I once went to UC Irvine's Surplus Store. They had a complete excimer laser there, for anyone who had a hankering. It was huge - I think it involved several racks of hardware. It was probably one of the first ever built. I don't recall the price but I think it was about $200.

I don't know the details, but big expensive high tech stuff costs money, especially when made under government contract. This is not just banditry - working with government agencies requires a company to structure itself to make a report every time someone goes to the john.

Beyond that, since at least the early 1970s the cost of most defense systems has not been the hulls, wings, and wheels. Case in point - some years ago I learned that more than 1/2 the cost of the then-hot-new fighters the F-18 was software. The plane had over 1000 VME circuit boards. Of course the more they make, the lower the unit price goes - but budgetary overruns (like you've never run late on a project?) often cause a reduction in total units, which means that huge upfront development cost gets amortised over fewer units.

I read a story once, about the Britsh Mandate period in the Middle East. This was in the early 1900s IIRC. They were having trouble with terrorists back then. They let it be known that henceforth they would be greasing their guns and bullets with pig fat. End of terrorism. I don't know if it's true, of course.

- so now we're talking about the British Mandate?

Two definitions, from actual diplomats:

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggy' while you look for a stick."

"Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip."

There has been at least one war, usually dozens, in progress every year since people started recording such things - in Europe alone it's been some six hundred years at least, or a thousand depending on how you count. Most of that time it had nothing to do with the US. In fact the Cold War, in many ways, was the most peaceful time in modern history.

The total energy per shot isn't that high. 30 MJ is equivalent to 8.3 kwh, which is about what an American home uses in a couple of hours. A gallon of diesel contains 148,488 BTUs, which is about 135MJ. So it appears that (disregarding efficiencies, back-of-the-envelope, etc.) they can get about four shots per gallon of fuel.

There are two other, very large factors - the cost (energy, fuel, time, human and other resources) of getting the ammunition and the propellant to the battle, and the safety. The fuel to drive the ammo supply ships has to be taken into account. A given ship is expected to be able to carry four times as many rounds of railgun ammunition vs. standard ammunition, eliminating two or three supply runs, and possibly dangerous deliveries between ships in the middle of the ocean. Ammo ships are notoriously bad duty in real wars, and if you look through WWII naval battles it is quite common for the killing blow to a ship having been penetration and detonation of one or more magazines.

From a _systems_ point of view (which is the Navy's POV on this), the cost of railguns will be much less. While at present manufacturing cost of the projectiles is high, it's already competitive with equivalent damage-producing shells. And passive solid tungsten projectiles could become quite cheap once the high precision high volume manufacturing gets in gear.

Not to mention that historically the most dangerous duty in the Navy has been the ammo supply ships. Delivery of ammunition is also one of the most expensive things that Navies have to deal with as well.

It's all about these: F=MA and E=1/2 MV^2. The launcher applies the force over the length of the barrel - say 5 meters, so the acceleration at launch is much, much less than the deceleration on target. The kinetic energy goes up as the square of the velocity, so a projectile impacting at Mach 7 is going to release 49 times the kinetic energy of one impacting at Mach 1, and over a distance of a few inches or even less (e.g. armor plate). That energy has to be dissipated extremely quickly, causing heat, melting and gasification of the projectile and the target, resulting in explosive disassembly and a crater.

Well there is hope. According to at least one economist, the potential availability of resources from space (including materials, information, energy, etc.) could improve the mean standard of living of everyone on Earth by a factor of 10 within 100 years.

No, they're just offering to help US companies avoid conflict with other US companies (where by "US companies" I mean "entities that for whatever reason, whether launching from the US, using US-made vehicles, using US tracking stations, etc."). This doesn't prevent conflict with, say, a Chinese company. But it does establish a useful beginning for cooperation between orbital-capability nations, to jointly prevent conflicts between their respective companies.

Some very good space lawyers disagree with you. Not all, but this is an area of strong debate. (The Moon Treaty was never ratified by any nation with an orbital space capability - I presume you mean the Outer Space Treaty). And what if a corporation is incorporated in one of the several dozen nations that have never signed, or have signed but never ratified?

The FAA presently administers space flight to/from the US already - if you want to launch a rocket with more than small-hobby capability you have to get a permit. You may also have to get NASA to sign off on the equipment to get that permit. So FAA is offering to extend this to provide a reasonable alternative to the 'Wild West' for at least those companies with some US component - residence, launch, tracking, lots of other aspects, IOW almost every rocket flight from almost any country. IMHO it's a reasonable offer.

I foresee other nations establishing a cooperative agreement for each of their aerospace agencies to cooperate in this, taking responsibility for their own parties and working together. In general cooperation has been the case for most space operations - viz. the continued launches of rockets from Russia, carrying satellites from the US and elsewhere despite the various international goings-on. This type of international cooperation is analogous in some ways to the way that patents and other IP rules have gradually evolved to a modicum of international normalization.

Well put, thanks. I'm glad you took the time to write this. BTW - my group (spacefinancegroup.com) is looking for a competent lawyer with space and ITAR knowledge and experience. PM me if that's of interest.

FAA has legitimate authority over anything that flies through the atmosphere, and at least exerts its authority over near-Earth space. It can and does require permits for launching and landing rockets from/to US soil. It also has some authority over US made equipment flown anywhere. Until it is feasible, and in fact common, for space 'inhabitants' to get along without any dependence on Earth, Earth authorities will have some level of control/