Date: Tue, 25 May 93 05:00:21 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #620 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 25 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 620 Today's Topics: Dark sky property rights Earth to Mars Shuttle and cost!? (2 msgs) Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO (2 msgs) How do the Soviets retrieve boken satellites? Impediments to NASA productivity (2 msgs) In the Aftermath of Fred LE-7 CAPTIVE FIRING TEST (May 20) Moon Base Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons (2 msgs) Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" (2 msgs) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 May 93 10:45:51 GMT From: Jim Hart Subject: Dark sky property rights Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.econ dante@shakala.com (Charlie Prael) writes: >Jim--Actually, since airspace is a non-privately-held, governmentally >vested "property" right, dark sky would probably fall into the same >category. Nope. "Freedom of the Skies" treaties state that national soveriegnty stops at the edge of the atmosphere. No nation has jurisdiction over this case, so it must be settled by private arbitrators, much the same way the radio spectrum was divided up before the FCC stepped in and usurped it, and much the way Internet and Usenet flourish internationally with no FCC regulations. My suggestion is that the arbitrators create a fungible, tradable property, a win-win solution, instead of a win-lose absolutist solution of judging completely in favor of one side or the other. As for "disenfranchising" casual stargazers, they were never enfranchised in the first place; they have not invested in ground-based astronomy. Practically, there is no way except money for dark sky users to measurably demonstrate their level of commitment. If they want a piece of the action they can go down to the local telescope shop, buy a nice beginner's kit, and swap their receipts for megacandle certificates. I'm not claiming this is 100% fair, but the property rights have to be defined somehow. No totally fair solution is possible, but distributing the property among astronomers by their proportion of investment in ground-based astronomy is reasonably fair, eg it is far fairer than deciding absolutely and inflexibly in favor of one side or the other. If a U.S. court refuses to recognize those property rights, eg by deciding to ban adsats that have properly purchased megacandles, they will have to enforce the ban by violating the international treaties and shooting down the adsat when Russia or Europe, China, Japan, Brazil, Kazakhistan, India, Israel, Pakistan, etc. launches it. The chances of this are small enough insurance will cover it. I also hope my country is not so stupid and hypocritical as to promote free enterprise and then violate both property rights and international treaty is such a violent and polluting manner. Jim Hart jhart@agora.rain.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 03:35:53 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Earth to Mars Shuttle and cost!? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May23.151446.9823@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >If the run is going to be regular, frequent, and continuing, I don't >think there's much doubt that the latter 3 step option (with a station >at each end to smooth scheduling and logistics) would be the best. Each >piece can be optimized for it's very different mission profile. If there >are to be only a few, or one, Mars missions, a Mars direct approach would >be cheaper. The best approach would probably be using direct launches to set up the infrastructure needed for the "3 step" transfers... Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 08:49:25 GMT From: Peter J Card Subject: Earth to Mars Shuttle and cost!? Newsgroups: sci.space I once saw a late night talk show on (British) Channel 4, with Buzz Aldrin featuring in the guest list, with a few other space types. When he was asked "where do you see space science going in the future" he proceeded to explain in some detail his proposal for a Mars shuttle. This is not normal behaviour on talk shows :-( His basic idea was that you need all sorts of life support, power, etc for an extended manned mission. If you use it only on one round trip its a waste, and if you repeatedly change velocity of this heavy spacecraft, its an even bigger waste. So you insert what is essentially a large habitat into an Earth/Mars transfer orbit, and leave it there. Crew, passengers, consumables etc must then be transferred at each end of the trip, by a.n. other spacecraft, but your Mars Liner just goes round and round. Pretty neat idea eh? Its really only relevent in the context of large scale prolonged human habitation on Mars. -- __._____.___._____.__._______________________________________________________ __|_. ._| ._|_._._|__| Peter Card, Joint European Torus, Abingdon | | | |_. | | | Oxfordshire OX14 3EA UK. tel 0235-464867 FAX 464404 | | | _| | | | email pjc@jet.uk or compuserve 100010,366 ._| | | |_. | | | It wasnt me. It was the others. They made me do it. --`--~'-+---+-+-+----+------------------------------------------------------- - Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not be construed as an official comment from the JET project. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 12:50:40 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1tn3f7$e4o@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes: >>"Use of Saturn V as an HLLV Option", a presentation before the House >>Science Space Subcommittee by Ronald Harris of the NASA Office of Space >>Flight on March 14, 1991. >>The mass of the orbiter is a pointless thing to consider. A launcher which >>lifted a million pounds to LEO but only one ounce of payload would win >>your contest but would be a pretty useless operational launcher. >>The only figures of merit are capability and cost. >I agree that capability and cost are important. Good. They are in fact, all that matters for operational systems. What ISN'T important is complexity for the sake of complexity. Yet your praise for the Shuttle seems to be based entirely on that. >but, I disagree with >your methodology. I have attempted to illustrate the engineering >and technical merits of the orbiter If your into complexity for the sake of complexity, sure it's great. But I (to quote the bard) am but an engineer for the working day. I prefer simple machines since their cheaper and more reliable. Shuttle fails this criteria. >(although some still refuse to acknowledge >the feats performed by the shuttle). Nobody refused to acknowledge that. It's just that we want to see an active and growing space program. Shuttle is simply very destructive to that goal. You, on the other hand, seem happy with a space program where we spend billions finding out (yet again) what happens when ants, bees, or whatever get exposed to zero-G. All you seem to want is cute pictures of people floating around on CNN a few times a year. If that is indeed all you want, congrats, your there! Some of us however, want a lot more. >The orbiter's mass is not pointless to consider. Say you want to move to a new house. You ask two movers for estimates. Mover A offers to do it for $3,000. Mover B offers to do it for $9,000 but assures you that it's a bargin since his truck weighs a lot more than Mover A's truck so your actually moving more weight with him so cost per pound is lower. You seem to be saying you would give your $$ to mover B. Is that actually true? >If I really wanted to limit the discussion to payload, I could >have counted the Command Module as the ultimate payload of the Saturn V! No, we are comparing payload to LEO. If you want to compare payload to lunar orbit, that's another matter. >Clearly that is incorrect. so, the basis of my decision to include the >orbiter's mass in the mass to LEO calculation is based on inclusion of the >total mass injected into orbit by the launch system in question. Again, the figure of merit is PAYLOAD/pound to LEO, not MASS/pound to LEO. >The S-V vehicle put up the whole S-IV-B stage plus the LEM-CSM-escape tower. >If all of those pieces are gonna get talleyed into the S-V mass to orbit >figure, why shouldn't the orbiter's mass be talleyed in to LEO calc? I'm not including the S-IVB stage in the calculation. I am measuring payload and nothing more. For a half billion $$ you can sent 50,000 pounds to LEO with Shuttle or 250,000 to LEO with Saturn. >It belongs in the calculation. I thought the place you would object to >my calculations was in the cost area. But apparently you took a pass. There's nothing to argue. Cost is: (Incrimental cost * flight rate) + (fixed costs/flight rate) + (development costs (including interest)/flight rate). All things equal, Shuttle is by a wide margine the most expensive way to put a pound into orbit. >BTW, where did you get the other figures in your post about estimates >for shuttle manufacturing, Saturn V vehicles per copy, etc. All Saturn costs came from the source named above. Shuttle 1985 development costs are from a presentation given to the Augustine Commission. Shuttle operations costs come from the NASA budget. >I continue >to believe that the Shuttle has the best payload to LEO record (i.e. >most mass to LEO Saturn is close and may or may not beat Shuttle. But if you want the record, I would say to talk to the Russians, they should have it hands down. >and most mass returned from LEO of any space vehicle) Since this mass is billion $$ hardware we haul up (at a cost of more billions) and use for a week or so just to haul it back down, I would be embarased to have that record. The real real record should go to the Russians since they store their experiments in space where they can be used instead of in a wharehouse collecting dust. >I am digging up the US Budgets and am planning to assess the NASA budgets >for Saturn V and STS development. Would appreciate an available source >detailing line-by-line NASA expenditures. References anyone? I already gave you the numbers but feel free to confirm them. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lady Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!" | | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." | +----------------------23 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 14:54:18 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May23.073155.9795@ee.ubc.ca> davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes: >You're forgetting that a Saturn-V derived HLLV for LEO has only *two* stages: >An S-IC and an S-II. In that configuration it puts 235,000 pounds into LEO. If you add a S-IVB stage, it goes up to 260,000 pounds. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lady Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!" | | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." | +----------------------23 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 93 08:03:42 EDT From: Chris Jones Subject: How do the Soviets retrieve boken satellites? Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article "William F. O'Dell" writes: >>How do the Soviets retrieve scewed up satellites?-Or do they? > >In general, they don't. They did do a major repair job on one of their >space stations -- Salyut 6? -- by the obvious method of docking a Soyuz >to it. Salyut 7. And, as a Canadian, I'm surprised you left out the tried and true "dump it in the Great White North and let the Canadian DND clean it up"! -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 14:02:34 GMT From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" Subject: Impediments to NASA productivity Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article Brian Yamauchi, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu writes: > My suggestion would be to specify only the design requirements for > products, then adopt a completely "hands-off" approach until the > product is delivered -- with the understanding that if the product is > not delivered on time, on budget, and up to spec, the contractor won't > receive any future projects. I couldn't agree more. However, I would add that any contract should include a commitment to stable funding by the government with monetary penalties to the government for pulling funding in the middle of projects. Norman Dr. Norman J. LaFave Senior Engineer Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro Hunter Thompson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 14:02:59 GMT From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" Subject: Impediments to NASA productivity Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article Brian Yamauchi, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu writes: > My suggestion would be to specify only the design requirements for > products, then adopt a completely "hands-off" approach until the > product is delivered -- with the understanding that if the product is > not delivered on time, on budget, and up to spec, the contractor won't > receive any future projects. I couldn't agree more. However, I would add that any contract should include a commitment to stable funding by the government with monetary penalties to the government for pulling funding in the middle of projects. Norman Dr. Norman J. LaFave Senior Engineer Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro Hunter Thompson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 93 08:45:22 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) Subject: In the Aftermath of Fred Brian Yamauchi writes: >Suppose space station gets cancelled, either this year or some time in >the near future. Any speculation about what happens next at NASA? >What should space activists be hoping for? >For those who are anti-NASA and also skeptical about the Delta >Clipper, what do you suggest as an alternative? > >(I'm familiar with the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act, and I think >it's a good idea -- but what else?) First of all, nothing will change NASA's behavior except punishment in the form of reduction in funding and/or legal action against its management. I say that as an activist instrumental in two successful legislative measures to reform NASA. NASA is ignoring the substance of those laws and its management is legally liable for this insolence. Meanwhile, programs like Fred explode in everyone's face. Specifically, the Clinton administration Dept. of Justice should start by investigating the NASA Inspector General's office and then proceed to investigate the monumental lobbying activities in support of Space Station Fred -- prosecuting under the most reasonable modern interpretation of the Hatch Act: political activity by those receiving government funding for the continuance of that funding is actionable. The comments of lawyers from Harvard notwithstanding, we have to start being reasonable about our interpretations of the intent of laws like the Hatch Act. Things are really out of hand in Washington and the boys from the Ivy League are an intrinsic part of the problem. The most important thing activists can do is work to unelect the most visible leaders in the Space Station Fred corruption, as some of us did in defeating Bill Lowery here in La Jolla after he took the lead in resurrecting SSF within the Appropriations Committee when that committee tried to kill it. It was a stroke of luck that Lowery happened to be MY representative. :-) Finding ways to take all of this into the courts, which is the only place that isn't collapsing into the Hatch Act black hole at present, is also something very valuable for activists to do. For example, I'd like to find a way to pull people like Charlie Gunn at NASA into court and prosecute them for attempting to subvert the intent of the Launch Services Purchase Act by making all expendible purchases out through two decades in one large block. The Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee in the House could be lobbied to get their act together and take action against this Gunn character -- although it might be necessary to set up some sort of independent legal agency like the Christic Institute or ACLU to pursue these issues, due to political noise in the House Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee. Secondly, proposals like the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act are about as PRO-NASA as you can get. Anything that gets NASA out of the technology/operations end of things and into focusing on science is going to make NASA's funding more robust in the face of increasingly serious demands that NASA perform up to expectations. Science has the beauty of embodying no particular expectations -- it is widely recognized as being both valuable and an appropriate function of government. By providing incentives through purchases of data and other mission objectives, NASA can also take credit for the successful missions to obtain the same even though NASA didn't directly fund or manage the programs. When people start seeing lots of novel activity in space, they will be more excited about space and will naturally give substantial credit to NASA just as the people give a mythic wise king credit when he incites the young men of his relm to slay the dragon by offering the victor the hand of his daughter in marriage. The politics of this sort of incentive are very old and well understood. NASA's credibility and budget would increase, as would the number of people under its influence while the number civil servants in NASA and contractors directly managed by NASA decreased dramatically. Third, There are lots of proposals like the LRDPA -- for example the Space Science Trust Act (which I believe is archived somewhere on the net) is a generalized form of the LRDPA. Launch vouchers are a good idea that is now in an experimental program -- although its funding is too small to have a substantial impact on the availability of launch services to scientists or to significantly impact the launch market for entrepreneurial launch firms. Then there is the old Citizen's Advisory Council idea of just paying $X/lb for mass launched into orbit, regardless of content, up to some maximum per year. In its simplicity, a great idea for which which Jerry Pournelle and buddies deserve kudos. There is also a Fusion Energy Incentives Act which the DoE is terrified of at present (their fusion program is in even worse shape than Space Station Fred) which NASA actually might WANT to implement were it passed. I've focused my efforts in fusion recently since that is a much bigger bang for the buck politically and economically than just about anything else. It really doesn't take that much imagination to come up with all kinds of specific "Purchase Acts" which create enormous incentives for private capital to get into the game and play. Such an environment would eliminate the conflict between "jobs" and "incentives" that is plaguing our government-funded aerospace industry. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 10:29:39 GMT From: Kazuo Yoshida NASDA/TKSC Subject: LE-7 CAPTIVE FIRING TEST (May 20) Newsgroups: sci.space PRESS RELEASE LE-7 CAPTIVE FIRING TEST May 20, 1993 NASDA HQ, Tokyo National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA) successfully conducted a captive firing test of LE-7 engine for H-II launch vehicle at the Yoshinobu (H-II) Launch Complex, Osaki Range, Tanegashima Space Center(Address: Minamitane-machi, Kumage-gun, Kagoshima 891-37). Ignition time: PM 6:55, May 20, 1993 Firing Duration: 20 seconds Firing Condition: Good **************************************************** For further information, please contact the following: Yoko Inomata, Akiko Suzuki/NASDA Public Relations Office, Tokyo Phone:03-5470-4283, Fax:03-5470-4130, asuzuki@rd.tksc.nasda.go.jp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 14:57:36 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Moon Base Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May23.161212.10346@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >Lunar bases don't make economic or scientific sense, and they aren't >*necessary* stepping stones to the more interesting targets. Ah, but they are. The first mining facilities MUST be on the moon because that's the only place where they will get a realistic test where it doesn't take years to fix bugs. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lady Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!" | | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." | +----------------------23 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 93 08:51:00 EDT From: Chris Jones Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May22.174416.28716@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu (Frank Crary) writes: > The Soyuz is launched on the Soyuz (the >Soviet press named launch vehicles after the first spacecraft >they launched...) aka SL-4 aka "Type A-3" launch vehicle. The Soyuz was not the first vehicle launched by this booster. The two Voskhod flights used this launcher, as did their (and Soyuuzes) unmanned precursors flown under the Kosmos banner. I don't know what was the first use. (Similarly, the "Vostok" booster was used to launch the early Luna probes and the Korabl Sputnik series before Vostok 1.) I don't have a reference in front of me, so this may be wrong, but here is how I remember the designations: "Sputnik" SL-1, SL-2 A "Vostok" SL-3 A1 "Soyuz" SL-4 A2 "Molniya" SL-6 A2e -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 93 08:53:59 EDT From: Chris Jones Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May24.024539.12481@ee.ubc.ca>, davem@ee (Dave Michelson) writes: >Note that the Soyuz-derived Zond *was* launched by a Proton (SL-12). This >may be the source of the confusion. I thought it was the SL-13, but I don't have a reference here. Can anyone support or correct the following: Proton 2 stage SL-9 D Proton 3 stage SL-12 D1 Proton 4 stage SL-13 D1e -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 05:56:39 GMT From: David Nash Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <1993May24.032039.29815@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >Followups directed to vaguely relevant groups... > >In article <1993May20.143057.4577@head-cfa.harvard.edu> ov@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Olaf Vancura) writes: >>...Ground based optical ("visible") astronomy is NOT >>a "dying" field at all. Optical astronomy is as important as ever. > >Once, all astronomy was optical and it was impossible to do any >work in the field without such observations. Today, it's fairly >easy to get a PhD without ever using visible, ground based data. >It should be obvious that optical astronomy isn't "as >improtant as ever." (That's a worse exageration that my original >use of the word, "dying".) No, it is not "obvious." You are pointing out, correctly, that the visible- spectrum slice of the astronomy "pie" has shrunk a lot. You keep forget- ting (or are conveniently ignoring) that the pie itself is getting larger. As at least one other recent participant on this thread has pointed out, although the fraction of astronomy research being done in the visible is decreasing, the ABSOLUTE amount of such research is increasing. Furthermore, the instrumentation and ideas are just getting better and better with time. If quality and quantity of research are _any_ indication of its "importance", visible-spectrum astronomy is _more_ "important than ever." >>...As for >>atmospheric distortions, recently declassified DoD technology using >>adaptive interactive optics virtually alleviates the problem to the >>diffraction limit. > >If you are working above, say, 5-10 microns. Since I refered to >visible astronomy, not infrared astronomy, the new adaptive >optics aren't all that relevant. So cases of AO being used anywhere BELOW 5 microns aren't "all that relevant"? I see. This "adaptive optics don't work/aren't relevant in the visible" mantra is, to put it bluntly, getting pathetic. Right now I count no less than four posts to sci.astro that outline cases where AO has been, or is being, used to improve observations taken in the visible. Moreover, I know I've seen at least one for the near-IR below "5-10 microns." This is just in the last week, and does not include descriptions of the AO-2 device being sold to amateurs (which is sort of related, but not exactly in the same league as the professional applcations of AO). One wonders just how much of this discussion you are following. >Venus is easily bright enough for people to see and notice (and >in fact, occasionally make people think they saw a UFO...) How much >of a problem is light pollution from Venus? How close does Venus I don't really know how much Venus affects actual research observations, but I do know that it is bright enough to cast a shadow at a sufficiently dark site. > Frank Crary > CU Boulder -- David Nash | University of Illinois (Urbana) (dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) | This .sig is made of 100% recycled electrons. (nash@aries.scs.uiuc.edu) | No binary trees were killed to make it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 10:45:17 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >> If you look at polling information, the space program comes in next to >> last as a priority for funding; only defense is lower... > > This depends a whole lot on what sort of question you ask, as is usual > with such things. For example, Joe Average typically has a wildly > inflated idea of the size of the NASA budget, and supplying a bit of > information with the question can change the answer quite a bit. Interpreting polling numbers requires some effort. The responses are not usually internally consistent. For example, in polls on the federal budget, responses seem to indicate that (1) people want to budget to decrease, and (2) they just don't want any individual *parts* of the budget to decrease. What one has to do is normalize by looking at the relative support for various parts of the budget. By this measure, NASA fairs very badly (worse than farm subsidy programs, for example). As for asking the question you could also push it in the otother direction. For example: "Given that the federal government spends roughly twice as much on NASA as it does on medical research, should NASA funding be increased or decreased?" Such leading questions, in one direction or the other, aren't very informative. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 14:27:33 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In <1tlcaa$5d8@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >In article <1993May21.153330.538@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >> >>Uh, don't look now, but we sure seem to do a lot of business selling >>weapons systems to other countries. You might also want to examine >>the trade deficit with regard to Europe. You'll find we sell them a >>lot more than they sell us and that part of what we sell them is >>things like F-16 fighters, radar sets, etc. >> >Of course, The net contribution to the US GDP by foreign weapons >sales is kind of poor. Well, the net contribution of any single item is kind of poor. >We sell front line weapons to unstable third world countries, then >we have to increase our own military presence, because these >countries become more dangerous. Not strictly true. Yes, they potentially become 'more dangerous', but they can't do a whole lot unless you continue to sell them spares or they buy elsewhere. See Iran for an example. >Also a number of our client states, do not pay cash on the barrel, >but rather pay in FOreign military sales credits (FMCs). Note that I didn't mention everywhere, but just Europe. I suspect I'm at least as aware and informed as Pat is about how this works, since it is what I do for a living. >SO thus the US taxpayers are underwriting those sales. You neglect a lot of factors here, like how producing things for sale to another country makes them cheaper for *us* to buy because of economies of scale and increased production runs for amortization of production tooling, etc. >Even with the arabs, They pay cash, but then we give weapons to israel >to balance them out. Not real good for our GDP. Except, of course, that we then have increased leverage in the area, which is much better for our GDP. Not to mention those larger production runs. >Besides, I think the europeans build 80-90% of their weapons platforms, >or even when we sell them, it's on a co-production basis, a degraded >value exchange. Which is much better than no exchange at all. Or do jobs in this country that are saved by those kinds of co-production deals not matter to you? No doubt the lower cost of U.S. military acquisitions is also unimportant. >I know the reagan administration boosted foreign military sales >activities, but I think it just made life more unstable and complex. I think you're wrong. Just examine what those countries were doing before they started buying U.S. arms. As a hint, they just bought elsewhere and someone else got all the benefits. >> >>[Don't rely on my being 100% objective, either, although I try to be. >What can I say:-) Well, you might try, "I think I'll take another cheap shot..." ;-) -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 620 ------------------------------