The point was that ICs existed before Apollo. There are many claims of
spinoffs from the space program and I don't doubt that there are some. I
would argue that most of those spinnoff products would have occured without
the space program and at lower cost. I will be in favor of going to Mars
when a more efficient system is availible for getting the required material
into earth orbit and a more efficient propulsion system availible for the
trip from earth orbit to Mars. I am not in favor of a Mars program that
costs hundreds of millions of dollars for each pound of payload delivered.
Anyway, with the level of funding proposed, NASA couldn't develope a new
airliner much less a vehicle capable of reaching Mars. Having seen the
$200MM/yr proposed budget, I am writing off the whole notion as as election
year political farce.

Mike
MU-2


"William W. Plummer" wrote in message
news:lmAPb.98783$5V2.328350@attbi_s53...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
snip
The integrated circuit was patented in 1959.

I'm not sure what your point is, but the IC was little more than an
"interesting" technology before the Apollo program poured money into it.
In
1963 a single flip-flop was about $100! Companies such as Signetics,
Fairchild and National needed to see a potential profit for them to invest
in equipment. Just as important, they needed to know that it was possible
to produce ICs profitably, and that is what the Apollo report I mentioned
did.

So I really believe that the big Govenment program very positive benefits
to
society. If anyone can say for sure that the Mars program won't do the
same, I'd like to know how he/she can see the future. Better yet, tell us
what the new technology is that we won't get if the program is not
funded --
I'll invest in it myself!