Frank from Deeeetroit

"Bret Ludwig" <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138059938.931137.202300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> More importantly what about the need to make things small that let to
>> better computers, cell phones, and microscopic surgery such as eye
>> surgery,
>> organ surgery and transplants. As well as the ability to reattach
>> severed
>> limbs etc?
>>
>
>
> Most of the things you mention had a tangential relationship to the
> space program. It's true the space program speeded up many of those
> things, but not that we would not have any of it without them. And
> perhaps the pace of progress would have limited some of the regress we
> have to face too, like offshoring of jobs, elimination of repair jobs,
> and cheapening of all manner of products. It goes both ways.

The Space Program's necessity of the materials, mapping, weather forcasting,
etc. promted their development and the speed of their developement. The
things mentioned may not be here today if it had not been for the Space
Program. True, your point of jobs, it does go both ways, but , a basic
economics class dictates if one has the money and needs labor, and one has a
labor pool, but needs the money, a relationship will develope that will
benefit both. Nothing new, been going on for thousands of years.

> Once a company has derived most of its income from NASA or the Air
> Force it is permanently spoiled and will never want to work again for a
> living. You'd have to fire or kill all of the executives and most of
> the management to get them to pursue gainful market endeavors at
> reasonable per-piece profit levels.

As long as the contractor is delivering their products within the
contractual requirements of NASA and the Air Force, they are within a
gainfull market.