Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!sri-unix!VLSI@DEC-MARLBORO
From: VLSI%DEC-MARLBORO@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: NASA spinoffs
Message-ID: <12185@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Apr-84 03:13:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.12185
Posted: Wed Apr 11 03:13:00 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 9-May-84 03:23:58 EDT
Lines: 29

From:  John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>

    Compared to an outfit like Bell Labs NASA's spinoffs look pretty
minor. Has NASA produced any innovation on the order of the
transistor, the laser, fiber optics, or even UNIX?  Some might point
to integrated circuits as a major spinoff, but NASA had little to do
with their development. MOS devices are not radiation-resistant
enough for their needs and even TTL was an unproven, unreliable
technology at the time.  It may be a little unfair to compare a
development agency like NASA with the premier research organization
in the world, but let's put NASA's spinoffs into perspective.  It
hasn't produced nearly the amount of new stuff that Bell or the major
universities have. 
   And why should it?  Spinoffs are not the reason for its existence.
NASA's goal is to open up space, not to do product development.  The
real impact of its work so far is not to be found in aluminized
blankets for campers but in the communication and weather satellites.
 Comsats are about a billion dollar a year business, and they are
something that the US has a near monopoly on.  Weather satellites
have saved  hundreds of lives and millions of dollars in damages just
with hurricane tracking. For the last decade Florida has been
undergoing a development boom, and part of the reason could be
because people now know when to evacuate from oncoming storms. 
NASA's benefits to the nation come from what we can get out of space,
not from R&D side-effects. 

John Redford
DEC-Hudson
   --------