International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

Austin Stanley · 2004-12-09 14:58:15

International cooperation that furthers a nation's mission can be desireable. Tailoring the mission to attract international partners is folly.

I agree with this statement. Take for example the shuttle, which was a US only program, but one that accepted international cooperation (such as the Candian arm) to further it's objective. International cargos and expirments launched on the shuttle have also been succesfull, they expand and compliment the shuttle's mission (even if that mission was only to justify another shuttle flight).

On the hand take the ISS which is was tailored to the needs and requirments of other nations, to the extent of changing it's orbit so that the Russians could reach it. It has been full of delay's and cost-overuns. Making a mission dependant upon international partners for it's success is foolish. If one of the partners fails, the plan fails. On the other hand with only one nation pushing the scheme, failures can easily be taken in stride and the plan re-designed to work around them.

I would build a Mar's mission on the same basis that the Shuttle opperated on. Open to international coperation to extend and augment it's mission, but not dependant upon them for success. A mars program is going to be very big, there is pleanty of place for international partners to add to and augment it. Just so long as a single nation with the will to actualy do it all controls it.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-10 07:38:29

Well here is another way of putting it the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) shorlists six foreign projects for moon mission This was intended to allow foreign packages of experiments to be on the orbiter but they are now trying for a lander instead.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-10 14:20:51

International cooperation that furthers a nation's mission can be desireable. Tailoring the mission to attract international partners is folly.
I agree with this statement. Take for example the shuttle, which was a US only program, but one that accepted international cooperation (such as the Candian arm) to further it's objective. International cargos and expirments launched on the shuttle have also been succesfull, they expand and compliment the shuttle's mission (even if that mission was only to justify another shuttle flight).

The shuttle was then a US only program that bought required items to complete the design rather than international cooperation which in my view is something other than supplying parts for a mission.

On the hand take the ISS which is was tailored to the needs and requirments of other nations, to the extent of changing it's orbit so that the Russians could reach it. It has been full of delay's and cost-overuns. Making a mission dependant upon international partners for it's success is foolish. If one of the partners fails, the plan fails. On the other hand with only one nation pushing the scheme, failures can easily be taken in stride and the plan re-designed to work around them.

The ISS has been a major c*ck-up in my view (and probably others too), its a good example of how not to do an international mission, the US ended up paying far too much towards it completion.

I would build a Mar's mission on the same basis that the Shuttle opperated on. Open to international coperation to extend and augment it's mission, but not dependant upon them for success. A mars program is going to be very big, there is pleanty of place for international partners to add to and augment it. Just so long as a single nation with the will to actualy do it all controls it.

Either the mission is an international one with countries having an equal input in the design or one country does it on its own and buys any parts it requires to complete the design - but thats not an international project.

Graeme

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-10 15:22:10

If the ESA/RSA/etc wants to build some of the science equipment for the mission in return for a seat on one flight, thats fine with me... but no Russian rocket engines or ESA heat shields.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-10 22:46:28

If the ESA/RSA/etc wants to build some of the science equipment for the mission in return for a seat on one flight, thats fine with me... but no Russian rocket engines or ESA heat shields.

Whats wrong with thin plastic heat shields?

Hopefully by the time they get to really working on a manned mission, we'll know how to cooperate without the inevitable bickering, delays, funding problems. I think countries can cooperate on a scientific level, there are problems, and have been well documented problems in the past for cooperative projects, but the positive outweigh the negative in my view at least.

Graeme

Gennaro · 2004-12-11 01:17:02

I think any future manned Mars program the U.S. participates in should, at least in the beginning be a solely American program.
Because I believe that American public support for the project will decline as international involvement grows.
And be honest, does ESA, the Japanese, Chinese, or Russians have any technology or experience in manned space exploration that the United States really lacks?

The race to Mars is military and nationalistic. When the USA flag is blowing in the Martian breeze, there will be tears in the eyes of USA citizens. It will be given as an example of how great the American system and people are.

We will beat you.

Martin_Tristar · 2004-12-11 02:19:14

Gennaro,

Ok, lets think of the possible outcomes of an American only approach to mars landing and colonization. What happens then >

Well, the other space races will try to claim there territory on mars, that means two choices for the american's let them or not. To let them means more competition of resources on mars and not means a open warfare possible on earth between the space races.

The only way to go into space is all world governments or no world governments allowing only corporations in space and laws are created on earth to manage the space bodies through the united nations and the resources to the whole world through a space resources exchange like the commodities exchange already existing on earth.

but the regulatory controls are govern from earth by the governments but yet have no physical presence on the territory being developed.

Austin Stanley · 2004-12-11 02:52:28

The ISS has been a major c*ck-up in my view (and probably others too), its a good example of how not to do an international mission, the US ended up paying far too much towards it completion.

Here you run into the major delima with an international program. You have no way of making your partners cough up the dough needed. Yet you have planned for them to pay for it. So you either shell out the bucks yourself, or the mission fails. Either way the program will be hurt and delayed. We should not let a Mars program be at the complete mercy of international partners, by essentilay giving them a veto which they can excersise at any time for any reason. Instead of elevating the space-program above the level of international politics, you drag right down into the thick of it.

Either the mission is an international one with countries having an equal input in the design or one country does it on its own and buys any parts it requires to complete the design - but thats not an international project.

I hate to say it, but a democracy is no way to design a space program. Especialy one that requires unanimous support from all members. This leads to at best unwise design decisions and at worst complete anarchy and failure. Better is to have one country just come up with a plan and execute it, and allow other countries ways to support it, if they want.

---------

As for claiming territory on Mars, if a country wants to do it, let them! It's a big planet, plenty of space to go around. And developing and efforcing those claims can only lead to futher development of the planet. It's all pretty pointless though, because like I said, the planet is huge. Any nations ability to claim, control, and develope territory is going to be severaly limited at least during our liftimes. I think Mars will probably end up like antartica. Theoretical held in common by all, but in practice spotted with small national bases and vast sections of deserted, unclaimed wilderness.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-11 12:39:56

"As for claiming territory on Mars, if a country wants to do it, let them!"

Yep, all they have to do is come and claim it. Make the rules somthing like it is for international waters, that everything within a certain radius of physical encampent is a nations' territory. Might need some additional rules for terrain features.

"We will beat you."

Sure sure, just like the Commies beat us to the Moon... You won't be going anywhere with a design-by-greedy-committee aproach.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-11 13:54:20

Instead of elevating the space-program above the level of international politics, you drag right down into the thick of it.

Depends on how you phrase that really, you could say that international politics drag down international space programmes.

I hate to say it, but a democracy is no way to design a space program. Especialy one that requires unanimous support from all members. This leads to at best unwise design decisions and at worst complete anarchy and failure. Better is to have one country just come up with a plan and execute it, and allow other countries ways to support it, if they want.

A space programme could come from a democratic process, but it would need to be well controlled. You say it could lead at best to unwise design decisions, thats true, it could also lead to something brilliant in terms of scientific progress. Just because cooperative projects have failed in the past does not mean that they'll all fail, or that its the wrong way to do it.

Graeme

Grypd · 2004-12-11 17:58:08

International cooperation is one of the best ways countries can actually afford the expenses that will come of any advanced missions into space like manned missions to Mars.

The USA could probably do it on its own but with the costs it would always be at a risk of being cut to provide funds for something that a new administration considers more important.

ESA is an example of international cooperation it is a multi state operation but is independent in nature and functions very well. It may be possible to set up a new space organisation that could do the job instead of relying on the agreements between various states that made the ISS a fiscal disaster.

Gennaro · 2004-12-11 18:56:39

Sure sure, just like the Commies beat us to the Moon... You won't be going anywhere with a design-by-greedy-committee aproach.

Greed? I don't follow. I don't care if the means are presently lacking. Without international cooperation we have no choice but to prevail.

Vir Stellae · 2004-12-12 15:47:16

The only countries who will be able to afford to go to mars in 20-30 years will be the US, or China if their bubble economy doesnt pop. Europe, Japan, and Russia are on the brink of a demographic crunch, come 2050 the median age in Europe and Japan will be 50-55... Contrary to poplar belief both the Japanese and Euro Area have larger deficits and larger debts compared to the size of their GDP, and are both growing significantly slower than the US, and the cruch has still yt to begin...

I doubt the US will ecer have a joint space venture with China, besides a race will get there 9.3 x 10^1212 times faster anyway, as past international collaborative efforts have proven their ineffectiveness (the UN, ISS, etc.)

Gennaro · 2004-12-15 06:41:39

The only demographical problem in Europe worth mentioning is related to the unchecked and historically unique immigration of African and Mid-East nationals. This is a first rate disaster in the making on nearly every level. Thankfully, at least, it's the delusional Rousseauist generation that created this folly that is going into retirement.

Funnily, "bubbles", spiralling "deficits" and "debts" are the sort of thing I generally hear about the US economy these days. Who'll be right in the final analysis? I'm not sure. Please note though that most European countries have been through that situation more or less already, while it seems like a rather new experience in the US. When I listen to American optimists, I can't help but recalling the carelessness of own country in the 80's. Don't ever trust a GDP growth built on outsourcing and newly installed money printing presses.

I doubt the US will ecer have a joint space venture with China, besides a race will get there 9.3 x 10^1212 times faster anyway, as past international collaborative efforts have proven their ineffectiveness (the UN, ISS, etc.)

I'm impressed with your degree of self-confidence. Good luck!

Vir Stellae · 2004-12-17 12:40:02

The only demographical problem in Europe worth mentioning is related to the unchecked and historically unique immigration of African and Mid-East nationals. This is a first rate disaster in the making on nearly every level. Thankfully, at least, it's the delusional Rousseauist generation that created this folly that is going into retirement.
Funnily, "bubbles", spiralling "deficits" and "debts" are the sort of thing I generally hear about the US economy these days. Who'll be right in the final analysis? I'm not sure. Please note though that most European countries have been through that situation more or less already, while it seems like a rather new experience in the US. When I listen to American optimists, I can't help but recalling the carelessness of own country in the 80's. Don't ever trust a GDP growth built on outsourcing and newly installed money printing presses.

The Europeans and Japanese have an extreme demographic problem, their countrie populations are going to decrease, but more importanatly the working age population will decreasse even faster.

esa.un.org/unpp

go to "constant fertility variant" Many European countries ill see their working age populaton decrease 30% while the Population age 65 increases the same amount.

Judging from your response you are not well versed in economics. Yes, the US had a bubble in the late 90s but it burst and we are recovering. The US economy is growing roughly 2-3 times faster than Europe and Japan. our deficits and public debts relative to GDP are smaller than most western nations, and then you add in our much faster growth and the growth of debt is much less.

http://www.economist.com/countries/Germ … ...%20Data

If you want to see other countries Write USA or France where Germany is written.

I could go into the Chian bubble but the easiest way to describe is to look at Japan. almost everything that happened to Japan is happening to China but even worse (in a bubble sense) the Government is trying with futility to slow growth before the bubble gets much worse. Nonperforming(bad) loans are spiriling out of control, as are urban property prices and vacancy rates. The main problem with China though is that unlike the USA or Japan Chian has a dictatorial government system that right now rests its legitimacy on economy growth. Political unrest could result, but so could a result everyone wants: a democratic China.

bolbuyk · 2004-12-23 13:19:02

Maybe it would be the best when ESA/Russia (and eventually China and Japan) would take a new space race with the USA. Competitivenes is a very good mechanism to turn up space-programs. In that case it would need equal party's to create some balance. I think ESA+Russia can be a very though combination for USA to beat. :laugh:

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-10 12:32:27

I doubt it, none of them have any real experience or reasources beyond orbital operations.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-12-09 14:58:15

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#27 2004-12-10 07:38:29

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#28 2004-12-10 14:20:51

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#29 2004-12-10 15:22:10

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#30 2004-12-10 22:46:28

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#31 2004-12-11 01:17:02

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#32 2004-12-11 02:19:14

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#33 2004-12-11 02:52:28

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#34 2004-12-11 12:39:56

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#35 2004-12-11 13:54:20

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#36 2004-12-11 17:58:08

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#37 2004-12-11 18:56:39

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#38 2004-12-12 15:47:16

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#39 2004-12-15 06:41:39

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#40 2004-12-17 12:40:02

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#41 2004-12-23 13:19:02

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

#42 2005-01-10 12:32:27

Re: International Cooperation-Not Worth The Effort? - Don't Think it is

Board footer