Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!Glacier!decwrl!ucbvax!space
From: redford@JEREMY.DEC (John Redford)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: spinoffs
Message-ID: <8511191259.AA24626@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: Tue, 19-Nov-85 07:57:36 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.8511191259.AA24626
Posted: Tue Nov 19 07:57:36 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Nov-85 01:07:53 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 64


  There's been a lot of talk recently about spinoffs of high-tech 
government programs, particularly in regard to SDI. I'd like to get 
some discussion going on this, because it's a commonly used argument 
both for SDI and the space program in general.  Let me start with a 
blanket statement:

The commercial value of spinoffs is negligible.

Before I get jumped on by people citing jet aircraft and nuclear 
power plants, let me define the term spinoff a little more carefully.
A spinoff is a technological development arising from 
research into something else.  The Boeing 707 was not a spinoff of 
previous work because the previous work was directly aimed at 
producing a passenger jet aircraft.  Likewise nuclear power: the 
government invested tens of billions of dollars into reactor 
research; it was not a casual side-effect of bomb work.

That said, let's look at two spinoffs commonly attributed to the 
space program: integrated circuits and non-stick frying pans.  Frying 
pans are often cited as a trivial spinoff, but they are not even that.
Teflon was actually developed by Du Pont in the Fifties, long 
before Apollo needed tough plastics with high melting points.  

Surely, though, ICs are something major?  Yes, and in the extremely
early days of the early sixties the space program did have an effect
on their development. They set the initial standards for temperature
and mechanical stress that the IC makers had to meet, and also
provided a small but steady market for them.  It wasn't long, though,
before the commercial market and the aerospace market diverged.  The
parts for military and space equipment needed to be
radiation-resistant and extremely reliable, and that excluded the more
advanced technologies.  NASA landed men on the Moon using only
resistor-transistor and diode-transistor logic, not even TTL.  Last I
heard they still relied on DTL for their electronics.  Several
generations have come and gone since DTL was introduced: regular TTL,
PMOS, and enhancement-only NMOS. NASA is continually stuck with using
obsolete parts because it takes so long to develop anything, and
because its needs are so different from those of the mainstream
markets. 

This last point is the major obstacle to spinoffs.  A research 
program might develop something unique and innovative, but it rarely 
gains market acceptance because it is specialized to the needs of 
that program.  The bottom line is that if you want your research to 
be of commercial value, it must be directed to commercial needs.  
Military and space work has commercial value largely by accident.
Spending 20 billion dollars to put someone on the moon is going to 
put someone on the moon, and not necessarily do anything else.  
Spending 200 billion dollars to build orbital death rays is going to 
build orbital death rays, and not help us in the world-wide battle for 
industrial high-tech dominance.

John Redford

P.S. Well OK, there is one important exception to the above, and that 
is communication satellites.  These were launched on modified ICBM's, 
and so would not have been possible without the missile program.  The 
entire comsat industry is worth one or two billion a year.  That's 
certainly not trivial, but it's not large either; beer and cosmetics 
are of similar size.

Posted:	Tue 19-Nov-1985 14:56 Jerusalem Local Time (GMT+2)
To:	RHEA::DECWRL::"space@mc"