Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

Cobra Commander · 2005-11-28 14:49:28

Stop with all this "either / or" stuff.

Exactly!

Maybe they'll listen when Bill says it.

clark · 2005-11-28 14:49:28

Stop with all this "either / or" stuff.

Isn't that an "either / or"?

We need all the help we can get.

I know the name of a good therapist.

clark · 2005-11-28 15:20:49

So, kids, why should we sell off space? It doesn't seem to provide us the means to our end (space colonization). It doesn't look to provide any form of equality of opportunity in prosperity (which leads to instability rock-side). It looks to limit exploration and scientific possibilites that have no direct commercial merit. It engenders the creation of vested interests that will limit innovation in new technologies in order to maintain whatever status quo is created.

Aside from offering a new venue for "branding", what is the point in supporting space exploitation as the rocket fuel to the stars?

CC, reduced to a cheerleader. Fear the imperalist pom-poms.

John Creighton · 2005-11-28 15:25:15

Precedent is against you. By the same token, we could mine Antarctica. The treaty governing Antarctica is in large part the reason we have the space treaties we do have. It is fundamentally the same thing.
I really don’t know why we can’t.
Because the President and Congress approved a treaty saying we can't.
The U.S. did not ratify the Moon Treaty and thus by implication rejected application of the Antarctic Treaty provisions to lunar and asteroidal resources.

We need a better reason then because someone signed a piece of paper.

clark · 2005-11-28 15:31:16

We need a better reason then because someone signed a piece of paper.

Because the alternative to a signed piece of paper is anarchy and a world where the rule of law is just a joke, instead of an ideal we strive towards.

But then, i like writing checks. Or cashing my paycheck, which, when all is said and done, is nothing more than someone signing a piece of paper.

BWhite · 2005-11-28 20:11:41

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." --9th Amendment

This means that if it ain't prohibited, its permitted.

clark · 2005-11-29 06:16:05

So, in essence, my general low-grade trolling, here, is protected under the 9th ammendment?

But all of that is beside the point Bill. Your continued refusal to address the actual point I raise, that space exploitation and commercialization is ill suited to provide the means for actual space colonization, demonstrates the validity of my claim.

Another legal mumbo-jumbo concept: "Silence is acknoledgement under the law".

Stupid lawyers.

Present company excluded... of course.

BWhite · 2005-11-29 06:31:48

So, in essence, my general low-grade trolling, here, is protected under the 9th ammendment?
But all of that is beside the point Bill. Your continued refusal to address the actual point I raise, that space exploitation and commercialization is ill suited to provide the means for actual space colonization, demonstrates the validity of my claim.
Another legal mumbo-jumbo concept: "Silence is acknoledgement under the law".
Stupid lawyers.
Present company excluded... of course.

Whether its ill suited or not, funding via government taxation is even less likely to achieve out goals. Do you have a 3rd solution?

clark · 2005-11-29 06:38:33

Government taxation took us to the moon. But, to head you off at the pass...

As I pointed to earlier in this thread, I am not a die hard on this subject, and I do believe there is an opportunity for synergy between various forms.

The key though is enforced (by central planning) development and investment of space infrastructure by commercial interests.

Any profit that is pulled out of space gets taxed at 90%. Any profit redirected into R&D (around targeted areas) or in development of space infrastructure that expands and enables greater human access to space does not get taxed.

Think of it like a Space IRA, or something to that effect.

Cobra Commander · 2005-11-29 07:29:22

Aside from offering a new venue for "branding", what is the point in supporting space exploitation as the rocket fuel to the stars?

Exploitation isn't the end, it isn't even the means to the end. It's something that happens on the way. It isn't fuel, it's trail mix.

For example, mining Lunar platinum is clearly not the key to Mankind's conquest of the cosmos. But if someone can get enough investors to try it, why stop them? If it fails some private moneybags investors are out fat cash. If it works, we have infrastructure on the Moon and people with a vested interest in maintaining if not expanding it.

Every little bit helps.

Enter Bill's brand-conscious "vision thing." Sell whatever logo-ed crap you can and put some of the profits into less mundane schemes than mining some dead rock if you're so inclined. Start a "Cities on Mars" fund with proceeds from selling Aries brand jeans, whatever.

In the end, all space activity helps. A mine on the Moon gets people out there and shows it's possible. A military outpost with big honkin' nuclear missiles on the Moon gets people out there. Both cases create an incentive to develop cheaper, faster transportation. And if you can profitably conduct operations on the Moon, whether direct activities (mining) or otherwise (branding) why can't you do the same for asteroids? Mars? The Jovian Moons? It's a progression.

Sure, a grand call to colonization for the betterment of all mankind would be nice. But unless everyone suddenly decides to go all "enlightened fascist" it ain't happening. Incremental approach then. Space-as-commerce is more easily expanded and developed than space-as-nature preserve. Exploitation is not the be-all of space colonization, but it is an integral and necessary factor of it. Otherwise we'll never do anything but look around and marvel at the vast uselessness of it all.

clark · 2005-11-29 07:35:39

Otherwise we'll never do anything but look around and marvel at the vast uselessness of it all.

I am reminded of a mirror. Not quite sure why.

BWhite · 2005-11-29 11:21:46

Mining Lunar platinum is clearly not the key to Mankind's conquest of the cosmos

Hmmm. . .

Want to buy an authentic key to the Cosmos? Fabricated from 100% genuine lunar platinum? Has a logo stamped on it and everything.

= = =

More seriously, Wayne White made an interesting point at a recent conference I attended. We are better off allowing the first settlements to be politically independent, from the beginning, because they will engage in political rebellion sooner or later anyway.

Lets avoid the whole "reprise 1776" thing from the start.

If that is true WHY should any nation-state expend money building a settlement?

clark · 2005-11-29 11:34:55

More seriously, Wayne White made an interesting point at a recent conference I attended. We are better off allowing the first settlements to be politically independent, from the beginning, because they will engage in political rebellion sooner or later anyway.
Lets avoid the whole "reprise 1776" thing from the start.
If that is true WHY should any nation-state expend money building a settlement?

I reject the notion that rebellion is inevitable.

Or should we cut states loose on the same premise? Why not counties? Why not cities? Why not neighborhoods? Why not individuals?

The analysis is intellectually shallow and self-serving based on a skewed interpretation of history and devoid of any actual meaning. It takes no account of environmental reality, nor the historical progression of social development.

Start with the question: Why do people rebel? What is the genesis? Will the catalysts be repeated? Why?

If you ask the right questions, and you take an objective look, the development of space by nation-states does not mean that their "settlements" will one day rebel from the mother country. To assume so is just fluff and flash debate points.

I am appalled you even brought it up Bill.

Cobra Commander · 2005-11-29 11:39:03

If that is true WHY should any nation-state expend money building a settlement?

Muahahahaha!

It serves a number of purposes if done right. If it's set up for business purposes government can subsidize the effort. This gets infrastructure and tranportation in place at cut-rate prices (from a taxpayer perspective) and the sponsoring nation can deal for first-dib trading status. The business entity gets to write its own laws for the facility. No overbearing regulations, no taxation at the source. . .

Or a government could assist some dissident types in the task. Get some malcontents out of the country, test out some hardware, build some infrastructure and spread the host culture.

In both cases it skirts the Outer Space Treaty. A private colony of citizens from a particular nation using equipment from that nation, in some case even "owned" by that nation. It grants de facto sovereignty, even if the colony is allowed to do whatever it damn well pleases. The host nation can retain a reasonable claim to jurisdiction over the people and the equipment, the people own the territory. It's a fine line. This makes future, less-shady activity easier from both a physical and political standpoint.

So in short, it allows us to avoid all that treaty-busting headache while essentially gutting it with a smile.

BWhite · 2005-11-29 11:41:27

If that is true WHY should any nation-state expend money building a settlement?
Muahahahaha!
It serves a number of purposes if done right. If it's set up for business purposes government can subsidize the effort. This gets infrastructure and tranportation in place at cut-rate prices (from a taxpayer perspective) and the sponsoring nation can deal for first-dib trading status. The business entity gets to write its own laws for the facility. No overbearing regulations, no taxation at the source. . .
Or a government could assist some dissident types in the task. Get some malcontents out of the country, test out some hardware, build some infrastructure and spread the host culture.
In both cases it skirts the Outer Space Treaty. A private colony of citizens from a particular nation using equipment from that nation, in some case even "owned" by that nation. It grants de facto sovereignty, even if the colony is allowed to do whatever it damn well pleases. The host nation can retain a reasonable claim to jurisdiction over the people and the equipment, the people own the territory. It's a fine line. This makes future, less-shady activity easier from both a physical and political standpoint.
So in short, it allows us to avoid all that treaty-busting headache while essentially gutting it with a smile.

But to do this you gotta do it while maintaining plausible deniability to assert that you are not doing it. That's why you need the private sector.

clark · 2005-11-29 11:48:08

Capitalism: Selling the rope to hang yourself with.
Entrepaneur: Someone who gets paid to consult on how best to hang themself.
Freemarket: The best tree to hang you on, at the cheapest price.

Everyone a winner!

BWhite · 2005-11-29 11:48:20

More seriously, Wayne White made an interesting point at a recent conference I attended. We are better off allowing the first settlements to be politically independent, from the beginning, because they will engage in political rebellion sooner or later anyway.
Lets avoid the whole "reprise 1776" thing from the start.
If that is true WHY should any nation-state expend money building a settlement?
I reject the notion that rebellion is inevitable.
Or should we cut states loose on the same premise? Why not counties? Why not cities? Why not neighborhoods? Why not individuals?
The analysis is intellectually shallow and self-serving based on a skewed interpretation of history and devoid of any actual meaning. It takes no account of environmental reality, nor the historical progression of social development.
Start with the question: Why do people rebel? What is the genesis? Will the catalysts be repeated? Why?
If you ask the right questions, and you take an objective look, the development of space by nation-states does not mean that their "settlements" will one day rebel from the mother country. To assume so is just fluff and flash debate points.
I am appalled you even brought it up Bill.

The modern nation state was invented by the Peace at Westphalia after the Calvinists, Lutherans and Catholics grew weary of beating each other bloody with no discernable benefit to show for the carnage.

I am not sanguine that the modern nation state will survive the 21st century as a relevant institution of human organization which is a pity as the U.S. is the most successful nation-state ever.

Why will space settlers rebel? Their interests and Terran interests will necessarily diverge. It can be peaceful, or not depending upon the wisdom of those in power.

I've been reading about World War Zero, the theory that around the turn of the last century the British quietly and peacefully ceded naval hegemony to the U.S. based on their assessment that they would lose a naval war with Washington.

The Naval Treaty of 1922 sealed the deal.

Going into space will change human nature, IMHO. Just not fast enough to attain universal government.

clark · 2005-11-29 12:17:06

Going into space will change human nature, IMHO.

How do you suppose it will change human nature if we utilize and rely on the current human nature to get there?

Enlightenment is not a destination, and progress is not an end point. It comes by choosing a path other than the one you are on, the moving towards an always receeding end point never attained.

Relying on space exploitation and commecializtion will not lead to the transformation implied by your optimism.

BWhite · 2005-11-29 12:56:37

Going into space will change human nature, IMHO.
How do you suppose it will change human nature if we utilize and rely on the current human nature to get there?
Enlightenment is not a destination, and progress is not an end point. It comes by choosing a path other than the one you are on, the moving towards an always receeding end point never attained.
Relying on space exploitation and commecializtion will not lead to the transformation implied by your optimism.

Small steps. Small steps.

Grypd · 2005-11-29 19:25:14

If that is true WHY should any nation-state expend money building a settlement?
Muahahahaha!
It serves a number of purposes if done right. If it's set up for business purposes government can subsidize the effort. This gets infrastructure and tranportation in place at cut-rate prices (from a taxpayer perspective) and the sponsoring nation can deal for first-dib trading status. The business entity gets to write its own laws for the facility. No overbearing regulations, no taxation at the source. . .
Or a government could assist some dissident types in the task. Get some malcontents out of the country, test out some hardware, build some infrastructure and spread the host culture.
In both cases it skirts the Outer Space Treaty. A private colony of citizens from a particular nation using equipment from that nation, in some case even "owned" by that nation. It grants de facto sovereignty, even if the colony is allowed to do whatever it damn well pleases. The host nation can retain a reasonable claim to jurisdiction over the people and the equipment, the people own the territory. It's a fine line. This makes future, less-shady activity easier from both a physical and political standpoint.
So in short, it allows us to avoid all that treaty-busting headache while essentially gutting it with a smile.

Sorry Cobra the legal arquement that a private organisation could set up a colony and therefore be seperate from the state they came from to the point they could claim the land that they occupy is dealt with under the outer space treaty. They would be the countries responsibility no matter what happens and infractions done by them would be laid at the feet of that host country.

Looking at the outer space treaty which is a treaty that is mostly ratified compared to the Moon treaty which is for the most part legaly dead, there are means to operate within its restrictions that are in place.

The majority of the outer space treaty is common sense and it is this commen sense principle that can be applied to incidents of potential dispute(so says a lawyer friend). The outer space treaty is a direct treaty in such it takes from previous agreements on "principles" and so sets guidelines which can be enforced in short resolutions. In short every launch and item launched belongs to the country that sent it and that country takes responsibility for that items.

It does allow utilisation though of space resources and that also space missions must be allowed to operate without hindrance though they may not claim the land or area they are present on. This is almost a double negative and in effect allows the loophole that will allow the exploitation of resources. If those resources are extracted to provide material for fuel etc then it is to allow exploration. If it provides funds that go towards more missions this also can be called exploration. In short this part of the treaty is in effect a principle and not reasonably able to be enforced even with the inspections allowed.

You may find an asteroid of PGMs on the Moon and you can mine them if you use the steel that is present to increase your base then it is under "exploration" if you send the PGMs back to Earth to sell to make money this also could be called utilisation for exploration and so allowed.

Fundamentally I would prefer the Outer Space Treaty to be revised to be more clear on mineral utilisation. I have no problems with the rest of it as it really just brings together some common sense principles.

clark · 2005-11-30 06:44:12

Hmmm...

Can a commercial interest build a telescope on the moon since doing so would be a permanent "possession" of the land?

BWhite · 2005-11-30 09:11:31

Hmmm...
Can a commercial interest build a telescope on the moon since doing so would be a permanent "possession" of the land?

So long as the builder issued a statement disclaiming the land and an acknowledgement that upon the scope reaching its useful life and being dismantled, they will vacate, why not?

Of course, after 50 years pass (or 100 years) that pronouncement might get "forgotten"

Thus your conundrum. Do "we" prohibit people leaving Earth until a global consensus is reached?

I say "no"

= = =

And that really is the question. Should government PROHIBIT commercial ventures, not should government PERMIT commercial ventures.

And since some governments can "defect" and choose to look the other way it really becomes should the U.S. government prohibit commercial activity on the Moon.

Again I say "no"

Cobra Commander · 2005-11-30 09:59:22

Sorry Cobra the legal arquement that a private organisation could set up a colony and therefore be seperate from the state they came from to the point they could claim the land that they occupy is dealt with under the outer space treaty. They would be the countries responsibility no matter what happens and infractions done by them would be laid at the feet of that host country.

So start slower. Don't let anyone outright claim anything until some fairly solid infrastructure is in place, say a mine. Once the land is occupied and in use no protest amounts to much. Build precedent on precedent.

Whatever happens, the Outer Space Treaty is not going to govern what we do out there. There will be other guidelines devised as needed based on real activities, not what some lawyers with pens in their hands think is fair.

People tend to accept what is very quickly even if it isn't what should be. Get some activity happening ont he Moon, Mars or elsewhere and in short order the concept of "ownership" will seem natural. Legal regulation and de facto sovereignty follows, game on.

BWhite · 2005-11-30 15:00:37

The Outer Space Treaty binds Terran governments. If people renounce their Terran citizenship, then the legalities are murky. Very murky.

In Heinlein's Harsh Mistress, the key was to get one Terran government to recognize Luna as a political entity. Today, places like Isle of Man or Bermuda can fulfill a similar function.

And in the end, as always, it will boil down to raw political power. A nice "cover story" merely allows the squeamish to accept it more easily.

BWhite · 2005-11-30 15:01:26

Get some activity happening ont he Moon, Mars or elsewhere and in short order the concept of "ownership" will seem natural. Legal regulation and de facto sovereignty follows, game on.

Like, well. . .

Yeah! 8)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-11-28 14:49:28

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#77 2005-11-28 14:49:28

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#78 2005-11-28 15:20:49

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#79 2005-11-28 15:25:15

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#80 2005-11-28 15:31:16

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#81 2005-11-28 20:11:41

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#82 2005-11-29 06:16:05

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#83 2005-11-29 06:31:48

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#84 2005-11-29 06:38:33

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#85 2005-11-29 07:29:22

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#86 2005-11-29 07:35:39

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#87 2005-11-29 11:21:46

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#88 2005-11-29 11:34:55

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#89 2005-11-29 11:39:03

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#90 2005-11-29 11:41:27

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#91 2005-11-29 11:48:08

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#92 2005-11-29 11:48:20

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#93 2005-11-29 12:17:06

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#94 2005-11-29 12:56:37

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#95 2005-11-29 19:25:14

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#96 2005-11-30 06:44:12

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#97 2005-11-30 09:11:31

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#98 2005-11-30 09:59:22

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#99 2005-11-30 15:00:37

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#100 2005-11-30 15:01:26

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

Board footer