[OT] Space Programs was: Columbia

> --- Brian Burger <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:

What I find impressive is that humanity has benefitted by general applications
of technology developed FOR the space program as much as it has by technology
developed BY the space program for general application.

> --- Brian Bilderback <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:

That was going to be my point, actually, me being the materials
guy that I am (or at least, pretend I am sometimes ^_^; ).  The
lightweight metals industry (read: aluminum) in particular has benefitted
incredibly; while at least some reasearch would have been done into
lightweight materials for aircraft purposes, the space program did accelerate
that, and added temperature to the mix. Now we have potential materials for
things like light(er)weight car engine blocks, etc., and the costs are going
down. (Though intense lobbying by the steel industry keeps a lot of things in
steel, and auto manufacturers keep swapping
parts back and forth as new alloys or forming/shaping processes
produce stronger steels... but I digress. ^_^; )

I may be mistaken on this one, but I believe the shuttle (or at least the
space program) is also one of the first places fuel cells were really put to
use, which are now (per the State of the Union address) apparently going to
show up in cars sometime in the near future.

(Personally, I don't know that we'll meet the presidential timetable due to
the infrastructure replacement required, but test programs should certainly be
in place... this isn't quite as motivational a target as reaching the moon,
say. But again, I digress.)

Anyway, that's part of my take, though I certainly can't disagree with the
other points made. As for backing this up... well, I'm sure NASA has some PR
stuff out there, but I dunno if that is as useful as you need. I know I have
some book sources for the above, but most of my books are... unavailable to me
at the moment. But I'll look when I get the chance... how long do you have for
this?

'Til later,

For a history of US Future Launch Vehicles, have a look at

http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/

This deals with alternatives to the Shuttle, what the problems were, why the
decisions that were taken were taken, etc.

It's incomplete (as in broken links etc) but nonetheless essential reading.

Aaron Teske schrieb:
> I may be mistaken on this one, but I believe the shuttle

The story of the fuel cell is an interesting example. The first serious
application was in the space program. However, these were basically useless
for mundane terrestrial applications. Too expensive, too inefficient, too
reliant on pure materials and fuels.

The prime developer of fuel cells for terrestrial applications in
recent years was Ballard http://www.ballard.com in Canada, a garage
firm. A few years ago, they published their story in an interesting book.

Generally, many of the tales of practical applications developed from the
space program have to be taken with a grain of salt. Quite
possibly, the same results might have been achieved with earth-bound
research. The point is that research subsidies have often (especially during
the Cold War) been easier to get for space research than for, say, energy
efficiency.

I just wonder what the State of the Union Address has to do with fuel cells?

Greetings Karl Heinz

> At 3:43 PM +0100 2/4/03, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:

Bush stated that he wants to put federal money to encouraging
auto-makers to come up with fuel cell cars sooner. I wonder if Honda
will get money for the FCX (hydrogen Fuel Cell auto) they just put on the
market in California for fleets. Its first one out there.

Ryan Gill schrieb:
> At 3:43 PM +0100 2/4/03, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
they
> just put on the market in California for fleets. Its first one out

Only to American manufacturers ? And will Daimler-Chrysler count as
such ? They have been test-driving fuel-cell vehicles (Small A-class
Mercedes) across the US for some time.
http://www.fleet.chrysler.com/afv_news_details_1.jsp

And has the Bush administration suddenly become environmentally friendly? Or
have the big car maker started to holler for subsidies?

Greetings Karl Heinz

On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 17:18:49 +0100 (CET), KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
wrote:

> Only to American manufacturers ? And will Daimler-Chrysler count as

Honda is an American manufacturer, as it has assembly plants here. I'm
guessing that if Honda does the development in the US it would get the
incentives.

> And has the Bush administration suddenly become environmentally

Federally you only get a tax break or rebate for buying an electric car, not
for buying a hybrid. I saw a show on this recently and explained that you can
pull hydrogen from gasoline for use in fuel cells, hence hybrid fuel cell cars
use gasoline for powering the fuel cells. These cars get some very impressive
mileage, but they don't give a rebate or subsidy to the purchaser.

> At 9:58 AM -0600 2/5/03, Allan Goodall wrote:

Not so. I have an amended tax return waiting on my signature that my CPA just
compiled for me for my 2001 taxes. I get a $500 return (based on my tax
payments) for my Honda Insight. This is a recent development as of less than a
year ago.

> >Only to American manufacturers ? And will Daimler-Chrysler count as

> as it has assembly plants here
American manufacturers (Ford, etc.) have 80%+ U.S. content.

So, if we want less pressure on NASA's funding, buy vehicles with a high

domestic content, so the Federal government gets to levy taxes against the
Assembly plant's wages and again against the wages at the Manufacturing
plants. Unless you prefer to help the Japanese government's funding issues, of
course.

On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 22:32:51 -0500, Morton Chalom <telson@ameritech.net>
wrote:

> And that's my point -- I believe you'll find that Honda (and the other

> instead of setting up component-manufacturing plants here. So, Japanese

> vehicles on average have less than 30% U.S. content, whereas

You do realize that a great deal of "American manufacturers'" components are
actually made in Canada, right?