The President's Space Initiative Speech

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all the
technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the space
shuttle.

um, *all* technology used already existed? Nothing new had to
be developed?

--
Bob Noel

There are always new things being developed over a time span as long as
the
lunar program, but if a request goes out for a special grease and dupont
supplies one with teflon, is that "developed" by the space program? The
liquid fuel rocket technology was developed in Germany in WWII and
further
refined for military use. To reach Mars we need at least the aerospike
rocket engine or preferably a nuclear powerd rocket, the chemical fuels
we
use now just don't have the energy density to reach Mars efficiently.

except that even the liquid fuel rocket technology was not
"in place" for Apollo. A huge amount of work went into
refining/improving and extending the technology so that
something as huge at the Saturn V could be built. It wasn't
merely a matter of building something a little bigger than
the Titan II.

Integrated circuit technology was not in place and had to be developed for
Apollo. (I was at the MIT Instrumentation Labs at the time). In fact a 4
flip-flop counter chip was really advanced and people didn't even know if
they would wear out after say, a trillion cycles. They did track down
causes of bad chips and as I recall the gal who wrote the report said yield
would increase dramatically "if they would just keep their big, greasy hands
off the wafers." This sort of thing had to be discovered and learned.
But IC technology one just one of thousands of areas where the same thing
was going on. The Mars program will yield the same shower of byproducts,
jobs, new companies, etc.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all the
technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the space
shuttle.

um, *all* technology used already existed? Nothing new had to
be developed?

--
Bob Noel

There are always new things being developed over a time span as long as
the
lunar program, but if a request goes out for a special grease and dupont
supplies one with teflon, is that "developed" by the space program? The
liquid fuel rocket technology was developed in Germany in WWII and
further
refined for military use. To reach Mars we need at least the aerospike
rocket engine or preferably a nuclear powerd rocket, the chemical fuels
we
use now just don't have the energy density to reach Mars efficiently.

except that even the liquid fuel rocket technology was not
"in place" for Apollo. A huge amount of work went into
refining/improving and extending the technology so that
something as huge at the Saturn V could be built. It wasn't
merely a matter of building something a little bigger than
the Titan II.

--
Bob Noel

OK I'll accept that a lot was developed by the Apollo program but this is
not what I think of when I think of NEW technology.

Mike
MU-2

"William W. Plummer" wrote in message
news:REkPb.95601$nt4.259445@attbi_s51...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all
the
technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the
space
shuttle.

um, *all* technology used already existed? Nothing new had to
be developed?

--
Bob Noel

There are always new things being developed over a time span as long
as
the
lunar program, but if a request goes out for a special grease and
dupont
supplies one with teflon, is that "developed" by the space program?
The
liquid fuel rocket technology was developed in Germany in WWII and
further
refined for military use. To reach Mars we need at least the
aerospike
rocket engine or preferably a nuclear powerd rocket, the chemical
fuels
we
use now just don't have the energy density to reach Mars efficiently.

except that even the liquid fuel rocket technology was not
"in place" for Apollo. A huge amount of work went into
refining/improving and extending the technology so that
something as huge at the Saturn V could be built. It wasn't
merely a matter of building something a little bigger than
the Titan II.

Integrated circuit technology was not in place and had to be developed for
Apollo. (I was at the MIT Instrumentation Labs at the time). In fact a 4
flip-flop counter chip was really advanced and people didn't even know if
they would wear out after say, a trillion cycles. They did track down
causes of bad chips and as I recall the gal who wrote the report said
yield
would increase dramatically "if they would just keep their big, greasy
hands
off the wafers." This sort of thing had to be discovered and learned.
But IC technology one just one of thousands of areas where the same thing
was going on. The Mars program will yield the same shower of byproducts,
jobs, new companies, etc.



The integrated circuit was patented in 1959.

Mike
MU-2

Mike

On the way. Their talking about $3.00 a gallon at pump this year (

Big John
Pilot ROCAF

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:10:04 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

$5/gallon fuel tax will fix that.

Mike
MU-2


"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Fry
wrote:


For mobile consumption, for cars and light trucks, impose stricter and
stricter mpg requirements.

why the fixation on mpg? what about total fuel usage?
Which is better, someone driving 40,000 miles in a 50 mpg car
or someone driving 5000 miles in a 15 mpg gashog?

--
Bob Noel

"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!

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!

In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:


No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all
the
technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the
space
shuttle.
[snip]
OK I'll accept that a lot was developed by the Apollo program but this is
not what I think of when I think of NEW technology.

I think it comes down to what each of us understands "all
the technology were in place" to mean. I took it to be
roughly equivalent to the technology being mature. I gather
you meant something between that and brandnew stuff.

--
Bob Noel

Mike Rapoport ) wrote:
: 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.
:
The Apollo program did bring together scientists from diverse fields
who probably wouldn't have worked together in other industries.

Here's sites that document some of the spinoffs:

http://www.nasatech.com/Spinoff/spin...dard_mill.html
Goddard Space Flight Center-Spinoff 1988

"Automotive Design

The accompanying photos show exterior and interior views of the 1987
Honda Acura Legend Coupe, which was designed with the aid of the
NASA-developed NASTRAN^® computer program. The Legend is among the
latest cars designed by Honda R&D Company, Ltd., Japan, a longtime
user of the NASTRAN program.

The program is an off-shoot of the computer design technique that
originated in aircraft/spacecraft development. Engineers create a
mathematical model of the vehicle and "fly" it on the ground by
computer simulation. This allows study of the performance and
structural behavior of a number of different designs before settling
on a final configuration..."

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/sp....html#computer
NASA spinoffs, space benefits, space history, NASA space spinoffs,
NASA technology products


The following list of spinoffs is from:

http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/spinoff.html
THE BEST OF NASA'S SPINOFFS

Laser Angioplasty
Cardiac Imaging System
Advanced Pacemaker
Implantable Heart Aid
Body Imaging
Computer Reader for the Blind
Ocular Screening System
Advanced Wheelchair
Radiation-Blocking lenses
Collision Avoidance System (for aircraft)
Self-Righting life Raft
Weather Information Processing
Corrosion-Resistant Coating
Air/Wastewater Purification Systems
Heat Pipes for the Alaska Pipeline
Cordless Products
Stratch-Resistant Sunglass Coating
Structural Analysis (NASTRAN)
Clean Room Apparel


--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:


No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all
the
technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the
space
shuttle.
[snip]
OK I'll accept that a lot was developed by the Apollo program but this
is
not what I think of when I think of NEW technology.

I think it comes down to what each of us understands "all
the technology were in place" to mean. I took it to be
roughly equivalent to the technology being mature. I gather
you meant something between that and brandnew stuff.

A little trivia (from the depths of memory): The on-board computers in
Apollo were obsolete by the time they flew the missions, and 2) the Space
Shuttle was designed and built using the old slab-sides sliderules.

Tom

I've still got my Abacus and 'Slip Stick', Log Log Decitrig (sp), that
I can use when the energy runs out and we go back to the caves and
bear skins. Still have the instruction book to refresh operations. G

I take out every few years and run the slide to keep smooth for
precision operation.

Big John
Pilot RNAF


On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:51:56 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:


"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:


No, you have it backwards. The Apollo program happened when all
the
technologies were in place. It USED technology, same with the
space
shuttle.
[snip]
OK I'll accept that a lot was developed by the Apollo program but this
is
not what I think of when I think of NEW technology.

I think it comes down to what each of us understands "all
the technology were in place" to mean. I took it to be
roughly equivalent to the technology being mature. I gather
you meant something between that and brandnew stuff.

A little trivia (from the depths of memory): The on-board computers in
Apollo were obsolete by the time they flew the missions, and 2) the Space
Shuttle was designed and built using the old slab-sides sliderules.