Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!cca!ima!haddock!stevel
From: stevel@haddock.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Reply to Wilkins - (nf)
Message-ID: <143@haddock.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Mar-84 23:47:49 EST
Article-I.D.: haddock.143
Posted: Fri Mar 30 23:47:49 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Apr-84 00:50:55 EST
Lines: 29

#R:sri-arpa:-26600:haddock:16000011:000:1205
haddock!stevel    Mar 29 12:07:00 1984

I agree that you don't get 7-14 times the return.
I don't agree that just spending the money on Basic Reasearch
is the way to get the same technological return.

Spinoff are different from basic reasearch. Spinoffs are
appication/real world applicable while basic reasearch is often
not directly relevant for many years. There needs to be a balance
between basic reasearch and advanced APPLICATION of technology.
The shuttle and space station are advanced application of
technology.

Advanced application of technology is more expensive than basic
reasearch but the return to knowledge and methods gained by
industry is much higher. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle, and
many other unmanned spacecraft have added new methods of fabrication
and materials to industry as a whole.

At the same time more money, and more EVEN funding is needed for
basic reasearch. I wish congress would give NASA an even budget
for the long run. Keep asking them what they are using it for
but keep the funding level even.

Steve Ludlum, decvax!yale-co!ima!stevel, {ucbvax|ihnp4}!cbosgd!ima!stevel

PS would people on the ARPAnet please sign thier notes. They headers
get stripped by the gateway from ARPA to USENET. Thanks.