Conference 7.286::space

    	What happens when the savings bonds become due?  Will NASA have
    to borrow more (issue more bonds) to pay the priciple and interest
    of the original bonds?
    
    	Just asking.
    
    Rich

    wow you indirectly brought up a good question, i didn't consider.
    should nasa make a profit? hmm...how? patents? services? fast foods?
    pete
    "yes if our pizzia don't drop out of orbit in 3 min. you get it
    free."

    The foremost question, as Rich pointed out, is the action of NASA
    once the bonds mature.
    
    Secondly, while many people may be patriotic, I doubt if many would
    buy (in significant amounts) bonds, unless they are assured of a
    substantial return.
    
    On a more philosophical (sic!) level, there is the profound question
    of "where is the fine line between govt and private enterprise".
    Space research is too big an enterprise to leave to the private
    enterprise; govt involvement is absolutely essential. The only
    reason the Soviets are beating the US to many firsts in space
    is the lack of a well-thought-out-long-range-commitment from the
    US govt. BUT WE HAVE ALREADY SHREDDED THIS ISSUE ELSEWHERE.
    
    I like the idea of selling the scientific developments. After all,
    all research has already been paid for by public money; so NASA
    should sell, at market rates (READ - AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE!), all
    inventions & innovations.
    
    -parthi

>    I like the idea of selling the scientific developments. After all,
>    all research has already been paid for by public money; so NASA
>    should sell, at market rates (READ - AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE!), all
>    inventions & innovations.
    
  I emphatically disagree.  Public money went into the discovery, so the
results of the research should be made public domain and everyone in the
country should be able to profit from it.  Making the information for sale
would limit access to only those with enough money to purchase it.

  The government is not there to make a profit.  That's why we have private
enterprise.  The government is there to provide services which are not
reasonable for private industry to supply.  Why a service is or is not
reasonable for private industry to pursue is an area suitable for debate.
Although I'd suspect that the government does everything it can get its mits
on which private industry isn't interested in making a profit on.

  There are some fundamental problems in goverment division of available funds
brought on by the current state of the U.S. government.  For me, it suffices to
say that the money just isn't being given that much of a chance to go to the
'right' areas.  That means areas which can provide a payback (in whatever form)
over some duration of time.  The space program is prime.  So is education. The
food stamps program is not.  Lest I get bogged down in right-versus-left or
other such political digressions, I'll quit this particular line of thought. 

  Perhaps the savings bonds approach is an idea in the right direction.
If government funds can't work their way to the 'right' areas, then perhaps
new pipelines of funds need to be established.  Then again, it might merely
boil down to the fact that people just aren't ready to invest in space because
they don't feel the need or even see it as an investment.  How many Americans
look beyond their next paycheck?

John

    John
    	Reg the 'sale' of discoveries and inventions, while making
    it public domain would seem simple, please remember that only 
    powerful companies would survive. If a conglomerate and a one-man
    company take up a NASA invention, who do you think has a better
    chance of surviving. It then indirectly becomes a case of a few
    big companies (and a few thousand stock holders) helping
    themselves to the discoveries.
    	On the other hand, if NASA sells it discoveries and ploughs
    back the money, particularly to projects deemed essential but for
    which the Congress in its infinite wisdom will not allot enough
    money, the entire nation benefits.
    	Anyway, this is only a thought......
    
    -parthi

  I still disagree.  If it's something out of NASA, odds are that it's not
a 'proven' idea as far as making money out of it, and a conglomerate (such
as DIGITAL) isn't going to necessarily jump on the bandwagon.  DEC, for one,
is very hesitant about new technologies and I have little doubt that the
other big companies are of the same general mold.  There's no reason to be
risky when you can rake in the money by being the same old company with gradual
evolution of products and technology.

  I'd be willing to bet that there could be a whole bunch of 5 to 10 million
dollar companies springing up from NASA technology starts if only NASA were
given the money to get going and do the R&D.  NASA would be facing the rigors
of doing things in space.  That's a tall order.  In space, most things have
to be designed and built into the superlatives - strongest, lightest, fastest,
most efficient, etc.  It's almost like a war.  We got lots of great stuff
out of wars, but only because the money and the demand for superlatives was
there.

  So by necessity, NASA would be delving into chancy technology.  DEC doesn't
want to get into a chancy technology - even if preliminary tests prove it's
a viable one.  DEC can get its money out of the technology once it's proven
and make scads of money in the process.  In the meantime, the startups can
prove the technology and make some bucks for themselves.  Who knows, perhaps
DEC will buy out the most successfull and promising startups so that they
*can* use the new technology.

  On a separate note.  As I understand it, NASA presently publishes tons
of documentation on new software algorithms and other stuff like that and
makes it available for trivial costs, perhaps just media cost.  My information
is rusty, but a few years ago my group located a hidden-line-removal algorithm
in the NASA publications list.

John  

    The idea of NASA bonds is not bad. The trouble though will be
    that NASA will become profit oriented at least to a certain extent.
    
    The trouble with that is that PROFIT to an agency such as NASA
    shouldn't be money. But rather the expansion of the Human horizont.
    
    Sure NASA pays for itself, even in money terms, but only when
    its bennefits are spread across the hole society. And counted as so.
    
    I'd much rather see another mecanism installed. To take into account
    the public vote for any public project or agency. As things stand
    now we never get to say anything about anything like that, except
    if some politian makes it an election issue. Even then we're voting
    not for the project or agency but for the politian's promisses which
    can change as fast and as often as the wind.
    
    How about this. Make it a constitutional right for any citizen to
    be able to choose were say 5% to 10% of his taxes will be spent.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    So the average Joe can say for example: (On his income tax return)
    Of my elective tax percentage, I want to spend
    		x% on NASA
    		y% on GENETIC research
    		z% on FUSION  research
    		etc...
    
    I know this would cause some problems if implemented, but nothing
    that couldn't be worked out. And sure as hell would make the overall
    governament much more democratic and better all around.

  I also thought that having people being able to vote on the distribution
of their taxes was a good idea.  Until I thought about it.  Imagine the
advertising campaigns by lobbyists to get you to vote this way or that way
for their favorite funding sink.  Assume 100 million people pay 5 thousand
dollars a year in taxes.  That's 500 billion dollars.  Ten percent of that
is 50 billion dollars.  Do you *really* trust the American people not to
destroy valuable national assets because of some advertising campaign.

  Those lost assets might come in the form of the nation's space program.

  The bottom line is that something fundamental is going to have to change
in the U.S. if it's going to have a serious space development/exploration
program.  I don't want to stifle creative thought [then why don't you shut
up, John?], but merely adding funds to NASA's stores isn't the answer.  We
need commitment by the people.  Otherwise, you're always faced with the next
President or Congress chopping the space program back down again.

[I hate being the devil's advocate]

  Here's another interesting but probably pointless idea.  How about letting
people from industry (that's you and me) get into NASA for up to 1 year
appointments to do projects.  Funding would come from private industry for,
perhaps, half your salary and your job back at the end of the year.  In return,
the industrial sponsor receives whatever expertise you've gained while at
NASA.  Unfortunately, this would require that NASA would be akin to MIT,
providing a hub of valuable, high-technology skills.  Certainly, this could
only be carried up to a certain level.  Having NASA's administrator on one
year terms seems a bit drastic.

John

    Unrelated topic, but point raised in the course of this topic:
    
    NASA *does* give away a substantial amount of their discoveries.
    A (kinda monthly, depends on the time of the year) magazine called
    "NASA Tech Briefs" gives a quick overview of a number of recent
    projects.  All the information is (usually) available either free
    or for reasonable copy costs.  Every year a "NASA Spin-offs" mag
    is published, detailing companies who developed these discoveries
    into commercial products.  Recently they've set up a data base of
    the non-classified research, which for a few hundred $$ a year,
    you can use to search for interesting discoveries.
    

Don't demean the space program by implying that it needs special private
funding to maintain its existence as a public enterprise.

Read Stein&Smith's article in the current (Feb '88) Analog "Laughing
All the Way to Orbit" for an outline of the right way to get the space
program on track.  If there's money to be made, let people make it.
The crux of the idea is that there is sufficient off the shelf technology
for modest commercial enterprise.  Look at the relatively 'low-tech'
stuff needed to launch communications or weather sats - just one 20+ year old
design expendable rocket.

Past commercial enterprise, we do need awareness of what we're looking for.
Planetary exploration (Galileo, for example, or the Space Telescope)
should have public funding.  Why demean it by saying only the people
interested should pay for it?  If they are so interested, then somebody
should (will) form a commercial enterprise to enable it.  Lacking
that, public enterprise is public, the fruits of which are available
to all.  That's what makes it PUBLIC enterprise.

- tom]

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Trust Fund Proposed for Space Ventures
Posted: 21 Jul 88 16:47:04 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
 
    From DESIGN NEWS, July 4, 1988, page 26:
 
    "With tight federal budgets, how can the nation pay to meet
growing opportunities in space?  New Jersey's Rep. Robert A. Roe,
chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee,
proposes a trust fund like the one that financed the interstate
highway system.  He thinks Americans would gladly buy bonds to support
thrusts across space frontiers.  Roe doubts that Uncle Sam alone could
finance such costly proposals as an inhabited base on the Moon or a
joint U.S.-Soviet manned mission to Mars.  The National Aeronautics
and Space Administration has a tough enough fight getting funds for a
manned orbiting space facility..." - Walter S. Wingo, Washington Editor
 
    Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc
    AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet [email protected]
    I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind.
                                                           

Why not a space tax - oops, make that a space revenue enhancer - along the
lines of a gasoline tax? Every airline ticket purchased for a flight taking
longer than 2 hours would involve a $0.50 contribution to the Space Fund.
After all what's $0.50 when the ticket is >$100? And all for a patriotic
cause?

This could be used in conjunction with Space Bonds!

-parthi

    Don't take.  Ask.  The bond idea is a good one.
    
John

How about collectible gold and silver coins, like the ones produced for the
Olympics?  I bet they would have sold a lot of them during the launch of
the Discovery.  Would coins like these be profitable?  If NASA only broke
even, would the publicity alone be worth the effort?

Jenny
 

    	The Marshall Islands are selling a five dollar commemorative
    coin (at face value) honoring the Space Shuttle DISCOVERY STS-26
    mission.  Former astronaut Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, of GEMINI 12 and 
    APOLLO 11 fame, is the spokesman for the coin in the television
    advertisements.  I do not have the address he mentioned to send
    away for it, but I'm sure a local coin dealer could help you.
    
    	Larry
    

    Does anyone know what the Marshall Islands "Discovery" commemorative
    coins are made of?  Are they similar to the copper center quarters,
    or solid aluminum?  I'm sure they're not a precious metal, but I
    have no idea what's really in them.  Can you go to the corner market
    and try to buy something with them, or are they only collectors
    items?  Why should I buy them (other than lending support for the
    space program)?
    
    As of now I don't plan to buy any simply because I'm not sure I
    can get my money back ten years down the road.
    
    Whadda ya think...   Ron

    Do we even know that the Discovery coins sold by the Marshall Islands
    are benefitting the space program financially?  Could it be that
    they are just benefitting the Marshall Islands?
    
    Willie

I recently saw an advertisement for these coins on television.  They are
$5.00 a piece and you may purchase a maximum of five.  I don't know what
they are made of and I don't know what organization benefits from their
sale.  However, I'd be willing to bet it isn't NASA.

Do you think the U.S. should mint gold and silver coins (similar to the
Olympic coins) to benefit NASA?

Jenny

 

    re:-.1
    
    >	"Do you think the U. S. should mint....."
    
    I believe they have but only in "claddie coin form" the coins you
    and I currently know and love.  The US government and their mints
    are the only institution allowed to mint and distribute as money,
    coins of non specie alloys ie: clad copper dimes, quarters, half
    dollars, SBA dollars, and dollars,  *and copper coated zinc pennies*
    that can bear the inscription "US dollars or cent".
    
    Specie coins can be minted by any one for any value but to bear
    the label 5 US dollars, there is a regulation on the amount of 
    true silver or gold content a coin must have to bear the label.
    
    The Marshal islands are the only ones to benefit from the minting.
    Other than possible fees paid to NASA for use of thier logo should
    that be proprietory they are responsible for minting and adv costs
    only.  Ex a 5 dollar dollar sized coin would contain about one ounce
    of meatl.  From todays fix of 6.28 per oz, the coin would have to
    contain 80+% silver, however the regulation for alloyed coins is
    somewhere around 40% specie so the Marshal Islands by about $2.00
    worth of silver, mix with a mintable metal, coin, and sell for $5.00
    (+shipping and handeling :^) pay the advertisment cost fees etc.
    and whats left is profit <loss> depending on cost and fees.
    
    Les