Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site kovacs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!kovacs!rivero
From: rivero@kovacs.UUCP (Michael Foster Rivero)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: spinoffs
Message-ID: <275@kovacs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Nov-85 11:23:03 EST
Article-I.D.: kovacs.275
Posted: Fri Nov 22 11:23:03 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Nov-85 04:26:34 EST
References: <8511191259.AA24626@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Reply-To: rivero@kovacs.UUCP (Michael Foster Rivero)
Organization: Robt Abel & Assoc, Hollywood
Lines: 70

In article <8511191259.AA24626@decwrl.DEC.COM> redford@JEREMY.DEC (John Redford) writes:
>
>The commercial value of spinoffs is negligible.
>
>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"



	  As Carl Sagen points out, Americans spend more on Pizza than
	on the Space Program.

	  Admittedly, there is little DIRECT  commercial  return  from
	the  Space Program.  Hopefully, the commercialization of space
	will change that over the next decade.

	  The returns from Space research are exactly that.  RESEARCH!
	There  is a lot of research done on behalf of space that finds
	its way into industrial applications.  In our company, we have
	several  ex-space employees.  A  lot  of  the  techniques  and
	algorithms we use were learned during the "good old  days"  at
	NASA.

	  There is also the return of pure knowledge, not  to  mention
	National  image.  Let's face it.  The desire for knowledge did
	not get us to the moon.  The desire  to  retake  the  lead  in
	space from the Russians got the bucks for the Buck Rogers.

	  As for SDI, there is one clear  spinoff  from  the  project.
	The  need  to  hoist  a  lot of equipment into space will help
	drive the cost of delivery down.  Just as the air war  in  WW2
	helped  set  the  technical stage for cheap passenger airlines
	(by underwriting a lot of  the  nuts  and  bolts  technology),
	SDI's needs will help set the stage for cheap space travel.

	  Example:  Space Shuttles are very  expensive,  one-at-a-time
	vehicles  built  on  a  prototype  basis.  If  the SDI were to
	decide it needed a lot of  shuttles,  then  an  assembly  line
	would be funded, and the cost of the individual shuttles would
	drop to a point where private  companies  could  afford  them,
	especially at post-SDI-deployment surplus rates!  Remember how
	many early airlines started with war-surplus aircraft?

	  As an aside, if the external shuttle tanks were  re-designed
	to   ride  all  the  way  to  orbit,  they  might  make  great
	pressurized bulk storage units that could  be  attached  to  a
	space   station  framework.   You  could  vent  the  remaining
	propellants to vacuum, seal and pressurize the  tank  with  an
	added  airlock,  and  have  an  instant  office  space.   With
	shuttles going up on a once a  month  basis  during  SDI,  you
	would  have  a  LOT  of  pressurized space at the end of every
	year.

	  The point is, once we are fully in space,  it  can  be  made
	economical.  It  is  the  initial  investment in getting there
	that  is  the  "killer"  and  projects   like   SDI,   whether
	politically  valid  or  not (and the jury is still out on that
	one) are the most source of that investment.




					Michael Rivero