home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!digex.com!prb
- From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
- Date: 9 Jan 1993 19:58:50 GMT
- Organization: UDSI
- Lines: 67
- Message-ID: <1inapqINN50n@mirror.digex.com>
- References: <1993Jan7.033118.1652@cerberus.ulaval.ca> <C0Hun4.13t@zoo.toronto.edu> <1993Jan8.183031.12692@ke4zv.uucp>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
-
- In article <1993Jan8.183031.12692@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
- >
- >Let's see, NASA should sell Shuttle and it's support facilities at cost,
- >lease them back from the buyer at a profit to the leasing agency, and
- >then they'll save big bucks. What's wrong with this picture? Airlines
- >use lease back arrangements because of the *tax* advantages the arrangement
- >offers. The leasing company profit is less than the taxes saved so everybody
- >but the average taxpayer wins. NASA doesn't pay taxes, they spend them.
- >
-
- Um, gary unless you buy airplanes for fun, there are few tax advantages.
- Corporations get depreciation, just like leasing agencies. Individuals
- lease cars because the lessor gets an advantage the individual doesnt.
-
- Airlines often lease aircraft, because they wish to reduce risk. They
- dont want to tie up precious capital into equipment they may not
- wish to keep. It's leverage.
-
- The government leases likes private industry, because it spreads costs
- from one year to several. The idea behind leasing is that also the
- lessor may have lower costs then the organic entity.
-
- FOr instance, I lease electric power(ok, buy) rather then make it myself.
- The government buys airline tickets for employees, because the market
- is much more efficient then their own system. Sure, the DOD has a big
- aircraft fleet, and most every agency has a couple jets, but
- these are for executive transport or emergency stuff.
-
- The idea behind having a leasing company take over shuttle ops, is maybe
- (BIG IFF) they can have more effeciency then NASA. I dont really
- think so, but from a political point of view, by eliminating the
- political base inside nasa, it does open up more activities
- in space.
-
- >Ok, let's try it another way. NASA sells Shuttle and it's support facilities
- >at cost to Rockwell. NASA then buys a *ticket* when it needs a launch on
- >Rockwell Spacelines, about 8 times a year. Rockwell Spacelines sells them
- >the tickets at about 1.5 times current Shuttle flight costs, got to recoup
- >the investment and turn a profit. The poor taxpayer takes it in the neck.
- >
- AH, but wha tif NASA, starts telling other people, we will pay
- big money for launch services and starts procuring them. suddenly
- Northwest DC-1 starts offering tickets at0.9 times shuttle costs.
- Allens point is that a market will be more effecient then NASA,
- and IF we can be capitlaist abou;this, then maybe we will win.
-
- >One more time. NASA sells Shuttle and support facilities at scrap prices
- >and writes off development costs as a bad investment. This is what Allen
- >wants. Rockwell Spacelines buys the scrap and begins operating it. Sells
- >NASA, NASDA, Hughes, and anyone else who wants one a ticket. Using commercial
- >operating practices, Rockwell Spacelines makes money, NASA et al get reduced
- >launch costs, and everyone but the poor abused taxpayer wins. (he always
- >loses anyway)
- >
- Well, considering the taxpayer is bleeding 4 billion dollars out the ass
- every year, we cant lose any more.
-
- >Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
-
-
- And what if NASA auctions off it's facilities, and leases them so we
- recover the market fraction??? Hell that's how your company got started.
- You bought surplus scrap Eastern equipment and re-oriented the business.
- By your analysis, eastern should have been doing this and made a fortune.
- why didn't they? because they couldn't. some organizations are incapable
- of reform.
-
-