Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site hocse.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!hocse!dls
From: dls@hocse.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: spinoffs
Message-ID: <155@hocse.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Apr-84 22:49:45 EST
Article-I.D.: hocse.155
Posted: Thu Apr 19 22:49:45 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Apr-84 01:21:50 EST
References: <12062@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 29

I believe that you are making some incorrect points about
the nature of research in Japan. MITI does NOT sponsor
pure research or straight development, but hews to an
intermediate zone of high payoff, high potential work
some where in the middle, such as the construction of 
supercomputers. In fact, MITI programs usually have built
on basic research done in Britain and the US.

I agree that NASA should not be justified via spinoffs.
NASA's goal should be the exploration and development of
space, not the production of frying pans. Unfortunately,
NASA's goals are politically determined, rather than
guided by a rational, step by step progess toward
the commercial use of space. The construction of a space
station is a welcome turn toward a more measured, 
results oriented program as opposed to one with an
emphasis on "firsts" and "spectaculars."

We have an entire agency in this country for funding basic
reseach(NSF) with a budget of over one billion dollars.
What america needs is the technology base to permit
industry to exploit the possibilities present in
space exploration. NASA is a techonology oriented agency,
and is ideally suited to providing this base.

Giving money to many small, high-tech firms will result
in much duplication of effort and dilution of effect.
The govenment is ill-suited to the task of deciding which
firms to fund in any case.