Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO623.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Tue, 25 May 93 05:13:38
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #623
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 25 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 623

Today's Topics:
                  Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
             Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO (2 msgs)
                          Moon Base (2 msgs)
                Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
               Project Put-put (a.k.a. "Orion") Photos
                  Seeding Mars with "Mars box" life
            Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (3 msgs)
       white paper specifying the DC-X followon: SX-2 (2 msgs)
           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 19:53:03 GMT
From: Henry A Worth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (John F Carr) writes:

> The wings generate lift equal to shuttle weight in normal flight, more than
> that during the final turns and flare to landing.  This is at speeds under
> 300 knots.  1g + epsilon is what it takes to climb.  It isn't lack of lift
> that keeps the shuttle from climbing; it's excessive drag and insufficient
> thrust.  A shuttle probably could be made to climb.  Once.  Briefly.  After
> that the pilot gets to practice stall/spin recovery.  (Has NASA developed
> spin recovery procedures for the shuttle? or does the book just say "don't
> do that"?)
>
    I doubt NASA did much more than very carefully approached incipient
stall testing with Enterprise. I seem to recall a spin 'chute mounted on
an extended cantiliver for at least some of the tests, although I suspect
it was to intended to reduce G's to aid a safe ejection, rather than to
effect a recovery (with the shuttle's high rate of sink, recovery, if even
a theoretical possibility, would probably take more altitude than
available). If memory serves, wide-chord wing planforms, like delta's,
have a general tendancy for the center of lift to move forward as the
wing stalls, which serves to further deepen the stall, which makes
recovery from a stall very difficult, and if not caught quickly, even
improbable. Since there is little stall/spin risk in the Shuttle's
operational flight profile -- and where there is, there is no altitude
available for recovery -- full testing of the stall/spin characteristics
would have been an unjustifiable risk.

---
Henry Worth
No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 19:08:50 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1tpt1o$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>>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 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.

My statement is correct. Why should I retract it?

>I am attempting to ascertain the validity of this statement in
>an objective manner.

Excellent! I look forward to your assessment.

>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.

On the contrary, you seem to be the one unwilling to drop
subjectivity. I have posted reliable cost numbers and objective
assessments. Your replys have been devoid of any factual information
and consist of nothing more than:

1. Praising the 'great accomplishments' of Shuttle without showing them
   worth the investment.
2. Saying it serves a vital role as welfare and pork for engineers and
   Congressional districts.
3. Say everybody else is ignoring the facts.

Now I don't mean this as a flame. Ten years ago I also thought Shuttle
was great. I spent time in the 70's pushing for it. Later I began to
assess it based on performance and concluded it just wan't worth it. I
came to this conclusion about five years before the SSRT program began, so
I'm not bashing Shuttle to promote DC.

I am confident that when you look at it objectively you will reach the
same conclusion I and many others have reached.

>Inclusion of the orbiter in the STS calculation is clearly
>indicated because the orbiter reaches LEO.

*NO* Because the orbiter is not payload. Note that my estimate
does NOT include the S-IV stage. With an S-IV stage, throw weight
to LEO increases by 30,000 pounds but nowhere do I include that
in the estimate.

>Both reach
>orbit.  Both are relevant in order to ascertain the validity of
>Mr. Sherzer's statement.

Go back to the mover example I posted earlier. Justify this statement
in terms of that.

>In the future, I hope more people will publish on sci.space
>their own sources, references, and calculations in order that
>all may understand the way they have reached conclusions.

You will note that I have done so.

>I also find it strange that so many shuttle critics would snub
>the issue of mass return while attempting to tout the
>importance of space commercialization.

Nobody is. We simply point out that Shuttle cannot do it in a cost
effective manner and is therefore more of a hinderance than a help
to space commercialization.

>The true
>commercialization of space will be when travel is to and
>from LEO.  Shuttle is currently the best vehicle at achieving
>this mission.

Shuttle is worse than nothing. Not only is it expensive, but worse it
helps people who want to end the manned space program. Every bit of
effort you put into it makes your opponents stronger.


>Shuttle critics choose to downplay and underestimate the
>importance and difficulty in the historic missions which the
>orbiter has flown to service and recover multi-million dollar
>satillites.

Which could only be flown because Uncle Sam provided tens of millions
of $$ in subsidies. If the owners of the satellites had to pay the true
cost of the repair, they woldn't have happened.

>While some may argue the economics of these
>achievements, they usually choose to ignore the difficulty in
>flying these missions.  They also choose to belittle the
>demonstrated capabilities of the orbiter to successfully
>accomplish these important missions.

All you need do is substantiate your claims with an arguement with more
substance than you have in the past. You haven't posted a single cost
nore quanified a single benefit. If you want to convince engineers,
that's what you must do.

>Mr. Sherzer, since you are such a critic of the shuttle
>program and tout the DC-Y's performance.  Please start
>to publish the vehicleUs developmental cost,

About $2-4 billion depending on path taken. This is about the
cost of six to nine months Shuttle operations.

>payload to orbit,

roughly 20,000 to LEO. It depends on how they hit the mass
fraction. If all goes as planned, it will be 24,000 to LEO.

>recovery time and cost,

It should be able to fly every one to seven days. Cost of a flight will
be on the order of $1M to $10M (depending on accounting method used).

>cost of manufacturing the vehicle,

A DC-1 should cost about the same as a 747.

>if anyone really knows.  If any of these are
>unknown, are you really that different than those who
>erroneously believed the shuttles would fly once per week?

The differences are in the paper I sent you. DC is designed for
routine operations, Shuttle isn't.

>Let's take this board to higher standards instead of letting
>others lower us into a quagmire of flames.

I always have. I look forward to your more substantitive replies.

  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 1993 18:41:16 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

And you forget,  that most of the broad spectrum drugs  were developed
50-80 yuears ago.   Peniccillin is much more useful then centoxin,
yet which did we get first.  How would you like to not have
peniccillin,  or the other broad  spectrum drugs,   or
find them to cost  10 times as much  as in other countries?

Which as you recall varying drug prices are helping drive
Health care reform.

pat

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 18:20:04 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> soc1070                          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.

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. 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.

>Also, the far side makes an excellent location for all kinds of astronomy,
>radio especially.

Irrelevant to the issue of the Moon as a stepping-stone to other places.

>Establishing travel back to the moon, IMHO, *has* to be a pre-requsite to
>many other types of travel to the rest of the solar system. Just to use
>is as a testing grounds for technology if for nothing else. A Mars mission
>really only makes sence if the travelers stay there for about a month or
>more. The moon isn't (obviously) a direct comparison to Mars, but a lot of
>what those people will need in the way of living environments could be
>tested on the moon first.

You _could_ test a few aspects of a Mars mission there, but there is
no reason why you _have_ to. The question becomes
one of balancing the benefits of Lunar testing against their
costs. At this point, the added costs would make a Mars mission
impossibly expensive and set the timetable back long enough that
politically the mission wouldn't be funded. So I think it's safe
to say that the costs of Lunar testing outweigh the benefits.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder

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

Date: 24 May 1993 18:34:16 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>aren't required to all terminate at a single body. The Moon is a
>dead world. Come back in a thousand, or a million, years, and not


I don't know gary.

THe catalog NASA maintains of Lunar Transient Phenomena,  keeps open
at least a decent chance, tha thte MOON is at least partly alive.

Tidal heating may be providing some energy to  parts of it's core.

If we had kept ALSEP running longer,  maybe we'd know for sure.

pat

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 19:24:36 GMT
From: Doug Loss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1tjn9h$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>
>>I think the Endangered Species act may apply.  Also interfering with
>>Diplomatic relations, and violsating the nuetrality act.
>>
>>pat
>
>The Endangered Species Act wouldn't come into play for two reasons.
>
>[...]
>
>Since ET isn't listed as a game species, even charges of hunting out
>of season can't be raised. He's not listed as a songbird or a migratory
>waterfowl. At best a charge of exterminating vermin without an exterminator's
>license might be raised, but even that fails if the killer isn't paid for the
>job.
>
   How about discharging a firearm within city limits? :-)

Doug Loss
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 13:04:44 GMT
From: Donald Heskett <[e-mail]>
Subject: Project Put-put (a.k.a. "Orion") Photos
Newsgroups: sci.space

A sequence of five frames from a film of the flight of the Project
Put-put vehicle, appears in the book "Starflight Handbook", Mallove
and Matloff, John Wiley & Sons, 1989. Project Put-put tested the
Orion concept, using chemical explosives in place of the nuclear ones
intended for Orion.

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 06:25:55 GMT
From: William Naylor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeding Mars with "Mars box" life
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

[e-mail] (Robert Clark) wrote:

>Before the launch Dr. Levin tested his detector in a "Mars box"
>used to simulate a Mars environment for the Viking missions at the
>NASA Ames Research Center on a sample on which his detector was
>successfully able to detect life. The microorganisms in the sample
>survived the Mars-like environment and again gave positive life-signs
>when subjected to Dr. Levin's experiment.

I am curious to know more about these "Mars box" experiments.  Did these
microorganisms in the "Mars box" thrive, or did they merely not die for
the period of the experiment?  Has anybody succeeded in finding/creating
microorganisms which can thrive in simulated Martian conditions in a
laboratory on Earth?

Existence of such organisms in an Earth laboratory would prove that life
is possible on
Mars.  Perhaps it already exists.  If it does not, it would be possible
in the future for one of our Mars missions to seed Mars with these
microorganisms.  Perhaps this could be the first step in a Mars
terraforming effort.

For these reasons, I believe that NASA should perform "Mars box"
experiments for all of the planets and moons which could possibly
sustain life.

Please post comments on the above.


--
Will Naylor               net:  [e-mail]
                          mail: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
phone: + (61-2) 805-2921        P.O. Box 313 North Ryde, NSW 2113
fax:   + (61-2) 805-2929        Australia

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

Date: 24 May 1993 19:08:43 GMT
From: "Jason A. Surace" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,rec.backcountry

[e-mail] (John Holeman) writes:

>Mr. Dellinger's account of his experience in Hawii brings back some memories
>of last summer.  I was living with a friend in Livermore, CA when the lab
>(Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab) started testing the laser it was using to
>research the ....ooohhhh, I can't think of the name of the thing...
>variable something or 'nuther mirrors for astronomical telescopes...
>anyhows.  When they were using the laser, you could see the bright red beam
>reaching from the ground on up.  Being in one of the newer residential areas,
>we(myself and my friend)  set up lawn chairs in the middle of the road so we
>could watch.  We could only speculate what passing motorists thought when they
>drove by and saw two guys sitting in lawnchairs in the middle of the street.
>The next day we asked people at work if they had seen the laser.  Nobody had
>a clue as to what we were talking about...oh well.


What you're describing is the testing of a laser guide star used for an
adaptive optics system. One problem with adaptive optics is the need
for a reliable reference for wavefront sensing. The laser (a huge monster,
I beleive it was originally designed for fusion research) is used
to ionize an upper atmospheric layer, as I seem to remember. I saw a talk
on it a while back. It was very successful, too.

                                                     - Jason Surace
                                                    IR Astronomy - Caltech
                                                    [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 May 1993 21:01:44 GMT
From: "Jeffrey L. Cook" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.headlines

In a previous article, [e-mail] (OPIRG) says:

>In article <1tj4h5$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes:
>>
>>In a previous article, [e-mail] (OPIRG) says:
>>
>>>In article <1tdpk5$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes:
>>>>
>>>>On the contrary, the luddite communist technophobes ruled the roost for
>>>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>almost three-quarters of a century in the former Soviet Union, and
>>>>turned their beautiful country into a toilet.
>>>
>>>You mean the people who brought us Sputnik?
>>
>>Yes.  However, the "luddite communist technophobes" phrase was Victor
>>Yodaiken's characterization of them; I wasn't interested in taking issue
>>with his view.  If you think it's not an accurate description, you
>>should argue the point with Victor and decide exactly what you think
>>they _should_ be called, and we can take it from there.
>
>I've checked the thread, and emailed Victor about this. You appear to
>be the first to use the phrase "luddite communist technophobes".

Tell you what, Reid, why don't you take another look at my posting?  You
know, the one you replied to?  The one that contained all of Victor's
comments, which you stripped out in your reply?  I won't re-post it;
you're welcome to take another look.  I was answering the following
message, reproduced in its entirety:

  On Tue May 18 06:50:53 1993, [e-mail] (victor yodaiken) wrote:

  >In article <1t9b8j$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes:
  >>This object would not interfere with anyone's enjoyment of the night sky
  >>(it would be invisible at night), nor would it have any significant
  >>impact on astronomical observations.  I suspect there must be some kind
  >>of underlying agenda coming to the surface when, in spite of this,
  >>people are so quick to shrilly denounce and condemn something that would
  >>so vividly demonstrate the strength of Western capitalism.
  >>
  >
  >How clever of you. Nobody could really be upset at the idea of looking
  >up and seeing commericials in the sky or having all of life reduced to
  >an exchange of commodities and huckstering, so it must be a damn communist
  >plot to discredit our peculiar kind of freedom.  Same goes for all pollution
  >controls: those smokestacks demonstrate strength, only luddite communist
                                                          ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
  >technophobes could object to a nice visible plume that would demonstrate
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
  >the strength of western capitalism.
  >
  >--
  >
  >
  >[e-mail]

If Victor can't remember what he said from one day to the next, that may
be understandable.  (I don't know him personally, so I don't know what
he's taking that might cause his memory loss.)  However, I cited his
phrase in my answer to him.  For you to strip that citation out of your
reply, then later to claim that I was the first to use it, can only be
explained as pure dishonesty on your part.

Jeff Cook                                    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 18:08:19 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Nash) 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...

This seems to be sliding downhill into a semantic debate, but...
If something is not "as improtant as ever", all that means (at least
to me) that it was once more improtant. Ground-based, visible
observations were once absolutely fundamental to astronomy and no
work could be done in the field without them, and this is no longer
the case. That strickes me as meaning it is less important that it once
was, and therefore not "as important as ever."

>>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.

If abaptive optics worked as well in the visible as it does above (say)
five microns, that would be a different matter.

>...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.

If they are the same ones I've been reading and replying to, they are
all said that it works in the visible, but not nearly as well as it
does at lower frequencies. I've seen one or two posts (from people
apparently working on adaptive systems) going into a fair amount
of detail about why adaptive optice work much better at lower
frequencies.

>...Moreover, I know
>I've seen at least one for the near-IR below "5-10 microns."

There isn't any doubt that adaptive optics are _possible_ at
short wavelengths. But they are not nearly as effective. The
claims of diffraction limited resolution don't apply below of
order five microns. Below that, adaptive optics _helps_ but
not that much.

>...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).

Which only corrects for the grossest errors, of the image actually moving
around on the image plane. It doesn't reduce the bluring at all. (excepting
long exposures taken under very poor seeing...)

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

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

Date: 24 May 1993 15:04:08 -0400
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: white paper specifying the DC-X followon: SX-2
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

[Majority of informative paper deleted - thanks Allen!]

>The SX-2 uses the same RL-10A5 engines as the DC-X with performance
>enhancements provided by subcontracts with the Russian rocket engine company
>Energomash.

This part I am curious about.  What exactly do the Russians have to offer
in this respect?  I'm sure they don't have experience with RL-10 engines,
after all.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 20:18:36 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: white paper specifying the DC-X followon: SX-2
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>[Majority of informative paper deleted - thanks Allen!]

Don't thank me, write your Congressperson! :-)

>>The SX-2 uses the same RL-10A5 engines as the DC-X with performance
>>enhancements provided by subcontracts with the Russian rocket engine company
>>Energomash.

>This part I am curious about.  What exactly do the Russians have to offer
>in this respect?

The main technical thing they're after is the RD-170 engine as a canidate
for a DC-1. Getting them on board now helps with that.

In addition, there is political advantage to teaming with the Russians.
It somewhat braodens the appeal of the project.

>I'm sure they don't have experience with RL-10 engines,
>after all.

That might mean they have fresh insight to the problems. I think we
will see a lot of advancement in the next few years as we look at
how they solved problems independent from us and vice versa.

  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 1993 21:25:01 GMT
From: Timothy Banks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

[Please note the followups. This is no longer appropriate for sci.space or
talk.politics.space.]

In article <1tqukk$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>Before my mailbox fully overflows with outraged aussies and kiwis,

    Way to go, folks! :-)

>I guess i should clarify my remarks.  I was referring to the
>Post WW2 era.  Specifically,  the 50's - 90's.  The Australians

    and Kiwis. Hint: look up what ANZAC stands for - and consider
    that it seems that nearly every town has an ANZAC memorial.
    The cost was high.

>regiments fought amazingly well in Both world wars,  as did Indian
>and African regiments.  Australia and NZ both also contributed
>during the Korean and Vietnam wars, but the fact is neither country
>was supporting Serious deep water Navy capabilities,

    Hmmm - well, I believe the Land of Oz does quite well with
    deep water. Would someone more knowledgeable correct me?
    I can remember their carrier, the _Melbourne_ (?), scrapped not
    too long ago - so they've had some grunt for some time.

    Us sheep farmers can only field 4 (?) frigates plus
    support, but thats not too bad for 3 million people, though
    Keating would like us to put more of our GDP into joint
    defence.

    Incidentally, would a Battle Crusier count as a serious
    deep water ship of yesteryear? If so, look up the _New Zealand_,
    and perhaps also read about the _Ajax_ and _Achilles_ while
    you're at it.

    An important point is to consider the size of our populations,
    and then the size of the contribution made.

>Nuclear weapons program,  nor serious extra territorial military
>programs.

    Do we need them? In the second case we contribute to UN
    peacekeeping forces, but surely we don't need to place
    large military forces outside our borders (NZ closed its
    base in Singapore recently). They're for the defence of our
    countries.

>WW1 and 2 are over.

    As is the Malay Emergency....

>  My remarks are aimed at the current.
>
>PS  as for current history,  my understnading is australia is still
>suffering from a serious recession.  High intereswt rates and
>heavy foreign borrowing and depressed commodity markets have been
>a drag on the economy for the last 5 years.  If something
>has changed lately, I'll have to look again.

    I'll have to leave that to the folks across the ditch
    to handle, but you also shot at NZ and the Phillipines.
    You might like to know that our economy is way down in
    interest rates and mortgages are coming down (currently around
    8%) - unfortunately unemployment is still very high. But, I'd
    suggest that you compare our economies with the US's and see
    what they're like before you make unfavourable comments.



--
  Timothy Banks, Physics Department, Victoria University of Wellington, NZ.
       bankst@kauri|rata|matai.vuw.ac.nz, [e-mail].
    "He's dead, Jim!" "OK, you take the tricorder, I'll take the wallet!"

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

Date: 24 May 1993 17:18:21 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

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.

|
|>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.

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.

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.

|>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.

|>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.

|>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?

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

|>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?

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

|>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.

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

>>>
>>>[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.


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

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

pat

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 623
------------------------------