Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site anasazi.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!hao!noao!terak!mot!anasazi!john From: john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: spinoffs Message-ID: <380@anasazi.UUCP> Date: Fri, 29-Nov-85 10:43:30 EST Article-I.D.: anasazi.380 Posted: Fri Nov 29 10:43:30 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Dec-85 08:39:32 EST References: <8511191259.AA24626@decwrl.DEC.COM> Reply-To: john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) Organization: Anasazi, Phoenix Az. Lines: 63 In article <8511191259.AA24626@decwrl.DEC.COM> redford@JEREMY.DEC (John Redford) writes: > > 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. > >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. Somehow I find the logic of this argument a bit extreme. Since any advanced weapons research involves learning things, sometimes very basic things, it is similar to scientific research (often indistinguishable). So, if it is not commercially worthwhile, then neither is scientific research. Lets drop all funding of scientific research - since it is not directed at producing commercial results, it will rarely be useful! Picking on a couple of wrong examples is a tried and true debaters trick, but it doesn't prove anything. So 747's and teflon aren't exactly spinoffs - does it follow that there are no spinoffs? Finally, lets look a bit harder for spinoffs. Example: the National Security Agency, back in the 50's and 60's, was a pioneer in computer technology. The IBM Stretch was built to their specifications. The spinoff from this was experience and engineering details used by IBM to advance the state of the art (please, no flames about 360's, I don't like 'em either). I have no doubt whatsoever that military research into advanced communications systems has contributed to commercial communications. Motorolla Government Systems Division is here in Phoenix, and it is constantly emitting spinoff companies where those engineers who learned the state of the art in military systems are applying it to civilian systems where they perceive the opportunity for greater profit. The same is true around any weapons research facility. Another case of spinoff is amateur radio. Much pioneering work in such technologies as FM and SSB was first done by amateurs for non-commercial motives. Packet radio is in that stage now. Nevertheless, the SPINOFF from this work is used worldwide commercially. >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 Only ONE important exception? Finally, let's keep this in mind. The purpose of a weapons development project is to protect the freedom without which all the rest of these considerations are meaningless. Rarely can one be justified solely on the basis of spinoffs. However, the spinoff potential is really there and can create surprising benefits. -- John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO) {decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john {hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!terak!anasazi!john terak!anasazi!john@SEISMO.CSS.GOV (602) 952-8205 (day or evening) 5302 E. Lafayette Blvd, Phoenix, Az, 85018 (home address)