🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <21...@clyde.concordia.ca> ad...@concour.cs.concordia.ca (STEELE adam) writes:
>I just saw someone on Canadian TV trying to justify the Hubble
>space telescope with the old "Small computers were developed for
>the Apollo missions, and without space exploration you wouldn't
>have your lap-top today" argument.  Vis the previous postings
>regarding NASA's use of tried and obsolete technology this claim
>seems a little suspect.

[...]

>P.S. I know the benefit of basic research (god knows mine is
>far enough "out in the ozone") but I hate it when scientists pull a 
>PR snowjob.

It's pretty sad that we have to justify something that may
fundamentally change our view of the universe by telling about the
neat consumer products that will result.  What's next?  "Not only
will this new particle accelerator give us data that may revolutionize
physics, we'll get all sorts of neat new hair products out of it
as well!"
-- 
Christopher Pettus, Network Connectivity Development, Apple Computer, Inc.
MS 35-K -- 408/974-0004 -- c...@apple.com -- sun!apple!cep -- link PETTUS.C

In article <21...@clyde.concordia.ca> ad...@concour.cs.concordia.ca (STEELE adam) writes:
>     On a related note I had heard that Teflon was developed for
>frying pans, and only later found use as a heat sheild for
>spacecraft.  [...]

Actually, I believe that TEFLON was first developed for the Manhattan
Project as a semi-permanent lubricant for the gasseous diffusion process
to separate enriched uranium.  The gasseous diffusion process uses UF6
(Uranium Hexaflouride) gas, which, among other nasty habits, is very
corrosive.

I'll check with my father (who is still at Oak Ridge) and see if he can
confirm this.

gkn
San Diego Supercomputer Center
(and from Oak Ridge)

In article <21...@clyde.concordia.ca> ad...@concour.cs.concordia.ca (STEELE adam) writes:
>I just saw someone on Canadian TV trying to justify the Hubble
>space telescope with the old "Small computers were developed for
>the Apollo missions, and without space exploration you wouldn't
>have your lap-top today" argument.
>	 Anyway, my question is.  How much of an engine is
>the space program (or the military for that matter) in
>technological advancement?

	NASA has done at least one job that they deserve kudos for;
after looking at the plethora of integrated circuit packages, they
insisted that all their suppliers deliver standard size and shape
packages.  NASA invented the DIP packaging that dominates electronic
gizmos still (but SOT and PGA and PLCC are coming up fast).
	Unlike military programs, NASA tries to publish everything that
they do; and NASA could get top talent to work on engineering problems
for years, while the commercial engineering community wants to buy
something off the shelf before Tuesday.  So, I say that NASA and
similar public-funded engineering concerns have their place.
	And given the (relatively slight) cost of NASA's yearly
budget, it's worth it for entertainment (IMHO).

		John Whitmore

In article <21...@clyde.concordia.ca> ad...@concour.cs.concordia.ca (STEELE adam) writes:
}I just saw someone on Canadian TV trying to justify the Hubble
}space telescope with the old "Small computers were developed for
}the Apollo missions, and without space exploration you wouldn't
}have your lap-top today" argument.  Vis the previous postings
}regarding NASA's use of tried and obsolete technology this claim
}seems a little suspect.

I was listening to a retired JPL engineer last night explaining how they
used state-of-the-art ICs in some of the Apollo missions.  At the time
SOTA was silicon on sapphire and he needed it to get enough logic gates on
one chip.  He still had to burn several hours of mainframe time optimizing
the logic to get what he needed to fit.  The technique wasn't yet
commercially available.

I guess not everything NASA uses is obsolete (just the mission critical
stuff).

-- 
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: holl...@ttidca.tti.com)
Citicorp(+)TTI                                    Illegitimis non
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 450-9111, x2483       Carborundum
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun | philabs | psivax}!ttidca!hollombe

In article <13...@ucsd.Edu> g...@ucsd.Edu (Gerard K. Newman) writes:
>Actually, I believe that TEFLON was first developed for the Manhattan
>Project as a semi-permanent lubricant for the gasseous diffusion process
>to separate enriched uranium.  The gasseous diffusion process uses UF6
>(Uranium Hexaflouride) gas, which, among other nasty habits, is very
>corrosive.

Teflon was first polymerized from tetrafluoroethylene in 1938, like so
many other wonders of science, by accident.  Its first practical use
was for gasketing material used for the Manhattan Project.

Later, Teflon was copolymerized with hexafluoropropylene to form
Teflon FEP.  This substance had the advantage that it could be bonded
to things much easier than Teflon itself.  I believe that it is 
actually Teflon FEP that is on frying pans, etc.

	--jtc

-- 
J.T. Conklin	UniFax Communications Inc.
		...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!jtc, j...@wimsey.bc.ca

In article <21...@clyde.concordia.ca> ad...@concour.cs.concordia.ca (STEELE adam) writes:

>     On a related note I had heard that Teflon was developed for
>frying pans, and only later found use as a heat sheild for
>spacecraft.  Anyway, my question is.  How much of an engine is

It wan't <developed for> anything! It mutated overnight in some guys
lab (the canister next to it, in exactly the same condition, DIDN'T
turn into Teflon (c?) dooDOOdooDOO) and he found it the next morning and
basically went "W the F?". Ref: Wall Street Journal, in weird column
they always put on left-hand side.
					Pegasus