Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Reply to Wilkins
Message-ID: <266@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Mar-84 15:08:00 EST
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.266
Posted: Sun Mar 25 15:08:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Mar-84 00:32:37 EST
Lines: 22

Do I think giving money to winos is a good idea?  No.

My point was simply this:  You seem to believe that ALL of that 7 to 14
times return on investment in NASA has come back in the form of new
technologies.  I hope I demonstrated that this is absurd;  a best a
very small fraction of the investment comes back in the form of
spinoffs.  The space program CANNOT therefore be justified by pointing
to unintended technological benefits.  This is not suprising.  After
all, building moon rockets seems like an EXTREMELY inefficient way to do
basic research.  If you want new plastics, materials, glues, etc., why
not just look for them and chuck the space program?

If most of that 7-14 times return was not in the form of new technology
it must have been in the form of economic activity generated directly
by NASA spending.  The wino spending example was merely meant to show
that the argument for NASA spending from multiplied economic activity
is also absurd, since spending on NASA -- IN REGARDS TO DIRECTLY
GENERATED ECONOMIC ACTIVITY -- is equivalent to wino spending (which is
clearly not productive).

My message was not intended to advocate anything, merely to point out
that certain arguments for the space program are flawed.