Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_6/v16no628.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 36KB

Date: Wed, 26 May 93 05:11:31
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #628
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 26 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 628

Today's Topics:
              Detecting planets in other system (2 msgs)
        Hey Ken! You awake? You exist? (LEO Cost; Return cost)
                  Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
                          Moon Base (2 msgs)
                         Moon vs other bodies
                Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
                          non-solar planets
             Question about B&W markings on US launchers
           Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
               Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"

    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: Tue, 25 May 1993 18:17:15 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>(1) Isn't there a plasma frequency effect in the interplanetary medium that
>blocks off kilometric radioation from outside the solar system? I remember A.C.
>Clarke talking all about this in Imperial Earth, but I don't remember any
>scientific analysis of this...

There probably is, if you are already on orbit: Radio waves will reflect
off a plasma if their frequency is under the electron plasma frequency,
~9000SQRT(n) (where n is the plasma density in particles per cubic cm.)
If the interplanetary medium had a density of ~2 (which is about right
for the denser parts, I think), it would block kilometric radio.
But you have a much greater problem for Earth-based observations: The
ionosphere is a weak plasma with a frequency of 5-10 MHz (200-m wavelength
or so...) So Earth based observers can't even see all of the decametric
band, let alone the kilometric.

>(2) If planets with magnetic fields emit strong polarised radioation at theese
>wavelengths, won't magnetic stars do it even more?

Not necessarily: The magnetic field isn't the only requirement. There
must also be a source of particles being dumped into the fields. For
a planet, the solar wind is a good source (as are moons, sometimes:
The Jovian DAM is produced by the Io plasma torus). But for stars,
I can't think of any particle source. Interstellar plasma wouldn't
work since the dynamic pressure of the solar wind keeps it at a
distance. A double star might emitt, however...

>...Since you'd have hardly any
>angular resolution at these wavelengths, how would you twell whether it was a
>planet or a star?

It's a bit worse than that: The resolution of a good, 27km baseline
array in the kilometric would be over half a degree. I'm not
sure you could tell solar system you were looking at...

                                                         Frank Crary
                                                         CU Boulder

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 18:37:10 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:
>>Actually, an interferometer(sp?) array in the thermal IR has a reasonable
>>chance, if you can get a couple of orbital telescopes and a baseline
>>of ~500,000 km. In the thermal IR the signal to noise (i.e. star's
>>flux to that of the planet) is greatest, since you are in the peak of
>>the planet's Plank curve but well away from the star's peak.

>Aside from the evident difficulty of accomplishing such a feat over that
>heroic baseline, there is a pervasive fallacy implicit here. One finds it
>in many places, occasionaly even in the peer-reviewed literature. I know
>Frank is aware of this, but it should always be pointed out.

>Given all other factors being equal, of two black bodies with different
>temperatures, the body having the higher temperature is the brighter at
>every wavelength.

The star will always be brighter, but the real question is how much
brighter? For (say) a 2.3-m gaussian apadized mirror at 23 microns,
two objects would have to be ~1E-6 radians (0.2 arcsec) apart
per three magnitudes of brightness difference (actually, per e-folding,
but...) For the 14 magnitude difference between Jupiter and the
Sun, that would mean a 1 arc-sec seperation... That would work
for a star within 5 parsec.

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder

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

Date: 25 May 1993 14:27:06 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Ken! You awake? You exist? (LEO Cost; Return cost)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:

>BTW, you never answered my last post, with the _list_ of why
>Space Scuttle isn't the end-all and be-all of US technology;
>I even mailed a copy to you.

>Is your silence embarrasment? Guilt? Or willful ignorance?

>I'm beginning to wonder if this is the "real" Ken, or just someone
>"borrowing" his account for McElwaine-type hit-and-run posts...

>"Ken," it isn't important if it takes more money to return something
>than it does to build another one and launch it. Sorry.

Yo guys,

Some people have stuff to do away from the board.  I have exams
all week in EKG, dermatology, critical care medicine, nutrition,
preventive medicine, a paper in law class due, opthalmology,
radiation biology, and otolaryngology.  So, its gonna be a few
days until I post my full responses to the board.  Just
let me say this...

the shuttle flights to recover the satillites and service them
or return them were significant technical achievements.  They
told us how to prepare for satillites rescue missions, how to
organize them, conduct them, and to care them off.  They illuminated
the weaknesses which we had previous to flying them, weaknesses
which have been addressed.

I see that the Fred and Allen team insist that the mass of the
orbiter or S-IV-B (Saturn third stage) are not relevant when
assessing the capabilities of the Saturn or Shuttle launchers.

I still beg to differ.  Your analogies of moving vans are not
applicable in this case.  Allen's original post dealt with total
mass to LEO, unless he is prepared to change his statement (i.e.
retract it...).  The issue is the capability of the two systems
to put heavy and large payloads into LEO.

Mr. Sherzer later posted a message about how we should reopen
the Saturn V line.  While I would enjoy watching a Saturn V fly,
I think its probably uneconomical to do this, especially when
modifications to the STS could provide a similar service without
the major pad modifications required to support Saturn vehicles.
This opinion (at this point a hunch) is what prompted me to
request more specifics and exact references for the document,
which I am pleased Mr. Sherzer provided.

In the immediate future (i.e. after my exams and paper is done),
I shall be posting the data I will be collecting on the Saturn V
launch vehicles total mass put into LEO.

The mass is relevant since larger masses usually mean larger structures.
Larger structures (i.e. greater mass to LEO capabilities) mean
a greater capability to integrate complex payloads on the ground.

As for Mr. Fraering's long post on shuttle technical issues...
I appreciated his post, did not receive the e-mail until today,
and will take awhile to digest every aspect of the mail.  I appreciate
the technical nature of the document and hope that it is a sign
of good posts to come.

Gentlemen, I know you don't care for my view of shuttle;
I admire your faith in DC-Y...but I think you should be more
realistic about it.  You are promising too much to those that are
unfamiliar with the technical demands of spaceflight.  When you
over sell DC-Y/X/ SX-2, you do the samething that your predecessors
did for shuttle...over sell to the populous while understanding the
engineering limitations behind closed doors.

ken
(out to study, will be back in 1 week)

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 19:02:49 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1ts3c5$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1tpt1o$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>>>Mr. Sherzer originally posted that he felt
>>>>As a rough guess I would say that in 10 years Shuttle has delivered
>>>>to LEO about as much as Saturn V did in 4 years.
>>>I have been criticized for not making an appropriate comparison.
>>>I would remind you that I retracted my statement about STS delivering
>>>the most mass to orbit.  I have not heard Mr. Sherzer retract his
>>>statement made above.
>>Why should he retract it if it is true?

>Because I'm gonna show that when you look at the mass the Saturn V delivered
>to orbit and the mass that the shuttle system has delivered to orbit, that
>the shuttle will surpass the Saturn V's record.

Uh, shouldn't the order then be that *first* you show it and *then* he
retracts, assuming you are successful with that first bit?  One more
time, why should he retract it if it is true?

>>>I am attempting to ascertain the validity of this statement in
>>>an objective manner.  A basic tenet of the scientific method
>>>is to approach issues as objectively as possible.  Several of
>>>you appear unprepared to drop your subjectivity in this
>>>analysis.

>>Let me get this straight.  You're a doctor criticizing engineers over
>>their objectivity when looking at the engineering of various vehicles?

>NO!
>I am a doctor who is criticizing some of your *lack* of objectivity.
>Hence your desire to delete the mass of the orbiter from the calculation
>of the total mass delivered to orbit by the STS.

I suppose you also count the weight of an aircraft or truck when you
talk about pounds of cargo moved?  No?  Then why do you persist in
this silly idea of counting the *vehicle* in with the mass for the
Shuttle?

>>In another note, you criticize a comment Pat made because he couldn't
>>understand the technical difficulty or degree of complexity of
>>developing a new medical treatment, yet here you are, a doctor telling
>>engineers that you understand their field better than they do.

>I'm not aware that Pat is an engineer.

Well, I'm not sure exactly what Pat is, but Pat is not the only one
you're telling that you know better.

>I apparently am more realistic than you are about spaceflight.

Only to your own unobjective and unrealistic measures.

>I think some of you excessive shuttle
>critics are overly enthusiastic about delta clipper.  In addition,
>I really object to attempts to compare Delta Clipper and shuttle.
>DC is not (to my knowledge) useful in the station program or in
>medical applications.  I think only shuttle can fulfill the requirements
>for medical studies on orbit.

Wrong on multiple counts.  Sounds like you need to expand your
knowledge.

>>I do know Alan personally (we used to work at the same facility down
>>here).  While I am of the opinion that some of his costing
>>measurements for Shuttle costs vice the costs of some expendables are
>>somewhat unfair in how they elect to measure, I would say that his
>>engineering is sound; particularly when compared to that of a doctor
>>of medicine.  One can look at the two systems (Shuttle and DC) and see
>>the difference immediately.  Shuttle is *designed* to require
>>extensive refurbishment after each and every flight and pushes its
>>design to the limits.  DC does not do those things.  So you tell me
>>what's reasonable to believe when comparing the two.

>It doesn't take a B.S. in engineering to do budgeting calculations
>buddy.

That's right, buddy, it doesn't.  It does, however, apparently take
more than a medical degree.

>Perhaps, you should stop being critical of the orbiter and
>prepare for your own cost-overruns in the DC-program.  I'm very
>skeptical of the projections made by the DC-program.  They appear
>overly simplistic and don't address several issues which have already
>been raised by others on this net.

You appear somewhat confused here.  The costs of the 'standing army'
aren't *overruns*; they are part of the *designed operation* of the
Shuttle.  The DC program could overrun to the same degree the Shuttle
did, have problems achieving the mass fraction desired, and *still* be
more useful for more things than Shuttle.  Alan posted all of this
some time back.  If you ask nice, perhaps he'll repost the numbers for
you.

I am critical of the Shuttle because it is a bad design in the only
way that matters -- it is unsafe with no recovery during the most
critical part of the flight.  If something happens while the solid are
lit, the crew is toast.  No way out that's feasible.  It costs
ridiculous amounts of money to 'refurbish' for reflight.  I don't view
this as the fault of the designers, or even necessarily of NASA.
Congress got the Shuttle that they were willing to fund.  I believe
Wales Larrison (?) posted quite a bit about this some years back.

>I seem to recall one post which went unanswered dealing with the
>landing mode of the vehicle.  I.E. how does a pilot or computer
>land the thing?

The same way one lands *anything*; one gets it lower and lower to the
ground until they gently collide, at which point one turns off the
engines.  Presumably you're referring here to the idea that the pilot
cannot necessarily see the ground (because he is tail-down).  I'm not
sure why you think this is a problem.  Navy pilots land on things
where they have to be directed in by a third party all the time.

--
"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.

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 18:48:14 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>>>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.

>>True, if mining is the only goal of deep space missions. But if the
>>purpose of a Mars mission isn't mining, they the debuging a mining
>>operation isn't too usefull.

>Agreed. If all you want is a few flag and footprint Mars flights there
>is no reason to go to the moon. If you want to see longer term or permanent
>efforts on Mars, Lunar mining facilities will be a necessay step or it
>will simply cost too much.

Since when are "flags and footprints" and mining the only alternatives?
There are many other reasons for long-term of permanent presence, that
have nothing at all to do with mining.

Costing too much, by the way, is relative: Adding in the cost of a
Lunar testbed makes most Mars architectures cost too much.

>>Also, you are assuming the problems
>>encountered on the Moon would be similar to those encountered
>>elsewhere. I don't se why that would be the case.

>Not 100% but the closest we will come without going to Mars.

>I think a 'test flight' to the moon would be a good idea to flight qualify
>the Mars hardware.

It would be a good idea, if the costs of such testing didn't out weigh
the benefits. In most cases (EVA equipment, life support systems,
surface equipment such as rovers, power supplys, surface to orbit
vehicles, in situ resources, etc...) Mars and the Moon are too different
for the tests to be very usefull. Usefull or not, however, Lunar testing
would add a huge amount to the cost (depending on the architecture,
it could easily double the costs over the first decade.)

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 16:55:06 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>The only real scientific mission of value to Luna would be a radio observatory
>on the farside where the sensitive receivers could be shielded effectively
>from the radio noise of Earth. Optical observatories are probably better
>placed in open space because of the microscopic distortions introduced by
>the Lunar gravity field, though there is something to be said for a large
>inactive anchor point. That would be disturbed by lunar mining and blasting,
>so the two are unlikely to coexist happily.

Wrong about optical observatories. Optical interferometers could be built
on the Moon, as it is a stable structure to optical wavelenght dimensions.
An array of interferometric telescopes on the Moon could image Earth-like
planets around near-by stars. This could not be done on the moving plates
of the Earth, or in space.
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada              *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3*
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 93 16:10:43 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon vs other bodies

Henry sez;
>>>Commercial justification for a return to the Moon is slim, but for
>>anything else -- Mars, asteroids, etc. -- it's nil.

Tom replies;
>>... this seems a little premature...

>Certainly.  But we're talking about justifications *now*, not ones that
>might perhaps possibly come into existence *after* considerable further
>exploration.

But, since there is such a dearth of hard information
about the usefulness of other bodies, there would be better justification
for missions which get this data before (much more expensive) missions to
use resources on the moon.

>>It seems there would be a large commercial justification in finding out
>>what they actually are made of, since if our expectations are correct,
>>they would make valuable targets for further exploration and/or exploitation.

>Who's the customer for the exploitation?  Companies don't do exploration
>unless they think there is a reasonable chance of profiting from it in
>the long run.  Precise definitions of "reasonable chance" and "long run"
>depend on the amounts of money involved... and the price tags attached
>to NASA-style exploration (the only type with a track record) are so
>ghastly that any rational company will want to see committed customers
>(willing to pay high prices) before sinking any money into this.  There
>aren't any.

Who would be the customer for exploitation anywhere?

I'm just thinking, considering the high cost of setting up operations
either on the moon or anywhere else, it would be prudent to risk a
(relatively) small amount to learn the opportunities elsewhere before
spending huge amounts trying to do things on the moon.  If the other bodies
were composed of the same material, then those exploratory missions
would be a waste.  But since we expect them to be made of more diverse,
and also more useful stuff, potential investors in either project
might rather risk a few bucks finding a better opportunity for the
big project.  Since we haven't learned much about them, that possiblity
still exists.

Maybe I'm making an incorrect assumption that exploration, despite it's
high costs, is far less expensive (2? 3? orders) than commercial
operations.

Wouldn't potential investors like to learn of the other possibilities,
relatively cheaply, before committing big bucks to operations?  It
seems like the mining industry might be a good analogy.  They set up
10 times or more core sample operations than they do actual excavations,
for the same reason, putting the big bucks where it counts.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 20:02:58 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Dillon Pyron) writes:


>"Boys, Joe didn't do nothin' illegal here.  I do hear tell that them Alpha
>Centoorians are gonna kill every fourth man woman and child unless we show them
>how bad we feel about it.  Okay, Joe, you're free to go."

I was being facesious in the statements you're following up to...

>Get the picture? ;-)

Get this: a man murdered a Japanese exchange student in BR and
was acquitted. A great miscarriage of justice. But he got away
with it, and the student wasn't even shooting at a Martian.

>--
>Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
>TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
>[phone] (when I'm here)     |
>[phone] (when I'm home)     |Compressed air is a drug, and I need a fix
>[e-mail]          |
>PADI DM-54909                     |

--

+-----------------------+---------------------------------------+
|Phil Fraering          | "...drag them, kicking and screaming, |
|[e-mail] | into the Century of the Fruitbat."    |
+-----------------------+-Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_---------+

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 93 11:03:52 CDT
From: Victor Laking <[e-mail]>
Subject: non-solar planets
Newsgroups: sci.space

With all this recent discussion about planets around other stars, I
wouldn't mind it if someone could give some info about what HAS been
discovered instead of just methods to do so.

Years ago, I was at a lecture by the head of the local planetaruim and he
mentioned that some bodies (believed to be gas giants at the time) were
discovered around Vega.  Apparently they discovered them by accident.
From what I remember, they wanted to calibrate a new sattelite
(pre-Hubble) and chose a known star to work with - Vega.  They noticed
discrepancies and eventually realized that it was due to planets.

Is anything more known about this or any other bodies orbiting other
stars?  Does anyone know how many and/or what type of planets have been
found around which stars?

[e-mail]
The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 488-1607

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 18:22:37 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question about B&W markings on US launchers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Parsons) writes:
>Why do several US launchers (especially early ones like Redstone, Titan
>and Saturn) have strong black and white stripe markings?
>...
>As far as I'm aware, Russian and European launchers do not have, and have
>never had, such markings. Why not?

FYI:
The last N-1 launched had its third stage painted white on roughly
one half of its side while the rest of the booster was gray or
probably a dark metal finish. The shroud was white. Some of the other N-1's
seem to have been all white, but this is only a very preliminary finding.
The Proton has a black stripe horizontally above the 1st stage engines, and
the inner tank is silver or gray while the outer tanks are white
making them stand out well. The Soyuz type usually has very few large
markings (recent advertisments excepted), but the dark green paint
contasts well with the frost that forms over the LOX tanks and can
easily be seen for some time after launch. The Zenit has large vertical
stripes on the payload shroud and a checker board pattern at the base
of the 2nd stage. The Tsyklon also has checker board and stripes, and the
Kosmos has several horizontal stripes and a checker board pattern.
Some fuzzy pictures of the SS-6 ICBM tests show probably a checkerboard
pattern around the nose. Also many US V-2 tests had bold markings and I
think German V-2 test flights also had bold markings sometimes.

As far as I know most of these markings are just to aid visual tracking.
You probably can compare these markings to those used on flight test
aircraft of F-14's, 15's, and 18's, some of which had bold color patterns.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 21:21:20 GMT
From: Larry Klaes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

    Based on some recent comments in the sci.space newsgroup, I
    was wondering if there are some who could tell me what in Tom
    Wolfe's novel on the MERCURY astronauts, THE RIGHT STUFF, is
    accurate and what has been embellished upon for whatever reason.

    For example, were the chimpanzees Ham and Enos mistreated as
    Wolfe said they were in the book?  Ham and Enos were sent aboard
    MERCURY spacecraft in 1961 and 1962, respectively.

    Thank you.

        Larry Klaes  [e-mail]
             or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
                 or - [e-mail]
                     or - [e-mail]

             "All the Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells

        EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 18:41:55 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In <1tre2t$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|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.

>Then I guess it's not a lot of business.

Then I guess nothing else is, either.  Must mean we can just shut down
everything, since nothing is "a lot of business" (according to Pat).
How many billions does it have to be worth before it's "a lot", Pat?

>|
>|>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.
>|

>As I recall, Iran worked out a very novel way to get spares,
>It was called Arms for hostages.

And how many F-14's do they have actually flying out of all those they
bought?  Not much in the way of spares under "Arms for hostages", Pat.
I suggest you take another look at where Iran procured spares.

>As I recall,  IRAN was a major contributing factor in our 80's
>era weapons build up.  The capcity we had during the Iran Hostage
>Debacle  was justification for the RDF,  and I think 2 carrier groups.
>Plus a contributing argument for the Battleships.

Not the way it went, Pat.

>And as I recall, during the Tanker war,  IrAN was plenty dangerous.
>Dangerous enough that we shot down one of their civilian air liners
>because our guys were so high strung.  ANd also invading their
>territorial waters.

Gee, Pat, sorry the world is a dangerous place.  I would suggest more
research into just what made Iran "plenty dangerous" during the
'Tanker war' -- can you say "mine"?  I'd also suggest a bit more
research into the Vincennes incident, etc.

>|>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.
>|

>Of course  That might mean  that you make your living also off the taxpayers.

It means exactly that.  You say it like there's something wrong with
it.  The government wants a product, we build it and sell it to them.
If that's a problem for you, I would suggest you are living on the
wrong planet.  Of course, if it's just a rhetorical ploy, I would
suggest something else entirely.

>|>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.
>|

>It would also make it cheaper  per unit if we made  the weapons and then
>pushed them into the ocean.   Economy of scale production only
>applies if someone pays cash for the weapon,  that is specifically
>Cash in excess of the Variable cost of production.  Given how most
>of the lines  have fairly limited ramp up capcity,  I doubt the marginal
>cost of say an F-14 is real low.

We also don't sell a lot of them to anyone else.  Just why do you
think there's so much competition world-wide in the arms business,
Pat?  Because they're mean and evil people, or because it's cheaper
for us to fund our defense if someone else is buying the same kind of
weapons?

>|>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.
>|

>So much leverage,  that we have to invade Iraq?

And we didn't sell weapons to Iraq.

>So much leverage that we have to send half the army to defend saudi
>arabia?  Leverage runs both ways.

Filled your car lately?  What did it cost?  Or do you figure that they
just sort of magically get that stuff and that the U.S. has no vested
interests in what goes on around the world.

>|>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.
>|

>We also get jobs when we sell  chip factories and auto plants to Malaysia
>and japan and korea.  Do you think that is a good idea also?

Why do you think it isn't?  Capitalism is great until it's US who are
not competetive -- then it should be regulated?

>And given most of these sales are FMC's  the "Lower " cost production
>runs to the US are somewhat speculative.

Go look up the numbers yourself, then, Pat.

>|>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.
>>

>As I recall, during the 70's  we were not involved in a
>major war in the middle east.  Vietnam  does not count
>as a major war.  it was a war game.

Yeah, Pat, ya gotta love it.  13 years, 15 trillion dollars, and
60,000 dead and it's a "war game".  How much does it have to cost
before it counts as a 'real' war for you?

>And also We haven't seen the end result of all those weapons sales.
>history takes a while to run.

You seem under the mistaken impression that we were engaged in selling
the Iraqis weapons.  We weren't.  Most of their weapons were Soviet
and French built.

>>>>
>>>>[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..." ;-)

>No fred,  I'll leave that to you.

Ok, fine.  You keep doing it and I'll keep pointing it out.

>Besides fred,  Are you advocating that we just become the
>"Merchants of Death" to the world, to unscrew of Balance of trade
>problem?

Nope.  Silly (deliberate) assumption on your part.

>Somehow I think at somepoint people will run out of weapons to buy,
>and then where are we.

Somehow I think that you don't really think.

Oh, and speaking of 'pointing it out' when you do it, feel free to
take your last two paragraphs and perform the proverbial unlikely
anatomical act with them.

--
"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.

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

Newsgroups: sci.space

From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
References: <1ts2nl$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 19:37:50 GMT
Lines: 39
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>>repair of solar max,

>>don't remember what else went up on that flight so it may have been valid.

>LDEF deployment was the other job on that flight.

That's right. Let's see, suppose Solar Max weighs in at $100M a copy and
could go up an an Atlas. Also say we send LDEF up on a Titan III. This gives
us:

     LDEF Launch costs:   $123M [list price for a commercial Titan]
 Solar Max replacement:   $100M
Solar Max Atlas Launch:   $ 75M [list price of an Atlas]
                 Total:   $298M

Using the generally agreed upon Shuttle launch cost of $500M we find
that the exact same task could have been performed at a savings of
over 40% had Shutle not been involved.

Comments Ken?

>>>Leasesat,

>>This one never flew. Shuttle proved too unreliable to attract paying
>>customers.

>I think he was referring to the Leasat, aka Syncom, repair mission.
>You're thinking of Leasecraft, which indeed never flew.

I stand corrected.

  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."             |
+----------------------22 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 628
------------------------------