From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:46:37 GMT

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?

: >
: >: >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.  It does taint your view.  Read below how you berate corporations as
"panty-wastes" and the like and then read how your personal experience and
frustration at getting your way "tainted" your view.

: 
: >
: >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.

: >: 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.

: >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.  Or prove
it is even close enough for viability NOW.  Give me a date and cost of when
it will be viable even.  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.

I believe the commercial viability of aircraft was driven by the free market.
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.
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.  And no matter
how rich/powerful the competition is, the best/cheapest technology wins
every time - especially without government interference.  In spite of no
government intervention, or even antitrust laws and the like, Ford won out
in spite of the CEOs of BuggyWhip corporations.


: >
: >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.  

Secondly, elimination of government intervention is something you now approve
of?  Eliminate NASA then :)  <- note smiley.  Perhaps you are starting to see
my point that it happens without government intervention.

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'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.

: >: 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.
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.

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

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...


: >: 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.

: > 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.

: >
: >: >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.  The
USA is STILL kicking BUTT.

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).

: 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.  

: 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.  Pehaps even, gasp, cheap access to space in
the next 30 years (assuming the Japanese do it).  Competition to drive us
to make everything better.  Access to the minds and skills of 125Million
well rounded people on the earth.  Need I go on?

: >
: >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 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.  It is almost cheaper to ship a package by next day
air than by train, for example.  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.  Others suggest high speed high-tech trains make sense.  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.  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.  In my scheme of things,
everyone would have free access to the fiber, just as we do to the highways.

: 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.

: 
: >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 do NOT mock your explanation.

: >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.

: 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.activism