Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

BWhite · 2004-06-28 09:20:47

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/170/1]Link here.

Part one is good also.

We need space property rights. We are poised for a space equity boom. This may lead to fundamental game changes in strategic priorities that make the vast power shifts of the last 100 years look like children squabbling in a play pen. The US can lead this revolution, profit from it, and embrace it. If we do, we can extend our empire into the heavens and give birth to new nations in the New New Worlds. The game has not been won. It has not even been started. But if we want an interplanetary empire, we have to start now.
If we do not, we may be chastised by some wag Martian Defense Secretary 150 years from now as part of Old Earth. Maybe China will take up the torch. Maybe the Moses that will lead us to the planets will be Indian. The worst outcome would be that maybe no one will. Maybe we will never become an interstellar civilization and die out like the dinosaurs. If you want to curl up into fetal position and ignore the next wave of development and colonization, you will be forgotten just as all of Queen Isabella’s predecessors and contemporaries were.
Reach for species immortality, Mr. President. Breathe life into the heavens and spawn a new nation that will one day take our place as the most powerful just as leadership passed from Great Britain to the United States. Let your name be remembered forever.

Go, Sam, go!

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-28 09:34:39

I can add only one thing.

F**kin' a.

clark · 2004-06-28 09:45:10

He is calling for the end of NASA, ya know.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-28 09:56:49

He is calling for the end of NASA, ya know.

Yeah, and subsidies. And more fiat money... But somehow I can't quite bring myself to dump on the overall idea. I like it.

Maybe it's lack of sleep, maybe frustration, maybe even madness...

EDIT:

Actually, it's probably nuggets like this.

"Space is strategic. Choose something else to throw the utopian international community a bone. Ban land mines. It would make war more costly for others which would increase our edge. Ban nuclear testing. It would give us an edge with our supercomputer models. Or maybe just ban earthbound nuclear testing. If we are going to be hated anyway, let's get a huge prize to make it worth the cost."

BWhite · 2004-06-28 10:06:44

He is calling for the end of NASA, ya know.

He won't get everything he is asking for, nor should he.

But its like a nuclear reaction, we need stuff to make the reaction go faster and stuff to moderate the reaction. Right now we have far too much stuff slowing us down.

If we get too many Dinkins, then okay add moderators.

= = =

Edit: The US government probably won't embrace this vision because governments are bureacracies (corporate entities)not peoples.

Put differently, which Americans will do what Dinkin calls for? Followers of Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell or Baptist preacher Jesse Jackson or others entirely? America is one nation and we will most likely (hopefully) continue to be one nation, yet are we one people?

Many of you know who I picked (fictionally) to do this.

clark · 2004-06-28 10:25:37

But its like a nuclear reaction, we need stuff to make the reaction go faster and stuff to moderate the reaction. Right now we have far too much stuff slowing us down.

Faster? To what? For what?

He lays out timelines of 150 years to 500 years. Leaders are thinking 6 months out to the next election cycle. This is all DOA.

I can agree that you have to yell loudly to be heard, that you need to be extremist to pull people in your direction, but that depends really on who you are trying to pull.

Remaking the Middle East seems to be how Bush is getting in the books. Creating a fiat currency and land grabs in space for an imagniary space faring civilization on the far off horizon? In the 22nd to 26th centruy?

In the interveining centuries, Bush will be remembered as the one who killed NASA. That agency that took America to the Moon and instilled a sense of hope and wonder in the world.

His suggestions have some value, but most of them simply are not wedded to anything resembling reality. Sell our investment in ISS, then give the money to placate our partners? No amount of money is going to make them happy. No amount of money given to our foriegn partners is going to make the American people happy.

Subsidize space? Sure, sounds good. Until we realize that we pretty much have the same thing now, with cost-plus contracts and the like. United Space Alliance? That's what the end result is for all of space with some of his proposals.

He just shrugs and says, "change the terms of our treaty." As if it were that simple. [smack my forehead]. Buy Soyuz? If only it were that simple. Take government out of advanced research with the hope and prayer (that might get Bush's attention) that the invisible hand of free market takes over...

While a few good ideas are presented, most of them are lost to the really bad ideas that make hime sound belligerent.

But expand the empire! The American Empire among the stars! :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-06-28 10:36:49

He is calling for the end of NASA, ya know.

Not necessarily.

If NASA buys ET from Michoud and SRBs from Thiokol and Transhabs from SpaceHab and puts a base on the Moon, isn't that private sector?

And won't this lunar base have NASA logos and report to NASA Mission Control? NASA running a lunar base sure seems better than spending the next five years fooling around with ISS.

ISS? Give it "as is" to an international consortium NASA does not control. Offer the RSA, ESA, Canada and Japan permission to attach modules to the new luanr base as partial compensation.

Ground shuttle orbiter immediately and let the Russians complete ISS with Proton and an Orbital Recoveries style ISS-component stabilization module. A Progress meets the ISS component and drags it to the ISS for installation.

A lone 5 segment Thiokol SRB + liquid upper stage is big enough to throw a single truss with station keeping module to 51 degrees.

= = =

Does NASA need a monopoly to survive?

clark · 2004-06-28 10:48:38

If NASA buys ET from Michoud and SRBs from Thiokol and Transhabs from SpaceHab and puts a base on the Moon, isn't that private sector?

Isn't that what they do now? Except with Dinkin, on top of the cost-plus, they get a subsidy.

And won't this lunar base have NASA logos and report to NASA Mission Control?

No. Remember, he is calling for government to get out of advanced research. NASA would be a purchaser of science data, and would shop around, saying it has x amount of dollars for this and that science data. Any takers?

NASA running a lunar base sure seems better than spending the next five years fooling around with ISS.

Because it's new. Ask your wife's opinion.

ISS? Give it "as is" to an international consortium NASA does not control. Offer the RSA, ESA, Canada and Japan permission to attach modules to the new luanr base as partial compensation.

"Um, hi ISS partners, this is NASA. We're going out of business, but we're going to build this lunar base. Yeah, I know we didn't finish the ISS with you guys, like we promised. Sorry to leave you in the lurch. But hey, how about we put a few modules for you guys on our soon to be made lunar base? Don't worry, we're going to do it this time. We really mean it..."

We dump the ISS now, and we can kiss goodbye any hope of the major space agencies helping us in the future. We will have to work with India and Brazil because they'll be the only ones we haven't burned.

Ground shuttle orbiter immediately and let the Russians complete ISS with Proton and an Orbital Recoveries style ISS-component stabilization module.

You cannot ordain a solution that is based on technical constraints. The modules were designed to be lofted and installed by Shuttle missions. Losing a Shuttle means our partners give us some room, grounding the Shuttle means they scream.

A lone 5 segment Thiokol SRB + liquid upper stage is big enough to throw a single truss with station keeping module to 51 degrees.

All the modules? Last mile guidance? Perhaps some of the ISS stuff can go up this way, but I doubt all of it can. We have to finish what we started, there really isn't any other option because the fallout of not completing this is to great.

BWhite · 2004-06-28 10:56:44

What if the orbiter cannot return to flight? Or fly 25 - 30 missions in the next 8 years?

I read somewhere the opinion that the reason the Russians and the ESA like the ISS so much is that it chains the US space giant, rather like the giant in Gulliver's Travels. So long as we spend billions on ISS we cannot do anything else.

clark, I agree with you more than it might seem. Yet I believe that Chirac and Putin favor ISS completion more because it keeps us busy and delays the day when space property rights become a front burner political issue.

And, I also believe Dinkin overestimates the US ability to dictate what those property rights regimes will look like. Soyuz from Kouru for example is intended to make sure the US does not have unilateral access to the solar system.

Therefore, to negotiate a multi-national treaty to actually go out there seems better than merely postponing the decisoin.

clark · 2004-06-28 11:21:04

What if the orbiter cannot return to flight? Or fly 25 - 30 missions in the next 8 years?

It can return to flight. It will. However, it will not complete the ISS on the pre-determined schedule. I believe that is plainly obvious. What will happen is the time frame will be pushed back (which the Aldridge Commission has stated on numerous occasions). If that does happen, then come 2010, we have to reevaluate the cost of recertification of the Shuttle fleet. We can either go that route (unlikely), keep flying them without recertification (unlikely), or ground the Shuttle immediately and call ISS "done".

There is a popular term: Defeat with Honor. "One last show" is another. While I can agree that ISS does nothing for us, and that there are better ways to go about getting the stated objectives done, I think we both realize that NASA, the Shuttle, and ISS serve more than their stated objectives.

We can't ground the Shuttle right away (even though we will end up doing preceisely that come 2010 and an incomplete ISS) because we cannot burden the costs associated with that choice. We cannot give up or ceceed control of ISS for exactly the same reasons.

When are we planning to rid ourselves of ISS? At the same exact time we return to the Moon. Not before. What are we telling our ISS partners? We will try and finish the ISS by 2010, but don't hold your breath. That means we will horse trade with them for a redesigned ISS and probably throw them some Space Vision contracts.

I read somewhere the opinion that the reason the Russians and the ESA like the ISS so much is that it chains the US space giant, rather like the giant in Gulliver's Travels. So long as we spend billions on ISS we cannot do anything else.

We spend more on NASA than all the other space agencies compbined. We have more technical know how. The ESA is trying to catch up to our remote sensing capabilities (which has far more economic and startegic impact than orbiting people). Working with us gives them an advantage, and allows them to learn from us. They get an opportunity with us on the ISS because it really isn't something they could do on their own. We could, by ourselves, but not them. Not China. Not Russia (not now at least). Losing the ISS would hurt them more than us, which is why they want to keep it. They get the PR of human's in space on the cheap.

As for doing other things in space... well, that may be, but it also works to our advantage as we are learning some valuable lessons. Lessons that will filter down into privavte industry and allow us to go further.

Yet I believe that Chirac and Putin favor ISS completion more because it keeps us busy and delays the day when space property rights become a front burner political issue.

I really don't think they care. Orbital space, for sats, spectrums- these they care about because there is a direct economic value. The Moon? Mars? Deep space? Why would they care? You can't make a buck on the moon. Moon land dosen't make Russians or Frenchmen rich.

All of this becomes an issue in the sense that Antarctica was an issue. No one wanted all out war over new territory so they said it was all off limits. They threw in the Moon and the stars just to be safe. But here's the thing, no one is going to go to war over celestial resources. It just dosen't work out the same way it once did. Any other meaningful nation can deny any other nation by virtue of economics or a emp burst in the upper atmosphere. We have more in common because it's the G8 that can realistically access space (not the rest of the sodden poor world) and make a dollar (if it can be done) so they have a common interest to divy up the sky together. They will because it makes sense, and they won't hit the jackpot for another century or so.

And, I also believe Dinkin overestimates the US ability to dictate what those property rights regimes will look like.

I'm inclined to agree, but with a missle defense shield, he is mostly on the mark. We'll have to see how that plays out.

Soyuz from Kouru for example is intended to make sure the US does not have unilateral access to the solar system.

It's not unilateral access, it's to have independance from US capabilties. Having to depend on the Ruskies for US astronauts is grating for NASA. It limits our planning and forces us to dicker with them. Missle defense is intended to make sure the US has unilateral access to the solar system.

Therefore, to negotiate a multi-national treaty to actually go out there seems better than merely postponing the decisoin.

We don't need a treaty until someone complains. It makes better sense to wait until there is an issue becuase the relationship of power will be better defined. When you guess at the future, you may give away more than you need to.

Bill White · 2004-06-28 14:08:13

But here's the thing, no one is going to go to war over celestial resources. It just dosen't work out the same way it once did. Any other meaningful nation can deny any other nation by virtue of economics or a emp burst in the upper atmosphere. We have more in common because it's the G8 that can realistically access space (not the rest of the sodden poor world) and make a dollar (if it can be done) so they have a common interest to divy up the sky together.

Frankly, where I disagree with Dinkin is with the idea that nation-states will be the principal actors for going out into space.

As we have discussed before, I believe the "civilizational lines" described by Samuel Huntington will play a greater role than national identity as the lines which define competing interest groups, although national identities will certainly play a large supporting role.

Conventional nationalism runs into a dead end out in space because it will be pragmatically impossible to maintain political control over a self sustaining colony.

= = =

So I agree, Terran nation-states may very well not go to war with each other (unless maybe the United States is too blatant about space hegemony) over space resources but that doesn't mean people won't go to war in some other manner.

clark · 2004-06-28 14:25:32

Conventional nationalism runs into a dead end out in space because it will be pragmatically impossible to maintain political control over a self sustaining colony.

A self-sustaining colony is largely a pipe dream Bill.

Take the case of the roll of toilet paper.

It's going to cost a lot to keep people alive up there. No matter how self sufficient you become, you're still paying a lot to keep each person stocked with enough air, water, food, and power to just exsist. Now, that's the bare neccessities, but it dosen't make life worth living.

There are two things to consider in this situation, one is that the people up there are going to need/want these extra's in life to make it worth living in a complete vacuum. The other is that these people will need to be technically sophisticated (read, educated and specialized) to provide a life among the stars. You can have coal miners, but they're going to be pretty darned smart and sophisticated coal miners. This situation is dictated by the environment.

Now, back to the toilet paper roll. Who is going to make the toilet paper in a self-sufficient colony? Will the people who have a part in it's production be happy given their presumed technical background? Will they live in the "slums" of the space colony since they aren't being rewarded given their skill sets? In order to reward them, you have to increase labor costs, which increases the cost of the actual toilet paper roll, which increases the basic cost of living, which ends up creating a section of people who are disenfranchised. What do you do with them?

This little spiral path is what I use to see where all of this leads.

It tells me that self-sufficiency isn't really possible unless you terraform a planet, or you somehow figure out how to create a million person city with very thick walls.

It tells me that the national entity will be taxed to provide these things to space colonists. It will have to pamper the people up there, lest it loses it's multi-trillion dollar make-space-works project that employs all of the aerospace engineers on terra-firma.

So a national entity has to at least figure out how it can make a dollar to defray some of the cost if it's going to go down this road- they will agree to respect each others property claims, as long as they aren't too "big".

This allows the national entity to assume control over these habitats by purchasing property rights through an international agreement of mutual recognition. I respect your side of the fence if you respect mine. That means that my side of the fence is mine, and that I can sell off the natural resource rights as I see fit. (this is where most of a nations tax revenue is derived from- through the life cycle of mining rights to refining to production to the end of the life cycle, with taxes on each point in the life cycle and taxes on the work of every individual who has hand in the cycle.)

But colonization is a losing proposition for any national entity in that you can't make a dime off of it. It might have national security and esoteric value (much as having a child to past you has value in an industrial society), but not economic.

Self sufficiency won't happen for a very long time, in the same way that the American colonies were not self sufficient for centuries.

clark · 2004-06-28 14:41:40

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04p.html]Queen Isabella's Ghost

Our friend Jeff Bell wrote a piece worth considering given the direction of this discussion. :;): :laugh:

So if we could bring back Isabella of Castile today, I think she would bitterly regret her decision to fund Christopher Columbus. And I think she would recognize many of today's space advocates as the intellectual heirs of the deluded crank who stood before her over 500 years ago.
They often show the same mixture of technical incompetence, slanted data, fanatical devotion to the cause, and brilliant salesmanship that led Columbus and Spain to disaster.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-28 15:09:17

Yes, Cindy brought that to our attention a few days back. Interesting.

But... focusing on what an individual national leader would have done out of their own self interest having foreknowledge of events dodges the point. The European discovery of the Americas was a major turning point in human civilization. It determined who would dominate for generations, not so much in a national sense, but a cultural one.

Whether or not she was fully aware of the implications and whether she'd still proceed if she were, Queen Isabella did become part of a tremendous historical event, one with positive impacts reverberating through the generations. Motives matter less than results.

So, to undertake an ambitious space program with the goal of establishing a permanent presence me be crazy, we may all be raving loons. But things may look very different to posterity. If Martians look back and call us fools, we've succeeded.

Bill White · 2004-06-28 15:16:17

In this meme-infested world of ours, a powerful http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=40762]myth can have tangible consequences for current politicians.

A politician who rallies a people with the promise of building a new shining city on a hill might well gain current support even if the city cannot be finished for generations.

How long did the Pyramids take? Or those cathedrals in Europe?

Yet those undertaking provided social "glue" that gave perfectly real if intangible benefits long before completion.

= = =

We can't ground the Shuttle right away (even though we will end up doing preceisely that come 2010 and an incomplete ISS) because we cannot burden the costs associated with that choice. We cannot give up or ceceed control of ISS for exactly the same reasons.

clark, have you followed the Thiokol SRB discussion?

The Delta IV has a payload bay that closely mimics the orbiter payload bay. Funny, that.

A single 5 segment Thiokol SRB together with an upper stage having equal perfomance as the shuttle SSME seems to have the ooomph to put ISS modules up at 51 degrees. With enough extra mass margin to include an Orbital Recoveries style station-keeping module.

Then collect it with Progress and drag to ISS for installation.

We reprise our early discussions (from February/March) just mix and match Delta IV upper stage and Thiokol SRBs.

Thinking about it, the quote from the Boeing guy in the spaceflightnow post seems to imply exactly this.

clark · 2004-06-28 15:31:52

The European discovery of the Americas was a major turning point in human civilization. It determined who would dominate for generations, not so much in a national sense, but a cultural one.

The Spanish discovery was a major turning point, it hearlded their cultural and international demise. So America can endeavour along this path, and set up the other international civilizations, or it can sit back, and make a buck off of it when it happens- just like the Protestant's did.

So, to undertake an ambitious space program with the goal of establishing a permanent presence me be crazy, we may all be raving loons. But things may look very different to posterity. If Martians look back and call us fools, we've succeeded.

But this misses the main point. Establishing a permanent presence in space to do what?! monument to our ego?! At least in the America's experience colonists were doing something. What the heck are we going to do living permanently on Mars? Terraform it? Fine. That's wonderful for the future generations of Martians. Dosen't do much for us back home.

A politician who rallies a people with the promise of building a new shining city on a hill might well gain current support even if the city cannot be finished for generations.

Yeah, I heard that one about Iraq too. "Okay kids, we're off to live on Mars. Not for any god. Not for security. not for a safer world for our children. Nope, just to go live out in the barren red rock to see if we can, and to make sure someone remembers us if we ever get hit by an asteroid."

How long did the Pyramids take? Or those cathedrals in Europe?

Mars has no gods. Why build them a temple?

Bill White · 2004-06-28 15:37:36

Mars has no gods. Why build them a temple?

The temple is built to offer hope that Earth's various civilizations can vent their competitive drive without resorting to warfare.

Or that a civilization at risk of getting swamped by Terran demographics can preserve its memes at least somewhere.

The temple is built as a pressure release safety valve to channel and deflect the hopes and aspirations and fears of billions of people who otherwise might not learn to live together in peace.

clark · 2004-06-28 15:47:37

The temple is built to offer hope that Earth's various civilizations can vent their competitive drive without resorting to warfare.

Okay. But why Mars? Or, why Mars instead of curing Cancer? AIDS? Poverty? Ignorance? Improving the environment? Hunger? Why not the Moon? Europa? Orbital colonies?

Or that a civilization at risk of getting swamped by Terran demographics can preserve its memes at least somewhere.

Undo Mcdonalds and Hollywood. Offering the equivilent of a cultural retreat/nature preserve seems silly. Worthwhile memes survive, those less than worthwhile die off- usually for good reason. Or should we strive to save all meme's? Give jews another piece of land on Mars to protect them from the Arab demographic shift? Will the WASP's find refuge from the browning of America on Mars? I don't like this because it makes it about race, at least on some level.

The temple is built as a pressure release safety valve to channel and deflect the hopes and aspirations and fears of billions of people who otherwise might not learn to live together in peace.

A bunch of rich educated westerners building a shining city on the hill teaches the unwashed masses what, precisely? How?

Bill White · 2004-06-28 16:06:06

The temple is built to offer hope that Earth's various civilizations can vent their competitive drive without resorting to warfare.
Okay. But why Mars? Or, why Mars instead of curing Cancer? AIDS? Poverty? Ignorance? Improving the environment? Hunger? Why not the Moon? Europa? Orbital colonies?

I said competitive drive, not cooperative drive. Sports is one way we do that now. We cannot wring out our competitive natures merely by wishing it so. Space conquest as "Alternative to War"

Or that a civilization at risk of getting swamped by Terran demographics can preserve its memes at least somewhere.
Undo Mcdonalds and Hollywood. Offering the equivilent of a cultural retreat/nature preserve seems silly. Worthwhile memes survive, those less than worthwhile die off- usually for good reason. Or should we strive to save all meme's? Give jews another piece of land on Mars to protect them from the Arab demographic shift? Will the WASP's find refuge from the browning of America on Mars? I don't like this because it makes it about race, at least on some level.

Racist?

IMHO Kristi Yamaguchi and Michael Jordan are 100% all-American. Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King Jr are 100% American originals. Memes are about ideas not genetics.

What's wrong with memetic diversity? Squeeze 10, 12 or 15 billion people onto one planet and the pressure to conform only grows.

And remember, I am talking safety valve. Even the illusion of hope can keep desperate people from taking desperate actions.

The temple is built as a pressure release safety valve to channel and deflect the hopes and aspirations and fears of billions of people who otherwise might not learn to live together in peace.
A bunch of rich educated westerners building a shining city on the hill teaches the unwashed masses what, precisely? How?

India's President seems gung-ho to join in. He wants to start extracting resources within 50 years.

And if India and China produce new software engineers, nano-tech engineers and other engineers at 4 times the rate we US-ians do, it very well may not be westerners who build that first city.

clark · 2004-06-28 16:39:00

How does space conquest act as an alternative to war? Colonizing space, racing to do so, dosen't seem to solve any of the reasons why people war. in fact, it seems it might act as a new catalyst for war.

What's wrong with memetic diversity? Squeeze 10, 12 or 15 billion people onto one planet and the pressure to conform only grows.

And that would explain the rise of sub-culture how? Cultures change, meme's are transmistted, morphed, and recast to become relevant after becoming stale. As long as conditions exsist to allow for the expression of different views, there isn't a need for a distant place for new cultures to develop- everything needed would already exsist, here.

i don't see how sub-cultures are in danger of being extinguished.

And remember, I am talking safety valve. Even the illusion of hope can keep desperate people from taking desperate actions.

Okay, I conceed this point. However, there are other alternatives besides Mars colonies.

India's President seems gung-ho to join in. He wants to start extracting resources within 50 years.

Talk is cheap. Let's see them do something first.

Palomar · 2004-06-28 18:20:02

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/170/1]Link here.
Part one is good also.
"We need space property rights. We are poised for a space equity boom."...

*Do we?

We've only just begun to study our Solar System (probes and robots).

We're still just beginning to learn the origins and evolution of our Solar System.

Dividing up and selling portions of the Solar System will destroy -- or at least greatly hamper -- scientific knowledge, in my opinion.

Any future Moon or Mars colony/settlement should simply be on the basis of protected TEMPORARY LEASING (from the UN) rights.

This is like saying the ocean should be divided up and sold as "property rights" because we've landed on and scratched the tip of an iceberg.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion of course; here's mine.

--Cindy

::EDIT::

Bill: Space conquest as "Alternative to War"

*The word "conquest" itself -invites- war, doesn't it? ???

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-29 06:51:21

Dividing up and selling portions of the Solar System will destroy -- or at least greatly hamper -- scientific knowledge, in my opinion.

Property rights are the first requirement for vigorous development, which results in people on the surface, working, digging, building, living. We will learn much more about these worlds, both practical science and the more esoteric variety from this approach than by launching a million robot probes.

But, and I suspect this is your real concern, we'll change those places. Their natural beauty will be altered and blended with the works of man. Industry will intrude into those pristine enviroments. Life will intrude.

Is this about science... or aesthetics?

Any future Moon or Mars colony/settlement should simply be on the basis of protected TEMPORARY LEASING (from the UN) rights.

The implication being that the UN owns the body in question.

This is like saying the ocean should be divided up and sold as "property rights" because we've landed on and scratched the tip of an iceberg.

No, just that iceberg.

Palomar · 2004-06-29 07:07:18

Property rights are the first requirement for vigorous development, which results in people on the surface, working, digging, building, living. We will learn much more about these worlds, both practical science and the more esoteric variety from this approach than by launching a million robot probes.
But, and I suspect this is your real concern, we'll change those places. Their natural beauty will be altered and blended with the works of man. Industry will intrude into those pristine enviroments. Life will intrude.
Is this about science... or aesthetics?

*It's about science -- and making sure we're adequately protecting what we're just now beginning to learn about.

I see too much of this "conquer and rape" mentality towards the Solar System by people within the space exploration arena for my comfort. I suspect many of these people don't have a good grasp of the Solar System, how NEW we really are to studying it, etc. The Age of Expansion on Earth saw mindless greed and exploitation -- which nearly drove buffalo extinct, for example. I wonder how many species WERE driven extinct from the 1500s to the early 1900s that we will never be aware of.

We don't need a repeat of the "great white hunter" mentality going out into space. What's the point of keeping history if not to learn from it?

Any future Moon or Mars colony/settlement should simply be on the basis of protected TEMPORARY LEASING (from the UN) rights.
The implication being that the UN owns the body in question.

*No. The UN would be the oversight organization. As for leasing, each nation could lease a portion of a celestial body for colonies, etc. -- adhering to environmental guidelines and etc in the meantime (pick up your trash, recycle, minimal if any mining, etc.).

As for my iceberg analogy...if past history is any indication, claims wouldn't be left at just the iceberg.

Science trumps everything and must come first. There are too many (maybe well-meaning but IMO severely MISguided people) who seem to want to rush out right now and change/alter EVERYTHING to the extreme. What a pity...again, considering that we are only *beginning* to become acquainted with our beautiful Solar System, its mechanics, its evolution, the unique properties of each body within it, etc.

Manned exploration -- maturely and responsibly with "tread lightly" in mind.

It's far too soon, IMO, to begin dividing the Solar System up like a pie. That won't benefit science; it'll just provide an excuse for greedy exploiters to hang a "do not trespass" sign out and thus more science is lost.

Again -- just my opinion.

--Cindy

Sam Dinkin · 2004-06-29 07:48:20

He is calling for the end of NASA, ya know.

Not end of NASA--just end of NASA as we know it.

Sam Dinkin

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-29 07:50:54

Certainly we should not go out and strip-mine everything in sight. We should not view our solar system as nothing more than raw metals and rocks. But then it is our solar system. If we are to expand outward as a species we will need to exploit some of those resources. A balance is needed. We cannot effectively develop other worlds until we understand more about hem, but neither can we push back development indefinately in the name of science. The two feed off each other.

Manned exploration requires a human presence, which in turn requires some exploitation of that which is being explored. This can be achieved without property rights, but only at tremendous taxpayer expense.

Property rights open the door for exploitation and exploration, the two go hand in hand.

EDIT::
Snuck in under my radar, welcome Sam.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-06-28 09:20:47

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#2 2004-06-28 09:34:39

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#3 2004-06-28 09:45:10

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#4 2004-06-28 09:56:49

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#5 2004-06-28 10:06:44

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#6 2004-06-28 10:25:37

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#7 2004-06-28 10:36:49

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#8 2004-06-28 10:48:38

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#9 2004-06-28 10:56:44

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#10 2004-06-28 11:21:04

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#11 2004-06-28 14:08:13

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#12 2004-06-28 14:25:32

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#13 2004-06-28 14:41:40

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#14 2004-06-28 15:09:17

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#15 2004-06-28 15:16:17

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#16 2004-06-28 15:31:52

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#17 2004-06-28 15:37:36

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#18 2004-06-28 15:47:37

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#19 2004-06-28 16:06:06

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#20 2004-06-28 16:39:00

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#21 2004-06-28 18:20:02

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#22 2004-06-29 06:51:21

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#23 2004-06-29 07:07:18

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#24 2004-06-29 07:48:20

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

#25 2004-06-29 07:50:54

Re: Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this!

Board footer