Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sri-unix!dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: spinoffs
Message-ID: <12062@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Apr-84 10:57:00 EST
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.12062
Posted: Fri Apr  6 10:57:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Apr-84 03:07:49 EST
Lines: 21

Bill Westfield:  I agree completely that we must distinguish demand and
supply effects (demand effects being the economic activity generated by
NASA engineers spending their salaries, supply effects being new
technology).  That fact that ANY government spending has the same
demand effect is instructive.  Can you provide some numbers on supply
effects?

Henry Spencer, Steve Ludlum:  I still think NASA spending on specific
space projects is a poor way to foster general technological progress.
It certainly isn't necesary (Japan spends much less on space, for
example).  By "basic research" I really meant to include "basic
development": research intended to produce new materials, technologies,
etc., such as Japan's MITI sponsored research.  I'd still like some
hard figures on the value of NASA spinoffs, or even a list of any
significant spinoffs.  Ferrofluids are one, generating sales of around
$100 million a year.  Any others?

What would the economic return be if an amount of money equal to NASA's
budget were instead invested by venture capitalists in high tech
startup companies?  Quite a bit larger, I'd think, and it would be a
real gain, not demand effects.