Benefits of the Space Program

[Rhino]

Many of Heinlein's observations have stayed with me over the years. One
of those was where he made the point that NASA did a really dreadful job
of explaining all of the benefits of the space program that accrued to
the American public.

I know what one of his essays enumerates a handful of such benefits but
I'd like to get a more comprehensive list. The truth is that I'm
embarassed to admit that I still don't know all the many benefits from
the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs even now, 40 years after the
last moon landing.

Does anyone know of a fairly comprehensive list? And if such a list
includes estimates of the monetary or human value of the benefit, so
much the better. For instance, if innovations designed for the space
program had a spinoff benefit in medicine, like, say, better diagnostic
equipment, an estimate of money or lives saved as a result of that
technology would be very desireable. But even if we can't quantify the
benefits, a list of those benefits would be very good to have.

--
Rhino

[Frank McCoy]

Most of the "list of benefits" I've seen typically include such things
as advances in computing (such as the IC) that in all reality the
Space Program just TOOK ADVANTAGE OF; and in many or most cases were
years behind the commercial sector instead of being in the forefront.

Just because the Space Program USED a product doesn't mean or even
imply it was RESPONSIBLE for said item ... And yet, almost every list
of Space-Program "benefits" I've ever seen makes just that very
implication. IOW, flat-out LYING to pad the list!

There really WERE thousands of things developed for various aspects of
various space-programs ... by far the majority of which had little or
no use in commercial products used by non-astronauts.

A few though:
Tang
Fuel Cells
Cryogenic liquid handling
Heat-and-cooling underwear
Adaptive telescope mirrors

There were hundreds of others. MOST of them people have no idea they
were so-developed.

So many though, like Velcro, were developed commercially, were in wide
use beforehand; and the Space-Program found them VERY useful; and the
first use MOST people saw was in such uses; so they make the list in
spite of reality. Same thing with an incredible amount of different
glues attributed to SP. And, of course, as mentioned above,
Computers, Integrated Circuits, and programming techniques.

The last were actually a crying shame. By the time a part (like an
IC) or a system (like a computer) got "qualified" for space, it was
usually five, six, or even more years out-of-date; and often the parts
were no longer available commercially. In the Electronics Industry,
six years is incredibly out-of-date. ;-{

By the time the first Apollo flew to the moon, you could buy a
pocket-calculator with a faster processor and several times as much
memory. But, of course, it wasn't "qualified"; so the astronauts
couldn't take one along. ;-{

Of course, that wasn't just the Space Program.
You should look up the sad tale of the Military and the HP-35.
Or ... well ... GPS units in Operation Desert Storm.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

[Jessica]

You're typing on one of them. Before the space program computers filled
entire rooms to do things your pocket calculator can do. Oh and the
satellite your signal may be bouncing off, not to mention the GPS system
your car uses so you can get lost with confidence.

Medical? New hypo-allergenic polymers, remote wireless wearable mointoring
equipemnt, remote diagnostics, new drugs.

Boil in the bag and freeze-dried foods which can be stored for years at
room temperature.

Here's a start of a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-
off_technologies
NASA's own page of spinoffs: http://spinoff.nasa.gov/

[Chris Zakes]

Um... Tang fits into that category, too. First marketed as a powder in
1959, popularized by John Glenn's flight in 1962.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_%28drink%29

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

I ha' harpit ye up to the throne o' God,
I ha' harpit your midmost soul in three;
I ha' harpit ye down to the Hinges o' Hell,
And -- ye -- would -- make -- a Knight o' me!

-Rudyard Kipling, "The Last Rhyme of True Thomas"

[Michael Black]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013, Jessica wrote:

> You're typing on one of them. Before the space program computers filled
> entire rooms to do things your pocket calculator can do. Oh and the
> satellite your signal may be bouncing off, not to mention the GPS system
> your car uses so you can get lost with confidence.
>

But as someone pointed out, it wasn't the space program that made
computers small. ICs weren't part of the space program, and some
calculator company went to Intel wanting a new IC, and they gave it a
computer instead of a dedicated calculator IC.

Satellites went into space before the manned space program. They were
hardly a fallout from the space program, they were an end in itself.
There's a difference between "we need something to write in zero-gravity"
and someone coming up with the Space Pen (if that really was created
because of going into space) and "what can we do with these expensive
launch vehicles now that we have them?".

> Medical? New hypo-allergenic polymers, remote wireless wearable mointoring
> equipemnt, remote diagnostics, new drugs.
>
> Boil in the bag and freeze-dried foods which can be stored for years at
> room temperature.
>

Yet canned goods had already been invented, and could be stored for years.
Boil in the bag, if it came from space, was just a convenience.
Freeze-dried, if it came from space, is mostly useful when hiking, because
it doesnt' include the weight of the water in the food.

I seem to recall that long lasting food was already being worked on by
various military services, I thought they already had meal pacakges,
albeit bulky, in WWII.

> Here's a start of a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-
> off_technologies
> NASA's own page of spinoffs: http://spinoff.nasa.gov/
>

One thing, I think there was a certain requirement that NASA share
"inventions" with the general population. There was a time when they
issued technical bulletins that had little things like soldering tricks
and helical antennas, pretty mundane things that were less "fallout from
the space program" as "the sorts of things any big industry might develop
to solve some problem" but since it was a government program, there was a
requirement or soemthing to release such tips.

Michael

[Jessica]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:45:20 -0500, Michael Black wrote:

> But as someone pointed out, it wasn't the space program that made
> computers small. ICs weren't part of the space program, and some
> calculator company went to Intel wanting a new IC, and they gave it a
> computer instead of a dedicated calculator IC.

I'll agree with that; it's the concept of very small computers designed to
work with very spare instruction sets which is the direct spin-off from
Apollo. Before Apollo: One room, one computer. After Apollo: One desk,
one computer. Of course Microsoft got hold of the idea and left us with
Winblows...

> Satellites went into space before the manned space program. They were
> hardly a fallout from the space program, they were an end in itself.

They *are* the spage program. Since the OP didn't specifically mention
*manned* space flight, satellites get to be mentioned. And with those very
small computers up there, what the satellites could do got steadily larger
and larger as time went by. Comsats, weather sats, GPS sats, resource
monitoring, and that doesn't mention the pure science sats. If there
weren't a space program none of those would be up there.

> I seem to recall that long lasting food was already being worked on by
> various military services, I thought they already had meal pacakges,
> albeit bulky, in WWII.

Yes, but it was the manned space program with solved the weight, bulk and
storage issues all in one package. The military piggybacked on NASA's
research because why re-invent the wheel?

> One thing, I think there was a certain requirement that NASA share
> "inventions" with the general population.

I think that the largest and most difficult to quantify spin-off is the
huge number of highly educated and intelligent people who got their start
with NASA and then went on to develop literally uncountable nifty things
elsewhere in private industry. That and teach others to do the same. Those
people are the true treasure of the space program.

[Frank McCoy]

Jessica <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>I think that the largest and most difficult to quantify spin-off is the
>huge number of highly educated and intelligent people who got their start
>with NASA and then went on to develop literally uncountable nifty things
>elsewhere in private industry. That and teach others to do the same. Those
>people are the true treasure of the space program.

I'd tend to agree with that, except for one very BIG problem:
Under NASA, they all became bureaucrats!
So, their main aim, like all such, became supporting and increasing
the bureaucracy instead of pushing innovation. Bureaucracy *stifles*
innovation. ;-{

Go look where real progress is being made TODAY in space.
It AIN'T in NASA!!!!

One compound-word as a hint: Skunk-Works.
(No, not THEM ... Today's equivalent.)

The one thing that really CAN be attributed to the Space Program was
GPS. The big problem though is that it wasn't developed AS a
space-program but as a military-solution. Rather like ICBMs. Was the
space-program an offshoot of the military wanting the ability to drop
atom-bombs on people halfway around the world, or vice-versa?

[Jessica]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:16:34 -0600, Frank McCoy wrote:

> I'd tend to agree with that, except for one very BIG problem: Under
> NASA, they all became bureaucrats!

Only the ones who didn't escape :P

[Tesseract]

Could you explain this a bit more?

>
> Of course, that wasn't just the Space Program.
> You should look up the sad tale of the Military and the HP-35.

I couldn't find anything connection between the military and HP-35
despite an intensive two minutes of google research.

> Or ... well ... GPS units in Operation Desert Storm.

Ditto after 0 minutes of research.

>
> --
> _____
> / ' / ™
> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
>

I recently saw a documentary on Silicon Valley. Though the space program
did not design or build any transistors or integrated circuits, NASA and
its sub-contractors had such a voracious appetite for these devices,
even at the astronomical prices of the early devices, that it allowed
Texas Instruments and Fairchild and the Fairkids to grow and it
essentially financed their R&D and large scale manufacturing efforts. In
turn, these companies focused a lot of their R&D towards solving
problems relevant to the space program.

The electronics industry would have eventually gotten to where it is
today, but the early demand by this customer with deep pockets got it
there a lot faster.


--
Tesseract

[Chris Zakes]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:45:20 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> to write:

>On Fri, 15 Feb 2013, Jessica wrote:
>
>> You're typing on one of them. Before the space program computers filled
>> entire rooms to do things your pocket calculator can do. Oh and the
>> satellite your signal may be bouncing off, not to mention the GPS system
>> your car uses so you can get lost with confidence.
>>
>But as someone pointed out, it wasn't the space program that made
>computers small. ICs weren't part of the space program, and some
>calculator company went to Intel wanting a new IC, and they gave it a
>computer instead of a dedicated calculator IC.

(snip)

>> Boil in the bag and freeze-dried foods which can be stored for years at
>> room temperature.
>>
>Yet canned goods had already been invented, and could be stored for years.
>Boil in the bag, if it came from space, was just a convenience.
>Freeze-dried, if it came from space, is mostly useful when hiking, because
>it doesnt' include the weight of the water in the food.

One thing you seem to be forgetting: with current technology, weight
and volume needed are *always* crucial--the smaller and lighter a
thing is, the less fuel is needed to put it into orbit, and/or the
more things you can put into orbit. Didn 't Heinlein say that just
about any miniaturized circuitry can be traced back to the space
program?

>I seem to recall that long lasting food was already being worked on by
>various military services, I thought they already had meal pacakges,
>albeit bulky, in WWII.

Sure, but have you ever seen C-rations? They came in a steel can about
the size of a small tuna fish can. One can is, hypothetically, one
meal. But they're heavy and bulky. A week's worth of freeze-dried
packs are much easier to carry.
http://www.etsy.com/listing/78845741/vintage-military-c-rations-mres-1970s

[Frank McCoy]

Wish I could. It was just one of the various things I remember
hearing about ... about 10 years later.

>>
>> Of course, that wasn't just the Space Program.
>> You should look up the sad tale of the Military and the HP-35.
>
>I couldn't find anything connection between the military and HP-35
>despite an intensive two minutes of google research.
>

I spent a bit longer; but didn't find the actual article.
I'm fairly sure that SOMEWHERE in my library/archives from HP that I
have a copy. Where, I don't know. I think it was written right about
the time the HP-65 came out.

It seems that when HP introduced the HP-35, the military (Army, I
think; but could have been any) was VERY interested in buying several
thousand. Only the military, being a bureaucracy, has standards and
tests that anything they use must pass before being assigned a
military part/description/order number that can be used to officially
"procure" just about anything.

Luckily, compared to most of the calculators in those days, the HP-35
was incredibly rugged; and easily passed all the tests and
requirements. However, passing those tests and getting the calculator
approved, singed-off-on, and into the military procurement system took
... ***I THINK*** about three years. Not exactly sure of the exact
time there. However, what I *DO* remember was hearing that they then
placed a huge order for the calculator ... right about three MONTHS
after HP finally discontinued the HP-35; since most of their sales
were going to the 45, 55, and the new HP-65 programmable calculator.

AFAIK, the military never DID learn.
Still, an incredible number of HP-35 calculators DID end up in the
hands of military engineers ... Only not through "official" and
"approved" procurement processes.

Many people (Like me, at that time) simply found a calculator that did
transcendental function to be invaluable.

I hear also that somebody at HP got incredibly creative: Selling a
$500 "class" in Reverse-Polish calculating to the military, using a
HP-35 calculator ... Where after the "class", the "students" got to
KEEP the "training tool" ... the HP-35.

Makes you want to admire the genius who thought of THAT.

>> Or ... well ... GPS units in Operation Desert Storm.
>
>Ditto after 0 minutes of research.
>

This one was silly.
Global Positioning and the satellites were pure military-based; and
the idea was to allow US military people to find out where they were,
fast and easy. The huge expense of the many satellites and the
extreme timekeeping aboard such was figured to be well worth the
price.

The usefulness as a consumer-product was recognized; but the military
was afraid that the Soviet Union would be able to use information
gathered with commercial products to far more accurately target ICMB
missiles and such. So, they deliberately *slightly* scrambled the
output from the satellites with an encryption system that degraded the
accuracy by about two orders of magnitude; but that would STILL be
useful for consumers.

It was ... tremendously useful. The commercial GPS market took off.

By about the time of Desert Storm, a "plain" GPS unit that could give
you fairly decent latitude/longitude location was getting down about
pocket-sized, and costing about $300 to $500.

The military, hardened-version, approved for use by combat-troops (see
above discussion about getting approved) cost in the neighborhood of
$10,000 to $20,000, was about the size of a very THICK laptop today,
and gave you far more accurate location information ... but not nearly
as convenient as the units everybody at home had.

WORSE, being that expensive, getting your personal platoon a GPS unit
was almost impossible, and even if it WAS approved, it often took
months to trickle down through the supply-chain.

On the other hand, to military people calling in artillery and other
such, knowing *exactly* where you were, not a guess based on maps or
such after walking through sand-dunes or other terrain without sign
posts or recognizable landmarks, was invaluable. Not having GPS
units, when people at home were buying them like hotcakes for stuff
like fishing ....

So, soldiers started writing home; asking-for and getting commercial
GPS units ... Not as accurate as the military stuff, but FAR better
than guessing your location. Many families bought the devices for
their sons fighting in the war; and a few soldiers paid for their own,
either while on leave of having relatives send them. A GPS unit was
FAR better appreciated than any letter-from-home or box of cookies
could ever be.

Later the military gave up and unencrypted the satellite signals.
I'm not sure how much it was the way people found methods to
circumvent the encryption by comparing with known positions, or that
the military found it far more useful to have their troops able to buy
commercial devices, much cheaper, but with full accuracy.

I can only speculate. I understand there was much argument.

>
>I recently saw a documentary on Silicon Valley. Though the space program
>did not design or build any transistors or integrated circuits, NASA and
>its sub-contractors had such a voracious appetite for these devices,
>even at the astronomical prices of the early devices, that it allowed
>Texas Instruments and Fairchild and the Fairkids to grow and it
>essentially financed their R&D and large scale manufacturing efforts. In
>turn, these companies focused a lot of their R&D towards solving
>problems relevant to the space program.
>
>The electronics industry would have eventually gotten to where it is
>today, but the early demand by this customer with deep pockets got it
>there a lot faster.

Something to that.
On the other hand: I remember wanting to buy such, and being highly
annoyed that you almost couldn't BUY some advertised devices because
they were either "military hardware" that you weren't ALLOWED to buy,
or that the entire output of the company was "allotted" ... usually to
big companies like IBM or such, especially those building things for
... yes, the space-program.

Competition was *incredible* those days to make something smaller,
lighter, faster, etc. ... and yes, the space-program was just one of
the many competitors; but one where even a tiny decrease in size,
weight, or power-consumption had HUGE payoffs.

But the airline industry and others were huge competitors in the same
market. The feeding-frenzy as to which company building what device
would get (and pay-for) the latest smaller and lighter thing was
incredible.

But yes, the space-program, having the greatest need, *DID* tend to
make for incredibly high prices for even the clunkiest of prototypes.

However, I'll argue that the actual BIG money made was when those
prototypes got made into commercial devices which could be put into
consumer products selling millions, that really made the computer
industry take off ... and NOT the incredibly high prices for single
units required by the space-program, that really paid for all that
investment.

Selling one or two devices, even at a million bucks apiece, just
doesn't PAY for that much in foundries or incredibly expensive optics.
Selling 100 million such things at $5 apiece, DOES.

The companies would gladly sell early prototypes to the space-program
to get SOME profit back for building the infrastructure to build the
final devices by the billions ... But their finances weren't really
BASED on such sales. They couldn't afford to be so-dependent on a
comparatively very minor market.

VERY small companies, building tiny things for the space-program, on
the other hand, could. THEY would buy the very expensive prototypes
... and resell them at incredibly inflated prices to NASA.

Just MY view.
Your milage probably varies considerably.

The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!

[Frank McCoy]

Point!

[Frank McCoy]

The trouble with listing freeze-dried foods as a spinoff of the
space-program, is that freeze-drying is centuries if not millennia
older. Far older than canning, which was a spinoff of military
necessity spurred on by Napoleon.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfrdrfood.htm

[Tesseract]

On 15-Feb-13 7:59 AM, Frank McCoy wrote:
> Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>

...

I heard that the military signal was more accurate than the civilian
signal but I wasn't aware that the mil units were so bulky or so
expensive (though that part does not surprise me).

For most civilian purposes, within 10 or 20 yards is quite acceptable.
Where it really becomes a problem is where you need accurate altitude to
do such things as land a plane.

With three satellites you can get latitude, longitude and altitude for
two possible places; one is usually quite far away from you. With four
you lock down the position and also increase to accuracy, even with the
civilian corrupted data. With each additional satellite you increase the
accuracy. You may have to wait a bit longer but after you get 7 or 8
satellites, you can get as accurate, if not better, a fix as the
military version can get with 4 satellites.

>>
>> I recently saw a documentary on Silicon Valley. Though the space program
>> did not design or build any transistors or integrated circuits, NASA and
>> its sub-contractors had such a voracious appetite for these devices,
>> even at the astronomical prices of the early devices, that it allowed
>> Texas Instruments and Fairchild and the Fairkids to grow and it
>> essentially financed their R&D and large scale manufacturing efforts. In
>> turn, these companies focused a lot of their R&D towards solving
>> problems relevant to the space program.
>>
>> The electronics industry would have eventually gotten to where it is
>> today, but the early demand by this customer with deep pockets got it
>> there a lot faster.
>
> Something to that.
> On the other hand: I remember wanting to buy such, and being highly
> annoyed that you almost couldn't BUY some advertised devices because
> they were either "military hardware" that you weren't ALLOWED to buy,
> or that the entire output of the company was "allotted" ... usually to
> big companies like IBM or such, especially those building things for
> ... yes, the space-program.
>
> Competition was *incredible* those days to make something smaller,
> lighter, faster, etc. ... and yes, the space-program was just one of
> the many competitors; but one where even a tiny decrease in size,
> weight, or power-consumption had HUGE payoffs.

The big thing was to make them heat resistant, which was a much bigger
deal for the space industry than of other industries, and drove the need
to move to silicon from germanium.

>
> But the airline industry and others were huge competitors in the same
> market. The feeding-frenzy as to which company building what device
> would get (and pay-for) the latest smaller and lighter thing was
> incredible.
>
> But yes, the space-program, having the greatest need, *DID* tend to
> make for incredibly high prices for even the clunkiest of prototypes.
>
> However, I'll argue that the actual BIG money made was when those
> prototypes got made into commercial devices which could be put into
> consumer products selling millions, that really made the computer
> industry take off ... and NOT the incredibly high prices for single
> units required by the space-program, that really paid for all that
> investment.
>
> Selling one or two devices, even at a million bucks apiece, just
> doesn't PAY for that much in foundries or incredibly expensive optics.
> Selling 100 million such things at $5 apiece, DOES.

At one point, Noyce, then running the semi-conductor division of
Fairchild, announce a huge price cut -- even below their manufacturing
costs. He gambled right. The increased demand created the economies of
scale needed to make the low price profitable.

But, before they could cut prices on such products, they needed reliable
products, and that was what the space industry funded.

>
> The companies would gladly sell early prototypes to the space-program
> to get SOME profit back for building the infrastructure to build the
> final devices by the billions ... But their finances weren't really
> BASED on such sales. They couldn't afford to be so-dependent on a
> comparatively very minor market.
>
> VERY small companies, building tiny things for the space-program, on
> the other hand, could. THEY would buy the very expensive prototypes
> ... and resell them at incredibly inflated prices to NASA.
>
> Just MY view.
> Your milage probably varies considerably.
>
> The soapbox is empty.
> NEXT!
>
>
> --
> _____
> / ' / ™
> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
>

--
Tesseract

[Jessica]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:03:13 -0800, Tesseract wrote:

> I heard that the military signal was more accurate than the civilian
> signal but I wasn't aware that the mil units were so bulky or so
> expensive (though that part does not surprise me).

MILSPEC means that something is soldierproof. You have to remember that
MILSPEC units have to be proven to keep operating even when they're in
combat and far away from the guys with the labcoats and glasses who can
repair the things. They're deliberately made ridiculously rugged, EMP
hardened, waterproof and impact resistant. Take a MILSPEC unit through the
old Timex watch commercial and it wouldn't even know that anything
happened. Space flight certified is MILSPEC on steroids. When something
*has* to operate on the Moon where you CAN'T repair it OR ELSE, that means
the specification has to be ridiculous when compared to a consumer-grade
equivalent.

Of course, when you know how to make a spaceflight certified left-hand
framistatz, building consumer grade framistatzes just got incredibly
easier. NASA paid the R&D bills and now you reap the marketplace's reward.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <kfjq1t$r3$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Rhino <no_offline_c...@example.com> writes:

>Many of Heinlein's observations have stayed with me over the years. One
>of those was where he made the point that NASA did a really dreadful job
>of explaining all of the benefits of the space program that accrued to
>the American public.
>
>I know what one of his essays enumerates a handful of such benefits but

For what it's worth, the essay's title is "Spinoff", and it's
available in _Expanded Universe_.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A preposition is something that you should never end a sentence with.

[invalidd]

There's the development of CGI scripting, used to fake the moon
landings, which has led to such a revolution in movies :)

[Frank McCoy]

OK ... Not so much with electronics as overall; but one thing NASA
actually *did* that we all benefited from, was the "Zero Defects"
program initiated for the Apollo Program ... Rather as a necessity;
because too many birds were dying from one little tiny part out of
thousands.

That brought on more realistic goals like the modern "Six Sigma"
system of reliability.

Sadly, NASA seems to have forgotten the original idea; making it all
now a matter of paperwork (Bureaucrats again!) instead of actual
process and personnel attitude. As long as you fill out the proper
forms ("Cover your Ass") then people in-charge are happy.

The idea of fixing problems that occur because you don't WANT even
slightly defective product going out the door, has now become, "What
system is in place if you do have a problem?"

Surprisingly, modern electronics, especially computer chips, really
*DO* have almost zero defects; often going 8 or even 9 sigmas out.

When I remember the failure-rates of early 2102 memory-chips ....
Now we run many gigabytes of RAM on just about every computer; and you
almost NEVER hear of a RAM, CPU, or Bridge-Chip failure. If something
goes bad, it's almost always something exterior to those. Disk-Drives
and Power-Supplies and yes, printers, keyboards, mice, and similar
peripherals. Once in a very LONG time you have motherboard failures;
mostly due to bad capacitors ... Though even THAT problem seems to be
vanishing like the carrier-pigeon.

Right now, other than peripherals, the main source of failure seems to
be in high-end video-boards where they overdrive the F*** out of them
to get top performance. If a fan stops because of dust or lint ....

[Frank McCoy]

Jessica <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:03:13 -0800, Tesseract wrote:
>
>> I heard that the military signal was more accurate than the civilian
>> signal but I wasn't aware that the mil units were so bulky or so
>> expensive (though that part does not surprise me).
>
>MILSPEC means that something is soldierproof. You have to remember that
>MILSPEC units have to be proven to keep operating even when they're in
>combat and far away from the guys with the labcoats and glasses who can
>repair the things. They're deliberately made ridiculously rugged, EMP
>hardened, waterproof and impact resistant. Take a MILSPEC unit through the
>old Timex watch commercial and it wouldn't even know that anything
>happened.

THAT was the specification that I mentioned the HP-35 had to go
through. It passed easily ... Three months AFTER Hewlett Packard
stopped making the calculator. Unlike most calculators it was
incredibly rugged. Wish I still had mine; but I sold it at half-price
to buy a HP-45.

>Space flight certified is MILSPEC on steroids. When something
>*has* to operate on the Moon where you CAN'T repair it OR ELSE, that means
>the specification has to be ridiculous when compared to a consumer-grade
>equivalent.
>
>Of course, when you know how to make a spaceflight certified left-hand
>framistatz, building consumer grade framistatzes just got incredibly
>easier. NASA paid the R&D bills and now you reap the marketplace's reward.

[Frank McCoy]

mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:

>In article <kfjq1t$r3$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Rhino <no_offline_c...@example.com> writes:
>
>>Many of Heinlein's observations have stayed with me over the years. One
>>of those was where he made the point that NASA did a really dreadful job
>>of explaining all of the benefits of the space program that accrued to
>>the American public.
>>
>>I know what one of his essays enumerates a handful of such benefits but
>
>For what it's worth, the essay's title is "Spinoff", and it's
>available in _Expanded Universe_.

A statement Heinlein made before Congress was responsible for the
essay.
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015083085392;q1=%22robert%20a%20heinlein%22;start=1;size=25;page=search;seq=47;view=image;num=41
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015083085392;q1=%22robert%20a%20heinlein%22;start=1;size=25;page=search;seq=151;view=image;num=145

However, Heinlein made the same mistake oh-so-many people do:
If it is complicated and used in the space-program, then it *must*
have originated there!
It ain't so; in-particular for his own cases.
Thing used to enhance images, and in-particular the ones to image the
Human Body like he describes, were developed for ... Well, medicine
and hospitals, and USED (OK, sometimes improved) by the space-program.

[Jessica]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:19:08 -0600, Frank McCoy wrote:

> Thing used to enhance images, and in-particular the ones to image the
> Human Body like he describes, were developed for ... Well, medicine and
> hospitals, and USED (OK, sometimes improved) by the space-program.

Though the remote medical monitoring system was indeed developed for space
flight. That part is definite.

The things which were merely adapted and improved are a tougher call, but
at the end of the day if they hadn't been adapted and improved, we
wouldn't be using them right now.

[Frank McCoy]

I doubt that. They would in all likelihood have been adapted and
improved anyway ... just probably not at that exact time or possibly
not using that exact method. Some things get "invented" not so much
because of the genius of the inventor, but because, as the old saying
goes, "their time has come". Witness the telephone and incandescent
light-bulb. Many "inventions" had patent fights decided by lab-notes
made only days or even hours apart by competing companies or
individuals.

Perhaps the alternate adaptation or improvement would have been far
BETTER; but the existing patents made them not worth fighting-for.

We'll never know.

[Rhino]

In some cases we DO know. Perhaps.

I seem to recall hearing that Alexander Graham Bell beat another guy to
the patent office by a few hours. Both wanted a patent for essentially
the same device, which we today call the telephone.

Bell got the patent because he was first to the patent office but
apparently the other guy's invention was much closer to the telephone we
use today. So, in a sense, Bell made the big bucks but the other guy
actually invented the phone as we know it today. (Or at least as we used
to know it a few decades ago since it's changed dramatically over time.)

--
Rhino

[Rhino]

On 2013-02-15 12:40, Michael Stemper wrote:
> In article <kfjq1t$r3$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Rhino <no_offline_c...@example.com> writes:
>
>> Many of Heinlein's observations have stayed with me over the years. One
>> of those was where he made the point that NASA did a really dreadful job
>> of explaining all of the benefits of the space program that accrued to
>> the American public.
>>
>> I know what one of his essays enumerates a handful of such benefits but
>
> For what it's worth, the essay's title is "Spinoff", and it's
> available in _Expanded Universe_.
>

Thank you! I couldn't remember which book it was in and was too lazy to
dig it up just to be able to cite it exactly. ;-)

--
Rhino

[Frank McCoy]

Amazingly though, if you hook up one of the ones that worked for well
over a century today, it STILL works ... only usually *better*.
Same thing with a TV, only not quite so long.

A FEW of the modern signal-coding techniques were developed for
handling signals from very low bit-rate spacecraft with noisy and weak
signals. So some might say THAT is a spinoff from the space-program.
Only, it ain't really so. It's just that modern understanding of
information-theory along with multidimensional knot-theory was
developing right at the same time as such spacecraft were going
further away while reception here on earth wasn't improving much at
all. At the same time however, the need for fast connection-speeds
for people connecting to first computers and then the growing Net made
modem design and the study of just HOW much information you could pack
into a signal with noise on it incredibly important to both. So, the
space-program benefited tremendously from improvements, especially
*digital* improvements in modem-science in fitting more and more bits
over an essentially very limited and noisy environment; eventually
reaching the limits imposed by a POTS system of 56 KB download and 33
KB upload speeds. The improvements spacecraft got and contributed to
this study and techniques were huge; while the improvement in
algorithms passed-back to the telco-industry were comparatively small,
but quite real.

Synergy like that between the space-program and other industries was
quite frequent. However, the idea that the space-program is/was
*responsible* for every one of those improvements is pretty much a
pipe-dream of the advertising people for NASA.


Similar to telephones:
Hook up a modern television to an old-style signal, and it's simply
*amazing* the improvement in both reception and the picture and sound.

It's rather funny, but:
The REASON for the huge improvement is that to implement
High-Definition-TV, it is/was necessary two store an entire HDTV frame
for digital manipulation. This allowed very similar manipulation of
the old analog frame(s) which originally came in, in two segments at
60 frames-per-segment, or 30 FULL frames per second; relying on both
phosphor persistence and the human eye to stitch them into looking
like a continuous display.
With complete digital handling of the signal however the frames could
be continuously displayed until updated with completely steady and
exact distance between, on a display that is capable of over twice
that of the original; allowing interpolation in the lines between.

In fact, the improvement is *SO* great, that most of the reason for
going to HDTV is arguably removed. Go figure.

And yes, to stay on-topic, many people figure THIS is yet another
offshoot of the space-program. It ain't.

[Frank McCoy]

Actually, it's mostly based on testimony Heinlein gave before
congress. I provided a link to the original.

Like so many people Heinlein also WAY over-credits the space-program
for innovating or inventing many of the of the things that the space
program merely adopted or adapted from commercial products or even
very OLD inventions.

His description of the "invention" of SECAM for Mars Rovers was almost
hilarious in that regard. The camera used on the moon was much closer
to the original; and they used that method because of
lack-of-available-bandwidth; thus going back to a VERY outdated
technology invented long before, when the idea of fitting full-color
pictures into the narrow bandwidth intended originally for only
black-and-white was being contemplated.

That they'd use a similar method to get fairly high-quality color
pictures from a far more limited signal on mars, was ... expected.
Not requiring full motion of a very static landscape, made the method
almost ideal.

I really expected more from Heinlein.
OTOH, the guy was human; and fell into the same trap of attributing
almost every technological advance in History to the space-program.
Perhaps so, because he was one of its biggest pushers.
The more things he could get people to believe the space-program was
responsible for, the more support he could get (especially in Congress
where this essay originated from his testimony) FOR said program.

Is it any wonder he embellished wherever he could?

[Frank McCoy]

Some people might think I'm against the space-program because I keep
debunking the idea that almost every technological advance in the past
50 years or so had it's roots in space-technology.

I'm not.
I'm one of the most ardent *supporters* of space exploration.

However, believing all the advertising crap put out by ANYBODY,
including NASA, to my mind is downright silly.

NASA and others have a very good REASON to try and make people believe
that the Space-Program is and was responsible for HUGE increases in
technological capability. After all, their budget pretty much DEPENDS
on the ignorant sheep believing that stuff.

At the same time, the very REAL benefits of the space-program get
pretty much ignored. Which to my mind, is a crying shame.

Communication satellites
Weather prediction
Astronomy
Understanding how the Earth developed
Mapping
The list could go on for page after page.

But technology?
Yeah, the space-program contributed SOME.
However, most of the things now attributed to the space-program were
actually things already going on down HERE, that said program just
adopted, adapted, or made popular in space-television programs.

[Canth]

Bell was "first" to the patent office because he was a Patent Office
Clerk! Bell actually stole the telephone. The inventor, an Italian,
filed for a patent with the US Patent Office but without contacts &
support in the US, ran out of money to pursue the patent. Bell, who
did have the contacts to market the phone, took the Italian's patent
application & refiled it under his own name.

AS! ds++:+++ a++ c+++ p++ t+ f-- S+ p+ e++ h++ r++ n++ i+ P+ m++ M
I've been ignored by better people than you.

[Canth]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:58:26 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:

>Many of Heinlein's observations have stayed with me over the years. One
>of those was where he made the point that NASA did a really dreadful job
>of explaining all of the benefits of the space program that accrued to
>the American public.
>
>I know what one of his essays enumerates a handful of such benefits but

>I'd like to get a more comprehensive list. The truth is that I'm
>embarassed to admit that I still don't know all the many benefits from
>the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs even now, 40 years after the
>last moon landing.
>
>Does anyone know of a fairly comprehensive list? And if such a list
>includes estimates of the monetary or human value of the benefit, so
>much the better. For instance, if innovations designed for the space
>program had a spinoff benefit in medicine, like, say, better diagnostic
>equipment, an estimate of money or lives saved as a result of that
>technology would be very desireable. But even if we can't quantify the
>benefits, a list of those benefits would be very good to have.

One of the things I understand was given an enormous impetus from the
space program was sports medicine and the fitness industry. Prior to
the space program there was an industry in restoring people to some
form of health via sanitariums, etc., but it was the space program
which first measured and defined the baseline for what is a fit
healthy person. They needed this so they could monitor the astronauts
for changes due to being in space. The space doctors measured
everything they possibly could, and probably invented a few things to
measure stuff that hitherto couldn't, because, since no-one had been
in space, they had no idea what could be affected.

Out of this grew a body of understanding of what makes a fit healthy
person which is the foundation for modern sports medicine.

[Frank McCoy]

OK ... THAT I buy.
They still missed a lot of things though; but not for lack-of-trying!

[Simon Jester UK]

invalidd wrote:
...

> There's the development of CGI scripting, used to fake the moon
> landings, which has led to such a revolution in movies :)

I had no idea CGI was so good in the late 60s. ;)

[invalidd]

It wasn't, but the poor quality only added to the authenticity.

And we mustn't forget teflon, subsequently employed by politicians
across the world to ensure that they escaped from criminal acts scot-free.

[lal_truckee]

On 2/15/13 10:41 AM, invalidd wrote:
>
> There's the development of CGI scripting, used to fake the moon
> landings, which has led to such a revolution in movies

utter bullshit.
everybody knows the moon landings were faked and filmed by Stanly
Kubrik, who being the auteur he was, insisted on location filming.

[Tesseract]

The space industry may have helped advance communications technology a
bit but communications is a technology driver all on its own. It always
has been and it always will be. And its subcategory of pornography often
leads the way in monetizing that technology.

In fact, communications was, and still is, a driver for the space
industry. Those communications satellites are not there because space
scientists wanted them but because communication needs demanded them.
And I'm pretty sure that pornography is in there someplace. The space
scientists then bootstrapped that (should be) profitable technology into
their space research and exploration programs.

--
Tesseract

[Tesseract]

Point!

--
Tesseract

[invalidd]

:)

[Frank McCoy]

>The space industry may have helped advance communications technology a
>bit but communications is a technology driver all on its own. It always
>has been and it always will be. And its subcategory of pornography often
>leads the way in monetizing that technology.
>
>In fact, communications was, and still is, a driver for the space
>industry. Those communications satellites are not there because space
>scientists wanted them but because communication needs demanded them.
>And I'm pretty sure that pornography is in there someplace. The space
>scientists then bootstrapped that (should be) profitable technology into
>their space research and exploration programs.

Wow. Somebody GETS it! ;-}
BOYC?

[Frank McCoy]

IE: Bill Clinton AKA "The Teflon President"?

[danny burstein]

[lots snipped]

>>> Of course, that wasn't just the Space Program.
>>> You should look up the sad tale of the Military and the HP-35.
>>
>>I couldn't find anything connection between the military and HP-35
>>despite an intensive two minutes of google research.
>>
>I spent a bit longer; but didn't find the actual article.
>I'm fairly sure that SOMEWHERE in my library/archives from HP that I
>have a copy. Where, I don't know. I think it was written right about
>the time the HP-65 came out.

>It seems that when HP introduced the HP-35, the military (Army, I
>think; but could have been any) was VERY interested in buying several
>thousand. Only the military, being a bureaucracy, has standards and
>tests that anything they use must pass before being assigned a
>military part/description/order number that can be used to officially
>"procure" just about anything.
[snip]
>after HP finally discontinued the HP-35; since most of their sales
>were going to the 45, 55, and the new HP-65 programmable calculator.

>AFAIK, the military never DID learn.
>Still, an incredible number of HP-35 calculators DID end up in the
>hands of military engineers ... Only not through "official" and
>"approved" procurement processes.

Back in February, 1974, I ordered a "just announced" HP-65 calculater
for eight hundred dollars. I still remember my order number because...

... I was initially told it would ship in two weeks. I didn't receive
it so I called HP collect (this was before the internet days and
also prior to widespread use of "800" numbers). I was on a first
name basis with Janet M***** over there.

I'd call every couple of weeks and would be given a new date.

Finally two things happened:

a: all the folk in the office were given my name and told not
to accept my collect calls.

b: one of them explained to me that HP had been hit with a
"defense procurement act" order, and that HP's entire
production output was being diverted to DOD...


--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[Canth]

I believe that was the plot of an AC Clarke story predating the actual
launch of the first satellite. In it, he posited a series of
communications satellites launched by the USSR, all of which beamed
pornography into the USA.

[Frank McCoy]

>>The space industry may have helped advance communications technology a
>>bit but communications is a technology driver all on its own. It always
>>has been and it always will be. And its subcategory of pornography often
>>leads the way in monetizing that technology.
>>
>>In fact, communications was, and still is, a driver for the space
>>industry. Those communications satellites are not there because space
>>scientists wanted them but because communication needs demanded them.
>>And I'm pretty sure that pornography is in there someplace. The space
>>scientists then bootstrapped that (should be) profitable technology into
>>their space research and exploration programs.
>I believe that was the plot of an AC Clarke story predating the actual
>launch of the first satellite. In it, he posited a series of
>communications satellites launched by the USSR, all of which beamed
>pornography into the USA.
>

"Destroy them with porn!!"
;-}

[Tesseract]

Don't know what the fuss is all about. It's kinda obvious.

--
Tesseract

[invalidd]

And truth following fiction, as it so often does, Russia is allegedly
the principal source of the kiddie porn so beloved by some of the
resident trolls (not mentioning Shilling and Christmas Song).

[Chris Zakes]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:53:08 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> to write:

(snip)

>I believe that was the plot of an AC Clarke story predating the actual
>launch of the first satellite. In it, he posited a series of
>communications satellites launched by the USSR, all of which beamed
>pornography into the USA.

If memory serves, the naughty pictures in that story were static
images of things like the sculptures at the Khajuraho temple in India,
not live people. So technically erotica, not pornography in the
literal sense.

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

I ha' harpit ye up to the throne o' God,
I ha' harpit your midmost soul in three;
I ha' harpit ye down to the Hinges o' Hell,
And -- ye -- would -- make -- a Knight o' me!

-Rudyard Kipling, "The Last Rhyme of True Thomas"

[Frank McCoy]

Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:53:08 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> to write:
>
>(snip)
>
>>I believe that was the plot of an AC Clarke story predating the actual
>>launch of the first satellite. In it, he posited a series of
>>communications satellites launched by the USSR, all of which beamed
>>pornography into the USA.
>
>If memory serves, the naughty pictures in that story were static
>images of things like the sculptures at the Khajuraho temple in India,
>not live people. So technically erotica, not pornography in the
>literal sense.
>

If it's old (over 100 years), it's "art" or "literature".
If it was painted, performed, or written last week, it's obscenity.

[Chris Zakes]

Do a Google Images search of Khajuraho temple. Then we'll talk whether
it's art or erotica.

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

Be careful what you wish for, it may have a very long job description.

-Puck Curtis

[Canth]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:15:10 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:53:08 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> to write:
>
>(snip)
>
>>I believe that was the plot of an AC Clarke story predating the actual
>>launch of the first satellite. In it, he posited a series of
>>communications satellites launched by the USSR, all of which beamed
>>pornography into the USA.
>
>If memory serves, the naughty pictures in that story were static
>images of things like the sculptures at the Khajuraho temple in India,
>not live people. So technically erotica, not pornography in the
>literal sense.
>

My memory was that that was the only thing the Russian agent could
carry which could get past customs because it appeared to be some dry
archaeological thing. The actual film was of the sunrise moving
across the carvings giving a suggestion of movement. He also had
Kinsey's report, which he was using to define the type of pornography
needed in each region.

> -Chris Zakes
> Texas

[Tesseract]

On 17-Feb-13 10:15 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:53:08 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> to write:
>
> (snip)
>
>> I believe that was the plot of an AC Clarke story predating the actual
>> launch of the first satellite. In it, he posited a series of
>> communications satellites launched by the USSR, all of which beamed
>> pornography into the USA.
>
> If memory serves, the naughty pictures in that story were static
> images of things like the sculptures at the Khajuraho temple in India,
> not live people. So technically erotica, not pornography in the
> literal sense.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
>

What is the difference?

--
Tesseract

[invalidd]

Chris Zakes wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:55:16 -0600, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> to write:
>
>
>>Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:53:08 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser
>>>caused Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> to write:
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>>I believe that was the plot of an AC Clarke story predating the actual
>>>>launch of the first satellite. In it, he posited a series of
>>>>communications satellites launched by the USSR, all of which beamed
>>>>pornography into the USA.
>>>
>>>If memory serves, the naughty pictures in that story were static
>>>images of things like the sculptures at the Khajuraho temple in India,
>>>not live people. So technically erotica, not pornography in the
>>>literal sense.
>>>
>>
>>If it's old (over 100 years), it's "art" or "literature".
>>If it was painted, performed, or written last week, it's obscenity.
>
>
> Do a Google Images search of Khajuraho temple. Then we'll talk whether
> it's art or erotica.
>

Personally I'd say it's clearly art because it's about as erotic as a
slap in the face with a wet cod.

But, being an old fuddy-duddy, that almost certainly means I'm wrong
because I can recognise the images and that's forbidden in today's art,
just like poems are no longer allowed to rhyme and symphonies are no
longer allowed to have whistleable tunes :(

[Chris Zakes]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:22:32 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com>

to write:

>On 17-Feb-13 10:15 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:53:08 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> to write:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> I believe that was the plot of an AC Clarke story predating the actual
>>> launch of the first satellite. In it, he posited a series of
>>> communications satellites launched by the USSR, all of which beamed
>>> pornography into the USA.

Having dug out and re-read the story--"I Remember Babylon"--the theory
is that the Chinese have contracted with the Soviets to launch a
geosynchronous satellite that can cover the entire US. It broadcasts
not merely pornography, but ultra-violence and muckraking scandal,
with a bit of Communist propaganda around the edges. The theory is
that the Us will founder in its own decadence.

>> If memory serves, the naughty pictures in that story were static
>> images of things like the sculptures at the Khajuraho temple in India,
>> not live people. So technically erotica, not pornography in the
>> literal sense.
>>
>> -Chris Zakes
>> Texas
>>
>
>What is the difference?

The original definition of pornography was writing about prostitutes.
In "I Remember Babylon" Arthur C. Clarke is shown a pilot film
"Aspects of Thirteenth Century Tantric Sculpture" for the proposed
geosynchronous channel. In it there's no writing or prostitutes
involved, the naughty imagery is all cinematography of erotic
sculpture from the Konark Sun Temple in India. (Although the story
says there *will* be live actors in later shows.)

[Frank McCoy]

Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:55:16 -0600, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> to write:
>
>>Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:53:08 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser
>>>caused Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> to write:
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>>I believe that was the plot of an AC Clarke story predating the actual
>>>>launch of the first satellite. In it, he posited a series of
>>>>communications satellites launched by the USSR, all of which beamed
>>>>pornography into the USA.
>>>
>>>If memory serves, the naughty pictures in that story were static
>>>images of things like the sculptures at the Khajuraho temple in India,
>>>not live people. So technically erotica, not pornography in the
>>>literal sense.
>>>
>>If it's old (over 100 years), it's "art" or "literature".
>>If it was painted, performed, or written last week, it's obscenity.
>
>Do a Google Images search of Khajuraho temple. Then we'll talk whether
>it's art or erotica.
>

Inclusive-or: BOTH.

[Frank McCoy]

invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:

>Chris Zakes wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:55:16 -0600, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> to write:
>>
>>
>>>Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:53:08 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser
>>>>caused Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> to write:
>>>>
>>>>(snip)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I believe that was the plot of an AC Clarke story predating the actual
>>>>>launch of the first satellite. In it, he posited a series of
>>>>>communications satellites launched by the USSR, all of which beamed
>>>>>pornography into the USA.
>>>>
>>>>If memory serves, the naughty pictures in that story were static
>>>>images of things like the sculptures at the Khajuraho temple in India,
>>>>not live people. So technically erotica, not pornography in the
>>>>literal sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If it's old (over 100 years), it's "art" or "literature".
>>>If it was painted, performed, or written last week, it's obscenity.
>>
>>
>> Do a Google Images search of Khajuraho temple. Then we'll talk whether
>> it's art or erotica.
>>
>
>Personally I'd say it's clearly art because it's about as erotic as a
>slap in the face with a wet cod.
>

I'll disagree. It was obviously *intended* to be erotic and sexually
stimulating for the worshipers there.

But ... There's no accounting for taste either.

>But, being an old fuddy-duddy, that almost certainly means I'm wrong
>because I can recognise the images and that's forbidden in today's art,
>just like poems are no longer allowed to rhyme and symphonies are no
>longer allowed to have whistleable tunes :(

A rhyme in time is not my way.
Rap is crap this is today.
I'm a poet and do I know-it; so stuff your rules
The beat's the thing to earn a ring but yet for fools.
A poem to me, for what I see, is not just terse.
So I won't pay or spend my day reading "blank" verse.

Crappy; but you get the idea.
Give me a day or two; and I could make something decent of it.

One problem with "symphonies having whistleable tunes" is copyright
laws. I refer you to "Melancholy Elephants" by our sponsor.
http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html
Nobody writing symphonies wants to be sued for copyright infringement,
or worse-yet for such a career, being accused of stealing material.
There's good reason almost every commercial with a recognizable tune
has a melody based on older very familiar songs; and it ain't that
modern composers are not as talented as the old ones.

It's rather like the world: The BEST places to live were occupied,
claimed, and now-owned by those who got there FIRST.
Want a big house on a hill overlooking a beautiful lake?
Sorry, somebody ELSE already OWNS that hill and has built THEIR home
there. They *might* sell it to you though ... for an atrocious price.

Same with jaunty melodies.

[lal_truckee]

On 2/17/13 7:08 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> Do a Google Images search of Khajuraho temple. Then we'll talk whether
> it's art or erotica.

Been there, don't need to search.

Pure erotic art IMO.
Particularly the elephants.

Recommended.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <v793i89maqdg374sq...@4ax.com>, Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> writes:
>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:15:10 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:53:08 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser caused Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> to write:

>>>I believe that was the plot of an AC Clarke story predating the actual
>>>launch of the first satellite. In it, he posited a series of
>>>communications satellites launched by the USSR, all of which beamed
>>>pornography into the USA.
>>
>>If memory serves, the naughty pictures in that story were static
>>images of things like the sculptures at the Khajuraho temple in India,
>>not live people. So technically erotica, not pornography in the
>>literal sense.
>
>My memory was that that was the only thing the Russian agent could
>carry which could get past customs because it appeared to be some dry
>archaeological thing. The actual film was of the sunrise moving
>across the carvings giving a suggestion of movement. He also had
>Kinsey's report, which he was using to define the type of pornography
>needed in each region.

This sounds like "I Remember Babylon". The agent was Chinese, not Russian.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
"Writing about jazz is like dancing about architecture" - Thelonious Monk

[Yisroel Markov]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:28:47 +0000 (UTC), Jessica <m...@privacy.net>
said:

[snip]

>They *are* the spage program. Since the OP didn't specifically mention
>*manned* space flight, satellites get to be mentioned. And with those very
>small computers up there, what the satellites could do got steadily larger
>and larger as time went by. Comsats, weather sats,

And these are the ones that directly save lives. Tracking hurricanes
and such enables thousands of people to get out of the way or at least
to prepare.

>GPS sats, resource
>monitoring, and that doesn't mention the pure science sats. If there
>weren't a space program none of those would be up there.

[snip]
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand