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
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.

Newsgroups: sci.space