The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

EarthWolf · 2004-08-13 16:09:47

Hello,

I was looking over the OST and I was wondering if anyone thinks it needs revisions. The treaty was signed during a time of intense Cold War competition between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Both sides were developing combat spacecraft and the Soviets conducted tests of an aircraft cannon for self-defense against U.S. spacecraft. In addition, does the treaty inhibit the commercialization of space?

Cordially,

EarthWolf

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-13 18:32:53

Scrap it! Formally, or just ignore it.

Martian Republic · 2004-08-13 19:23:19

Hello,
I was looking over the OST and I was wondering if anyone thinks it needs revisions. The treaty was signed during a time of intense Cold War competition between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Both sides were developing combat spacecraft and the Soviets conducted tests of an aircraft cannon for self-defense against U.S. spacecraft. In addition, does the treaty inhibit the commercialization of space?
Cordially,
EarthWolf

Another reason that the Soviet sign the treaty was they were afraid of private enterprise inside the United States that they would take space and commercialize it and leave them out of the picture.

But as Cobra Commander said, I would just crap the treaty.

Then any future involvement with other nation will be on a case by case discussion and agreement.

But, how you would get away from another space race to control the moon, mars or even the asteroids along with other space assets by different countries, I don’t know.

Larry

prometheusunbound · 2004-08-14 05:30:49

But as Cobra Commander said, I would just crap the treaty.

Don't blow out your O-ring. :laugh:

Grypd · 2004-08-14 16:15:19

The outer space treaty does have some good sections and it did reduce tensions.
But for the devolpement of space it has been the biggest hindrance since someone invented gravity.
If the Moon treaty had been allowed to be ratified by anyone who really mattered it would have killed the future of space.

How Iwould develop the outer space treaty is to allow zones of interest ie if you plant a base either robot or manned in an area and can prove you are using the resources to develop space you should be permanently licensed to carry on that zone until either you stop for 5 years or state you have finished with that zone. Zones would be about 1000 km blocks on the Moon and Mars and a whole asteroid. There should be legislation to stop the use of a zone to disrupt other zones ie no crashing asteroids into other nations areas.

Another way is to develop like a port authority is a Mars or Moon development organisation which can licence users to develop or install items to develop the Moon or Mars. These authorities could then sell licences allowing commercial companies to operate in these locations bringing private enterprise to the Moon or Mars.

But whatever happens I dont think the Outer space treaty will stand for ever sooner or later some country will repeal it. And then others will follow and it will become a bit wild out there unless legislation is put in place soon.

Morris · 2004-08-14 17:38:11

Another way is to develop like a port authority is a Mars or Moon development organisation which can licence users to develop or install items to develop the Moon or Mars. These authorities could then sell licences allowing commercial companies to operate in these locations bringing private enterprise to the Moon or Mars.
But whatever happens I dont think the Outer space treaty will stand for ever sooner or later some country will repeal it. And then others will follow and it will become a bit wild out there unless legislation is put in place soon.

How Iwould develop the outer space treaty is to allow zones of interest ie if you plant a base either robot or manned in an area and can prove you are using the resources to develop space you should be permanently licensed to carry on that zone until either you stop for 5 years or state you have finished with that zone. Zones would be about 1000 km blocks on the Moon and Mars and a whole asteroid. There should be legislation to stop the use of a zone to disrupt other zones ie no crashing asteroids into other nations areas.

The idea of zones would allow a very flexible set of development arrangements. Development organizations could be countries, industries, non-profit communities, or conceivably even individuals.

But my impression is that 1000 km zones would be much too big for most purposes. How about letting the developer propose a zone size and have it reviewed in the light of the developer's overall plan?

prometheusunbound · 2004-08-14 19:34:54

Another way is to develop like a port authority is a Mars or Moon development organisation which can licence users to develop or install items to develop the Moon or Mars. These authorities could then sell licences allowing commercial companies to operate in these locations bringing private enterprise to the Moon or Mars.

Hear, Hear! Authorities with all the might of big buiness and big government are probably neccessary to float the bond issues neccessary to build industries.

An authority, by just about all legal defination, raises bond issues for a certain goal and retires those bonds.

How is your authority going to retire the bond issues?

I think that will be the problem; finding a way to pay and then persuading the bankers to front the money.

If something can be found, it is certainly a valid idea.

SpaceNut · 2016-10-08 17:19:45

Bump
Fixing topic that goes with the newer creation of the same subject

SpaceNut · 2020-12-10 18:09:12

bump for outer space treaties and whom might not honor those that have signed them...

tahanson43206 · 2020-12-10 18:55:24

For SpaceNut re #9 and topic in general ...

The history of China and the OST is muddled .... The Republic of China ratified the treaty before the transfer of the Security Council seat to mainland China. Mainland China has NOT signed the treaty.

Their status (according to Wikipedia as of 2020) is NOT "Ratified". It is neither signed nor Ratified.

I suspect that the mainland Chinese do not feel obligated to honor the treaty.

Meanwhile, the Republic of China still considers itself bound by its signature.

Calliban's concerns about Chinese city lights on the Moon may be justified.

***
The evening news program I often watch featured a short segment from China that fits right into this topic.

The overall subject was the Covid pandemic, and the specific focus was the severe lockdown endured by the people of a large city a year ago or so. The video showed a celebration of the achievement of combating the virus.

In the middle of the video, a citizen was interviewed about attending the celebration. She extolled the local Communist Party for organizing the event, and expressed admiration for the display.

I rather suspect this enthusiastic citizen was speaking with supervision and encouragement out of camera range.

It seems likely to me that (some) future citizens in cities on the Moon will have similar attitudes.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2020-12-10 18:57:43)

SpaceNut · 2020-12-10 20:03:11

Sounds to me that we need an Antarctic community on the moon to hedge the development of the moon by a guarded china presence.
That said we need to make a permanent base at the poles in order to get the necessary water ice from the creators and a steady source of solar energy long before we get a krustry kilowatt unit or some other nuclear presence going.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-05-22 13:22:04

The final frontier
https://www.newsday.com/opinion/editori … 1.50254280

The last few months have seen incredible achievements of American science and engineering, with the robotic rover Perseverance safely landing on Mars and the experimental helicopter Ingenuity lifting off in the planet’s thin atmosphere, a first-time feat.
Yet China’s own Martian landing in May makes clear that America has company in outer space.
Space also is emerging as a tense battleground domain for big countries’ military muscles, and America’s Space Force, created under President Donald Trump as the newest branch of the Armed Forces, is just part of it. China, India, the U.S., and Russia have all tested orbital military capabilities. In a fraught incident in 2020, a Russian satellite flew close behind a U.S. spy satellite hundreds of miles above Earth’s surface.
In a modern twist, nations are no longer the only big players in space. Commercial space industry spending has continued apace through the pandemic. Part of that presages more space tourism, and already there is a reality TV show in the works, "Space Hero," which would pit contestants against each other for a trip to outer space.
But there are also bigger changes afoot, with private companies eyeing their own exploration missions. It may not be long before businesses try to collect heavy metals from asteroids or water on the moon.

NASA Hails China Space Travel As 'Unifying Force,' But U.S. Law Bans Alliance
https://www.newsweek.com/nasa-welcomes- … an-1588704

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2021-05-22 13:37:37)

louis · 2021-05-22 15:09:06

I beleive the OST is best left alone now. Any replacement treaty would impose bureaucracy on space exploration and, specifically, Mars colonisation.

The OST does not prevent setting up human bases on Mars or indeed people settled on Mars from declaring themselves a sovereign people and territory, as is their general right under the UN Human Rights Declaration. It prevents states - and companies operating from Earth states - in claiming ownership of land.

As long as property title is avoided and only a system of licensed usage for pre-determined periods maintained, then the OST is no bar to settlement.

An Antarctic style treaty for the Moon would be acceptable, in my view, with various safeguards e.g. no facilities being created that are visible from Earth, no stationing of weapons.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-06-14 09:30:06

NASA seeks proposals for next 2 private astronaut missions to ISS
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA … S_999.html

commercialization of the Moon and Mars will happen?

kbd512 · 2021-06-14 11:44:41

I have to agree with Louis on this one. Before we pass judgement on or start making changes to something we may not fully understand the implications of, it may be best to first evaluate how the OST affects our ability to colonize the moon or Mars, then propose changes if something about that treaty becomes problematic. As I understand it, OST basically states that no country or corporation gets to lay claim to planets, but everyone gets to establish settlements or colonies there in pursuit of human knowledge and expansion of humanity into space.

Thus far, no significant weaponization of space has occurred. The extent of militarization of space has been limited to spy satellites and "hit-to-kill" type weapons used to take out adversary spy satellites. We all know that America and Russia temporarily experimented with weapons in space long ago, then both countries thought better of it and decided that was not the best use of military resources, since no real military advantage was afforded by pre-positioning weapons in space. It turns out that pre-positioning weapons in space would almost certainly give advance warning of an impending attack, which is serendipitous for those of us who are uninterested in mass-murdering each other. Now that the US, Russia, and China all have space stations in space, more consideration has been given to not destroying that inordinately expensive equipment as an unintended consequence of weapons tests.

louis · 2021-06-14 15:25:55

For me the key point is that the OST does not rule out inhabitants of Mars from declaring themselves independent.

I would like to see a Mars Republic established at the earliest opportunity. How early that could be is difficult to say. But if you leave it too long Earth powers with lots of funding behind them well set up outposts of oppression on Mars and the chance will be lost. I suspect this may be one of the reasons Musk is so keen to focus on a million person city within 30 years. Sheer numbers would make it impregnable and make it the de facto controller of Mars. However, for me, it appears as a unrealistic and unrealisable goal.

When Texas declared itself independent there were only some 40,000 people who considered themselves "Texans".

kbd512 · 2021-06-15 11:24:23

Louis,

Martians can declare themselves independent when no tax dollars are used to fund them. That's probably a century or so away, but eventually it will happen.

louis · 2021-06-15 11:33:53

Well my views on that are well known. Mars colonisation is going to be one of the most profitable enterprises ever undertaken from the get-go.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
Martians can declare themselves independent when no tax dollars are used to fund them. That's probably a century or so away, but eventually it will happen.

Calliban · 2021-06-16 08:53:29

louis wrote:

Well my views on that are well known. Mars colonisation is going to be one of the most profitable enterprises ever undertaken from the get-go.

kbd512 wrote:
Louis,
Martians can declare themselves independent when no tax dollars are used to fund them. That's probably a century or so away, but eventually it will happen.

That is a bold claim. But for a long time to come, a Martian colony will be heavily dependent on complex machinery and tools imported from Earth. We do not yet have reliable information on how much it is going to cost to supply that equipment using Starship. To claim that the enterprise is going to be profitable, is to claim that export value will rapidly exceed import costs. We don't even know what those exports are going to be at present.

I don't know how you can profess to be confident about colonisation being profitable from the word go. It sounds like hubris and wishful thinking to me. Maybe you have done lots of analysis to support that point of view. But somehow, I doubt it. The world is awash with unsubstantiated wishful thinking and assumptions. People believing stuff, not because it is true, but because they want to. It has preceded just about every disaster in human history. It irritates me for precisely that reason.

louis · 2021-06-16 15:11:49

The UK TV rights for football are worth over £1.5 billion per annum.

This will be the biggest TV event since the moon landing.

But this time there is no reason why Space X shouldn't exploit it. It could release free "highlights" but get TV companies to pay for exclusive content e.g. interviews with crew and so on. Space X could provide video allowing companies back on Earth to make documentaries. Mars news will become a staple of news bulletins. Not every night after the first couple of weeks perhaps, but the interest will be there week by week.

We are of course talking about an event that will be of interest to probably 90% of the world's population. That's a market of over 6 billino people.

TV and photograph rights are of course just the beginning and they will continue to earn money into the future. There are books to be sold, merchandising, official toys and games. A coffee table style book that might retail and sell at $30 could easily sell 10 million copies around the world. But there will be many other books as well including scientific books. The book publishing industry in the USA is valued at around $25 billion per annum. I could see a Space X publishing arm snaffling at least $100 million of that. And of course the world market is even bigger.

Calliban wrote:

louis wrote:
Well my views on that are well known. Mars colonisation is going to be one of the most profitable enterprises ever undertaken from the get-go.

kbd512 wrote:
Louis,
Martians can declare themselves independent when no tax dollars are used to fund them. That's probably a century or so away, but eventually it will happen.
That is a bold claim. But for a long time to come, a Martian colony will be heavily dependent on complex machinery and tools imported from Earth. We do not yet have reliable information on how much it is going to cost to supply that equipment using Starship. To claim that the enterprise is going to be profitable, is to claim that export value will rapidly exceed import costs. We don't even know what those exports are going to be at present.
I don't know how you can profess to be confident about colonisation being profitable from the word go. It sounds like hubris and wishful thinking to me. Maybe you have done lots of analysis to support that point of view. But somehow, I doubt it. The world is awash with unsubstantiated wishful thinking and assumptions. People believing stuff, not because it is true, but because they want to. It has preceded just about every disaster in human history. It irritates me for precisely that reason.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-12-01 10:09:17

Musk Says Starlink Satellites Had to Swerve Out of the Way of Debris

https://futurism.com/the-byte/elon-musk … tes-swerve

Elon Musk says Starlink satellites have to dodge debris from Russia's anti-satellite missile test

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-sa … 08886.html

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2021-12-01 10:11:08)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-13 16:09:47

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#2 2004-08-13 18:32:53

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#3 2004-08-13 19:23:19

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#4 2004-08-14 05:30:49

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#5 2004-08-14 16:15:19

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#6 2004-08-14 17:38:11

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#7 2004-08-14 19:34:54

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#8 2016-10-08 17:19:45

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#9 2020-12-10 18:09:12

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#10 2020-12-10 18:55:24

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#11 2020-12-10 20:03:11

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#12 2021-05-22 13:22:04

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#13 2021-05-22 15:09:06

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#14 2021-06-14 09:30:06

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#15 2021-06-14 11:44:41

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#16 2021-06-14 15:25:55

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#17 2021-06-15 11:24:23

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#18 2021-06-15 11:33:53

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#19 2021-06-16 08:53:29

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#20 2021-06-16 15:11:49

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

#21 2021-12-01 10:09:17

Re: The Outer Space Treaty - Does the OST need revision?

Board footer