wozniak), you've succeeded in reducing access to space,
increasing
>costs to wild proportions, defocusing research from viable productive use
>into theoretical long-term gain, and at an opportunity cost.

Fine. Keep deluding yourself into believing we can compete using
your "viable productive" (incremental) research efforts alone. Don't
let facts get in your way.

>
>: >
>: >: >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?
>
>We didn't just sit there.  And it is natural.  And it is most beneficial.
>Instead of just the USA kicking butt, the whole world is going well.

Well??  What planet are you living on? They have been announcing lay-offs
at major corporations every night this week, they just announced that
most of the
major corporations expect more cuts in the future and less hiring. What is
 your definition of well? If it is that the rich get richer, I might
agree.

>The
>USA is STILL kicking BUTT.

Yeah. Its own.

>
>Richard Nixon appeared on Booknotes on C-SPAN last week (a replay of a
feb 92
>interview).  In the interview, Nixon talked about the world and
competition.
>SPecifically, he told the story of a man named Nirmi (pardon the
misspelling)
>who was an outstanding distance runner in the 1920s.  He was so good
that there
>was nobody in the world fast enough to COMPETE with him.  At the 1924
Olympic
>games, Nirmi won the 15000, 10000, and 5000 meter races without breaking
>a sweat.  In the mile, he was so far ahead of the rest that a newspaper
>photographer got a picture of him looking at his watch.  Nixon contends
that if
>Nirmi had competition, he could have easily broken the 4:00 mile barrier
30
>years before it was actually done (by Roger Bannister in 1954).

I'm not against competition. But, if the competition is here, we had
better
run the good race and do those things (bold investments in modernization
and
long-term R&D) to succeed. Otherwise, our competitors will drown us.
That is my point.

>
>: Our abysmal investment in R&D, modernization, and quality
>: control over the last 2 decades is a
>: documented fact.
>: 
>
>When I went to UofI (urbana) in 1978, there were 25,000 JAPANESE students
>in the engineering school.  Not Japanese Americans, Japanese citizens. 
They
>came here, got degrees, some got advanced degrees, then they went home
and
>used their educations there.  Multiply that out over all the years and
>all the campuses, and you may get an idea of just how much we did to
>make them competitive.  

I could give a rats ass about their well-being. I'm more interested in OUR
competitive stature. I live here. They are more than capable of worrying
about
themselves.

>
>: And kick our butt with it because the Japanese don't have our timidity.
>: So how are we as Americans "benefitting"?
>: 
>
>Cheap quality goods, for one.

So every layed-off auto worker in America can have his very own
Sony DiskMan....     :-/

>Pehaps even, gasp, cheap access to space in
>the next 30 years (assuming the Japanese do it).

Why is it OK for the Japanese to make the investment and not us?
You contradict yourself. Furthermore, the Japanese industries are
highly government controlled so they don't even fit into your free-
market senario.

>Competition to drive us
>to make everything better.

That is fine as long as we take up the challenge.

>Access to the minds and skills of 125Million
>well rounded people on the earth.

Huh?

>Need I go on?

No. I think you have shot yourself in the foot sufficiently.

>
>: >
>: >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.
>: 
>
>I have a deeper understanding of history than you might think.  America
has
>done infrastructure investment, in huge massive amounts, in spurts.  The
>first continental railroad was as massive an undertaking as was getting
>a man to the moon.  The federal reserve bank system of earliest times was
>a significant investment in the national infrastructure.  The interstate
>highway system we built in the 50's...  The homestead acts (social 
>infrastructure).  The space program of the 60's.  The 70s and 80s
represented
>an investment in the rest of the world.

All government funded. Again you shoot holes in your own arguement.

>
>All of these investments are currently much much less in comparison to
the 
>amount spent to get them off the ground.  Some are underutilized or are
not
>as economically viable.

However, the sunk costs have been recovered many times over.

>It is almost cheaper to ship a package by next day
>air than by train, for example.

Isn't modern day technology wonderful. It's a good thing the government
spent the money to develop modern day air traffic control.

>But we used the trains for a hundred years.
>A hundred years IS long term investment.
>
>I've already suggested a fiber optic network as the next major
infrastructure
>undertaking.

All for it.

>Others suggest high speed high-tech trains make sense.

Ditto. This still doesn't mean we can't do this and space exploration.

>If the
>fiber is done, I am convinced it will have more of a beneficial impact to
>us than the interstate highways were - and that's damn significant.

Arguable, but I'll let it slide.

>It will
>last 100 years.  It is expandable and flexable.  It replaces many older
and
>slower and less technically capable parts of our infrastructure (phones,
TV,
>radio, computing).  It IS very high tech, very useable now, allows for
quick
>spread of information and ideas, has tremendous commercial-use potential,
>and would vastly improve everyone's standard of living.

How? Give details for last statement. Will it hire everyone, will it feed
the
poor, cure disease, put me in a bigger home?

>In my scheme of things,
>everyone would have free access to the fiber, just as we do to the
highways.

Sounds good.

>
>: No I would not have. I believe in projects with long-term benefits.
>
>I believe in long term projects that are of continuous use during the
life
>of the project.

In other words, you want innovation to spring instantaneously from the
ground. Here's a clue, it took 100 years of studying electricity to get
anything more than the lightning rod. Was this long-term effort worth it?
Yep. Your fiber would be nonexistent without it.

>
>: 
>: >There is NO doubt that it would be a great
>: >achievement and a massive economic boom.
>: 
>: Funny... Did you mean to type that?
>: 
>
>Yep.
>
>: >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.
>: 
>
>Don't underestimate our state highway system.  Without it, our
technological
>and industrial growth.

I never did. But this example still violates your contention because
the free-market didn't pay for it. Furthermore, the federal road system
was built by the government primarily for military purposes in the
beginning. Check it out.

>I do NOT mock your explanation.

Look above. Sure looks like a mock to me.

>
>: >And industries that would force
>: >the free market into a significant amount of worker training.
>: 
>: This is true of any new technology or industry.
>: 
>
>Agreed.
>
>: >It would 
>: >reduce the need to (gasp) launch a lot of communications satelittes,
>: though... 
>: 
>: Huh?
>: 
>
>If communication is faster and cheaper over the fiber, the free market
would
>drive us to use the fiber instead of satellites.

When your fiber can be laid over hostile borders, become impervious to
cutting
by vandals, war, etc., and become cheaper than a sattelite
to maintain over the life cycle, then, and only then, will it replace the
sattelite.
Note that the trend is going toward "wireless" and away from cables.
The cheap operation and versatility of sattelites has been a big factor in
this.

Until you can find documentation for your
assertions, this arguement is pointless. You spend most of your time
changing the subject or providing examples which support my points.
You can ramble on, but I am done. My points are made and documented.

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,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh