Message-ID: <kbpSVjy00WBw4KVk5W@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu,  7 Mar 91 02:14:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #242

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 242

Today's Topics:
		    Re: liquid SCUBA -- possible?
		   Government vs Commercial R&D #2

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 91 05:43:15 GMT
From: phoenix!winnie@princeton.edu  (Jon Edelson)
Subject: Re: liquid SCUBA -- possible?

In article <1991Mar5.021836.17377@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> kym@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (R. Kym Horsell) writes:
>I have read of at least one operation on a human patient where, for
>reasons that do not _exactly_ remember, their lung (sic) was filled with 
>sterile, oxygenated water (I presume saline to cut down on osmotics)& 
>
>-kym

There is a procedure where they `wash' a single lung at a time.  I
presume that the patient is under general anesthesia with a breathing
mixture pumped into the free lung.  Thus the problem of the diaphram
getting tired would not be evident.  I don't think that a person would
be very comfortable awake with the proper breathing/lavage tube in them.

-Jonathan Edelson           winnie@pucc[bitnet,princeton.edu]

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 91 15:04:16 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Government vs Commercial R&D #2

Debate subject #2.

>>People often refer to spinoffs
>>as one of the nice things about NASA, and then wonder how we can spend money
>>exploring space.  I say that spinoffs are one of NASA's main justifications
>>for existance, and that lacking them, we might as well start learning
>>Japanese right now.

 NS> If spinoffs are NASA's justification, they might as well close
 NS> up shop.  Like most other large government R&D , their dollar
 NS> for dollar innovation record is poor (though unlike other labs
 NS> it is well-hyped).

I think that NASA has several reasons for existance, of which the development
of advanced technology is one:

1) There is a lot that we don't know about what goes on up there, and even
if we don't intend to colonize in space (which, incidently I hope we do!)
what we don't know can kill us.  We could stand to know a whole lot more
about how the Sun works, and a meteorite impact can just ruin your whole day.

2) There is a great deal of money to be made by the exploitation of space,
its environment, and its resources.  Remember Seward's Folly?  Alaska now
provides a very large portion of our national oil supply.  Once we start
manufacturing and mining in space, people will be saying "How could we have
been so blind?"  Not to mention that putting heavy industry in space can do
some very nice things for our enviroment here on Earth.

3) (and I am deliberately saving this for last)  As several military leaders
have noted, space is the High Ground.  A nation that has access to space has
a decided military advantage over those that don't.  Satellites are a key
element of our national reconnaisance program and space based weaponry (which
I am NOT advocating, merely commenting on) can render ground based weapons
useless.  Ultimately, it must be remembered that any nation that can
intercept and steer an asteroid doesn't need nuclear weapons.


 NS> In contrast to U.S. government research, Japanese R&D is
 NS> carried out on an economical scale and directly related to
 NS> marketable products such as HDTV and biotechnology.  Because
 NS> they don't waste those "10-20" years on mis-scaled technology,
 NS> they can bring products to market quickly.  If NASA really
 NS> wants to produce spinoffs, they could learn quite a bit from
 NS> the Japanese (as well as our own American innovators).

Precisely.  I'm not too sure what you mean by mis-scaled technology, though.
The Japanese have been following the strategy of letting the Americans do the
expensive initial research including, often, bringing the first product
to market.  They then step in and figure out how to mass-product that product
at costs that we can't match (not that we try very hard).  A perfect example
is the video tape recorder.  The VTR was invented and first marketed by
Ampex for industrial use.  Unfortunately, American companies were slow to
realize the consumer possibilities; they put little money into improving the
manafacturability of VTR's.  The Japanese took the idea, figured out
how to mass produce video recorders at a price that individuals could afford,
and took over the consumer market.  Now there are no American manufacturers
of consumer video recorders.

Relevent to your comment is the fact that the Japanese have been letting
us do the research, and develop the first production model.  They then figure
out how to mass product it cheaper and better.  Even the Japanese admit
that they are behind us somewhat on the development of leading edge
technology; this is Texas Instruments' admitted market strategy: invent new
chips as fast as they can, capturing those parts of the
market that cannot be accomplished using lesser technology, and leave the
mass production of DRAMS too the Japanese.  The Japanese, however, are
catching up rapidly, and are starting to do original R&D of their own.

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--  
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V13 #242
*******************