GWB, I'm not convinced that you have reached the correct conclusions regarding preservation of night vision.
You say "If you must see detail (reading a star chart, or instrument settings) and can lose peripheral vision (see note 1), then a very long wavelength red at a very low level. Red really only has an advantage at very low levels (were the night blind spot is very obvious)."
This seems to me to be the crux of the issue, especially for this thread, and I believe it is entirely correct.
Here is note 1 "Note: The red filtered light at the intensity most people use is likely decreasing night vision much more than a properly dimmed white or blue-green light would!".
This is a very vague and loaded statement which proves nothing.
"If you wonder why no one else has drawn these conclusions look at the dashboard of most cars. The markings are large, the pointers are large and an orange-red (a compromise, for certain "color blind" persons) and at night it is edge lit with blue-green filtered fully intensity adjustable light."
That's nice, but where is the proof that car makers have an interest in preserving your night vision? Certainly the headlights, and street lights, don't help preserve night vision. As far as I can tell, interior car lighting is primarily concerned with attractiveness and legibility, not preservation of night vision. After all, most people don't have any significant degree of night vision prior to stepping into their cars.
It appears to me that you have proven that low level red light is the best way to preserve night vision. This corresponds with my own experience that, in the dark, red light has less impact on my eyes than any other color.