From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
X-Xxdate: Fri, 18 Dec 92 09:01:19 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:05:06 GMT

In article <17DEC199218251606@utarlg.uta.edu> General Boycott,
b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu writes:
>Imagine what a billion dollars would do toward the development of the
>"personal digital assistant" or "brain research" or "ascii encoding 
>written texts" or any other frontier....

These profitable research projects are already well-funded by
corporations and government grants. They don't need any of NASA's
already too-small budget. Aerospace is one of the few industries
this country still leads in. To allow this advantage to weaken would
have grave consequences to our long-term economy and our
position of world leadership.

There is some reason to be concerned about the massive
cost of launching and maintaining the shuttle. At present, it is our
only manned or "heavy-lift" (not really but it is the closest)
capability. For this reason it should be maintained for the moment.
However, the massive costs of maintaining the shuttle system
is eating NASAs lunch.
There are much cheaper schemes on the horizon which
we as citizens should encourage the government to support. The
most important of these is the Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO)
program presently funded by SDI. They are developing a vehicle
that will be capable of achieving orbit in one piece and return to
its launch site in one piece. This vehicle will have a turn-around
time of a couple of days instead of months, will require no
vehicle assembly for launch, and will require no tear-down of
the engines between every launch (this is because, unlike the shuttle,
a concerted effort is being made to eliminate the need to red line
the engines during launch). The massive infrastructure which
bloats the shuttle launch costs will be eliminated.
With improving materials and more
efficient engine technology growing at a heated pace, we could
have true heavy-lift,
long-duration, manned and unmanned versions of these vehicles
in time. This would make all other NASA programs (SEI, SS Freedom,
Great Observatories) much easier and much cheaper to develop and
perform.

>
>Now imagine that every dollar paid in taxes is a dollar which your 
>family loses from the bank or investment,

If the economy is weak, the investments will not grow and the dollar
you save will remain a dollar. Investment in cutting-edge science
and technology is the wiser approach, even if taxes must be raised
because it is the key to remaining competitive in world markets.

>which could have been used
>to put the children through college,

Which does your child no good if he can't get a job later. Talk to recent
college graduates about the fun they have had looking for a job in this
weakened economy.

>or pay for retirement,

Again, if the economy is weak, retirement funds will not keep up
with  inflation. I know several people who have had to return to work
for this reason. It is short-sighted not to invest in the long-term.
I would rather be penny-wise, than pound-foolish.

>or as a
>buffer against misfortune, (and used by the bank for lending to local
>enterpise, employing people in the private sector, who also come together
>to support charities, churches, and collective efforts which each
values).

The best buffer against misfortune is a strong economy. This requires that
our industries remain competitive. That means that we must invest
aggressively in cutting-edge R&D, both science and technology.

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