Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_6/v16no620.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Tue, 25 May 93 05:00:21
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
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
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 May 93 10:45:51 GMT
From: Jim Hart <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dark sky property rights
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.econ

[e-mail] (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
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 03:35:53 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Earth to Mars Shuttle and cost!?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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 <[e-mail]>
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 [phone] FAX 464404
    | | |  _| | |    | email [e-mail] 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" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1tn3f7$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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 <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do the Soviets retrieve boken satellites?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, henry@zoo (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> "William F. O'Dell" <[e-mail]> 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    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 14:02:34 GMT
From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Impediments to NASA productivity
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> Brian Yamauchi,
[e-mail] 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" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Impediments to NASA productivity
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> Brian Yamauchi,
[e-mail] 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: [e-mail] (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 <[e-mail]>
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:[phone], Fax:[phone], [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 14:57:36 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, 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    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 93 08:53:59 EDT
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, 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    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 05:56:39 GMT
From: David Nash <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>Followups directed to vaguely relevant groups...
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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)
([e-mail])    | This .sig is made of 100% recycled electrons.
([e-mail])   | No binary trees were killed to make it.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 10:45:17 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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
    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 14:27:33 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In <1tlcaa$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 620
------------------------------