Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:26:20 06/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 1999 at 15:48:08, James B. Shearer wrote: >On June 03, 1999 at 22:58:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I hate to argue, but this is _all_ nonsense... what came out of the US space >>program? Micro-electronics, because weight and physical size was a _huge_ >>issue. No NASA, micro-electronics would be behind 20 years or more. More? >>Easy. Communications (satellites). Not really any need to enumerate them. >>The space program more than paid for itself in spin-offs that made life better >>all over the planet... > > This is absurd, without NASA the computer industry would be just about >where it is now. NASA is notorious for using chips which are far behind the >state of the art. (Actually there are some legitimate reasons for this as space >is a different environment and standard chips are not space rated. On the other >hand NASA moves very slowly compared to the electronics industry as shown for >example by the space shuttle computers which were frozen for many years becoming >more and more obselete. NASA slowly adopts industry innovations not vice >versa.) > James B. Shearer You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it right. Why not ask folks in the semiconductor industry in the 60's and 70's. I know them. I have seen them make presentations at conferences. And the space program was a _huge_ incentive. From 1960-1969 NASA dominated research in this country, with the "moon goal" mandate... Just because the shuttle uses 20 year old computers doesn't mean that this stuff wasn't developed for other things. (hint... satellites and anything else sent up into orbit where pounds = millions of bucks in fuel). Most computing history books cite this as a huge 'push' for micro-electronics as well as dozens of other fields...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.