New Mars Forums

I think it is a realisation that NASA and the new programme are great goals but there is to much money going out across the spectrum. The leaders of the USA have to be asking where is the money to come from to continue to pay for Iraq and the rebuilding of a whole state and the city of New Orleans.

The estimate of this is $200 Bn and the price keeps going up and up add to that the calls to fix the levy system so it wont happen to other threatened states and cities and you have a money drain. Lots going in but not enough to fill the hole epecially for a country in such a deficit.

I do support the VSE but I can see what must be going through the heads of the leaders of the USA we just cannot raise taxes and we have to find the money. Iraq and the costs there will not be cut so other places have to be and im sorry but the VSE and NASA is becoming more and more a likehood of major cuts. Even offseting by spacing out the programme will likely damn it as it comes down to what do people really care about. And space programmes will not happen if the people are told taxes have to be raised to finance it.

Sic Vis Pacis, Para Bellum

The advance and spread of technology has changed what was considered the standards of war. Aircraft now if seen are dead and nothing including the F117 and B2 bombers are invisible. The priority now is to hit hard and from range that is why cruise missiles are increasing as air defences are getting stronger and the cost of fighters and Bombers too expensive and there risks too high.

Do you think the Chinese dont know what makes the B2 Bomber work or that the claim that advanced French radars can lock up both the F117 and B2.

Engineer charged with selling B2 secrets

If they did not know they do now and the man above probably made sure of it considering he invented the system.

So the Navy is looking at what is the best way to ensure that targets bombarded and not be stopped and the DDX is the best way at the moment but it cannot stop. In the future as war conditions get harder it will be better for a naval warship to be able to bombard at even further distances. Mass drivers are being considered as a replacement to "conventional" guns.

(ps Sic Vis Pacis, Para Bellum = Who wants peace, prepares for War)

A bit too soon for that the Atlas 5 was in its hangar when the special fabric doors failed apparently there was damage to the rocket and its launch cradle. Prelimary reports indicate that this damage should be fixable and the New Horizons mission launched on schedule.

Reuters Article on Damage to New Horizons Mission

There is another alternative that a group of countries get together and create what could best be called a port authority for the Moon with the ability to grant licences and to allow economic utilisation. But since this port authority type of control would require a treaty to allow it to be formed it would in essence overrule the bad bits of the outer space treaty while keeping the bits that are important.

They would bother a lot if they thought it was an attempt to colonise a whole planet, it would appear to them as a rich country getting all the resources and becoming an Empire at there potential expense. They would see it as a Cecil Rhodes attempt.

If you had a cargo of lunar rocks or that of He3 then expect them to want there "fair" share of that material not the profits the actual material. They would likely say it was for "research" but that would of course not be the case.

There is that possibility but for a Nation to be recognised it must also have to be recognised by those other countries or have the ability to be so strong that it can project its force out of its own area to the point you just dont want to mess with it.

A one way mission by a settler will im sure be seen as colonisation and theoretically in the Outer space treaty that is seen as not allowed. Colonisation being defacto an attempt to own a territory by the nation state that the mission originated from.

We just have to admit that that the outer space treaty is totally inadequate and as such when it comes time will be dropped. My only concern is that there is a lot of good stuff in the treaty that will without much needed change be dropped with the rest of the treaty.

I have no hope that the UN will see that the outer space treaty has problems look at the Moon treaty as an example that it is only a law of the sea writ large.

And get taxed by all of them. A true extranational will need to be able to have its own infrastructure completely independent of a country. People have considered using the internet as a posibility to be a viable means to create such an entity. But as greenpeace have discovered this is not an option that is either legal or would actually be taken seriously. Ever heard of sealand?

Yes but as noted to get into space will need a lot of ground based infrastructure and a lot of money. To purchase this you need a base and a means of credit flow. You also will have to be able to bargain with these large companies.

Unfortunatly the one thing international law has a lot of is property legislation. It is this that is only second to religion that has started wars. Look at the possibilities that are forming from the melting of the Artic. In the 19th century there would have been a major landrush to gain these new resources but they are taking it to arbitration though they are using the Law of the Sea even if the USA is not a signatory. This is actualy forming what could be described as a point of law, and this point of law and with the similarity of the outer space treaty and Moon treaty with the law of the sea is likely to mean that such will be used against lunar exploitation.

Now if we only could have a case where there becomes a base which is not subject to the Moon or Outer space treaty. Of course that requires that a country that has the capability to get to the Moon and exploit it actually also not be a member of any current treaties. About as likely to happen as finding "unobtanium" in the next week. Our best hope is that we can put pressure on the goverments of the ESA group and USA and Canada to get the Moon Treaty dropped and the Outer space treaty revised.

So where will Biospheres international be based where is its home address, where do we send the bills

Boeing Russia is a subdivision of Boeing international an american company. In Russia it must obey all local laws but it also cannot sell from Boeing Russia what Boeing USA has developed that the USA considers high tech or militarily valuable without the appropiate United states licence. In short one company but two hands. And since all launching eguipment and a lot of material used in space is high tech and potentially military grade it often falls under needing licences. Developing a shell company as it is called is fine but that shell company in international law is considered the same nationality as that of the parent company.

The commercialisation of the internet in fact the internet in general is not useful as a symbol of what would happen in space. The internet is an example of the latest type of property that of intelectual property rights. The internet is a case where the thing appeared and the legal system had to play catch up. The Moon and the space in general though is a case of physical property and there is already a very negative law enforcing  what is allowed and not allowed in space. Enabling technologies for Lunar development would be great but as noted who would pay to devlop such when they may or not be allowed to use that technology to make profit. In essence if you develop an effective TSTO spaceplane but can only sell a couple to the goverment then you cannot make enough of a profit if any to pay for the development of such a TSTO spaceplane. That is the situation the outer space treaty imposes on us. With a decent section on allowing use of and claims to property on the Moon etc then companies will be very interested in that TSTO spaceplane and you can sell more. Sell more and prices come down not only of the spaceplane but actual costs to get to space.

Do not simply ignore pressure groups they can have voices in the wrong ears. The law of the Sea is an example where small third world goverments and activists have in effect stopped commercialisation of the sea bed and stymied the western world. These small countries will want a share of the pie without paying for the risk. Currently if you start mining PGMs and transport them to Earth you are more or less quaranteed to end up in court as smaller countries and activists try to force you to hand over there rightful "share" of what is the whole worlds property.