No more American manned spaceflights

[Matt Wiser]

I'm not saying that there won't be UN involvement in space, but any new treaty-especially one that sets up some kind of taxation on lunar (or asteroid) resources to fund UN operations, is something that doesn't seem realistic. Taxation is a power that governments reserve for themselves: hence the successful fight against the airline ticket tax.

You're more likely to have a "scramble for space" along the lines of the Scramble for Africa back in the 19th Century. The allure of revenues from space resources is something that national governments will be tempted to get their hands on, for very obvious reasons. And those governments will do whatever it takes to protect their citizens and companies from the depredations of others. The UN could serve as a forum for such disputes (and there already is a UN Outer Space Treaty, signed back in '67), where these can be (hopefully) resolved amicably. But if history is any guide, there will be times when diplomacy fails, and the sword is unsheathed. War in space will happen-it's only a matter of time, and whether it'll be rival companies, rival countries, or a space Navy vs. pirates, it's going to happen.

[Legbreaker]

Honestly, I can't see anything being brought back in commercial quantities from space - the costs involved are just too great.
The real profits will be along the lines of advances in technology, not raw materials.

[Targan]

Nanomachines and bucky balls, that's where it's at. If we could build 'beanstalk' space elevators we could move bulk commodities to and from space at very low costs. The theory is sound but the technology is still in its infancy. You capture yourself a carbonacious asteroid, place it into the right orbit around the Earth and use nanomachines to spin super-strong bucky string cable and lower it down to the surface, using the asteroid's own mass as building material.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Targan

Nanomachines and bucky balls, that's where it's at. If we could build 'beanstalk' space elevators we could move bulk commodities to and from space at very low costs. The theory is sound but the technology is still in its infancy. You capture yourself a carbonacious asteroid, place it into the right orbit around the Earth and use nanomachines to spin super-strong bucky string cable and lower it down to the surface, using the asteroid's own mass as building material.

I think were moving a bit beyond ourselves here, maybe in the next century and I'll be happy discuss it with you all then

[Matt Wiser]

One thing about this topic is that everyone has their opinions and can, even if we're on the same page on others, can "agree to disagree." This is a subject that evokes passion and anger-especially if your proposed exploration strategy didn't make the cut, but at least here it's amicable. Over on spacepolitics.com, if you're not a commercial space zealot, a Space X fanboy, or an ObamaSpace supporter (preferably all three), you're a heretic or worse. I'm one of those gutsy enough to call them on this: pointing out that a lot of what they want to do has no political support in Congress, and the venom my way is fast and furious. Some of 'em think that anyone who's anti-commercial space, or just skeptical until these commercial entities prove themselves, is a shill for NASA or those backing the Orion crew vehicle and heavy-lift. They also don't realize that there is a big difference between what they want to do and what Congress will allow them to do-especially with NASA funds-and forget that NASA (or any government agency for that matter) can't spend a dime on anything unless Congress approves the funding. Not to mention that Congress is not a rubber stamp. For these people, it's a religion, and nothing is going to sway them from it.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The thing that makes me laugh is that while the spacepolitics.com fanatics are arguing, the Asian nations and others are pushing ahead with their own space programmes. The Chinese aren't the only ones getting rockets ready for space exploitation and do the fanatics think that Israel, India or even Indonesia will stop their own space programmes to let the USA or Russia dominate the heavens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...space_programs

And as for commercial exploitation, there's definitely the belief that there is some very big money to be made, considering the notions put forward in the following article, it's simply a matter for them of creating the technology to exploit the universe.
http://www.physorg.com/news183044315.html

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

One thing about this topic is that everyone has their opinions and can, even if we're on the same page on others, can "agree to disagree." This is a subject that evokes passion and anger-especially if your proposed exploration strategy didn't make the cut, but at least here it's amicable. Over on spacepolitics.com, if you're not a commercial space zealot, a Space X fanboy, or an ObamaSpace supporter (preferably all three), you're a heretic or worse. I'm one of those gutsy enough to call them on this: pointing out that a lot of what they want to do has no political support in Congress, and the venom my way is fast and furious. Some of 'em think that anyone who's anti-commercial space, or just skeptical until these commercial entities prove themselves, is a shill for NASA or those backing the Orion crew vehicle and heavy-lift. They also don't realize that there is a big difference between what they want to do and what Congress will allow them to do-especially with NASA funds-and forget that NASA (or any government agency for that matter) can't spend a dime on anything unless Congress approves the funding. Not to mention that Congress is not a rubber stamp. For these people, it's a religion, and nothing is going to sway them from it.

[pmulcahy11b]

I often say that the next man on the moon will be Chinese.

[Matt Wiser]

The ChiComs have only flown two HSF missions so far, and though some say they're getting ready for a Salyut clone of a space station, they're on a very slow path at present. Want to move up lunar return with people? Confirmation of a Chinese lunar landing program, and that will get Congress on NASA's rear end, because there are members on both sides of the aisle who feel that "NASA was first there, and NASA should be first back."

The people on Spacepolitics.com are fanatical, no doubt about that. A lot of them have the "my way or the highway" mentality.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

The thing that makes me laugh is that while the spacepolitics.com fanatics are arguing, the Asian nations and others are pushing ahead with their own space programmes. The Chinese aren't the only ones getting rockets ready for space exploitation and do the fanatics think that Israel, India or even Indonesia will stop their own space programmes to let the USA or Russia dominate the heavens?

Well I think these countries will push ahead with their own space programes, but in regards to manned space programes and putting people on other planets America and Russia have a significant advantage over all others in experience and technology. Despite China's recent Shenzhou manned orbital mission, its manned space programmes has a very long way to go to even match the US and Russia long term life support, orbital habitats and heavy lift rocket launchers, which would be essential for manned missions to the Moon and beyond.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

Taxation is a power that governments reserve for themselves: hence the successful fight against the airline ticket tax.

This is why it’s important to have a colonial government in place for Luna from the start.

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

You're more likely to have a "scramble for space" along the lines of the Scramble for Africa back in the 19th Century.

This is exactly what we need to prevent. I think the danger of this sort of thing is so immediate and so great that we need to take active steps to prevent it. The trick is to convince all of the major players that taking steps to prevent the Moon from becoming the latest Africa is really in everybody’s best interests. I’m aware that pulling off such a trick will be quite the accomplishment.

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

The allure of revenues from space resources is something that national governments will be tempted to get their hands on, for very obvious reasons. And those governments will do whatever it takes to protect their citizens and companies from the depredations of others.

And there is the opportunity. In this day and age capital is too mobile to be tied to national sovereignty. The rise of China and the Cayman Islands should illustrate very well indeed that the investors with the kind of money needed to develop Luna won’t be paying taxes in an industrialized nation. The corporate headquarters will all go someplace where the local government can be bribed into accepting rock bottom rates. The US, Europe, Japan, Russia—they’ll all get next to nothing either because the monied interests have removed themselves or have struck extortionate deals to stay in-country. If lunar developers pay into a common till, everybody gets something rather than almost everybody getting nothing. Again, the trick is to convince all of the major players to accept this reality in favor of the version of reality being peddled by the respective PACs.

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

But if history is any guide, there will be times when diplomacy fails, and the sword is unsheathed. War in space will happen-it's only a matter of time, and whether it'll be rival companies, rival countries, or a space Navy vs. pirates, it's going to happen.

All too true. Given that the burden of free will still rests with us, I’ll choose to have the fighting be between a space constabulary and outlaws over an international space war or intercorporate space war any day. Space weapons will be astronomically expensive for everyone. The fewer there are, the less money wasted. Corporations shouldn’t want to spend money on space weapons unless they manufacture them for others. Nations shouldn’t want to spend money on them because lawyers are cheaper than astronauts (although not by much), and in any event the companies whose interests said nations will be fighting to protect will be fighting to avoid paying taxes to fund the weapons. Right now… at the beginning… before large-scale investments have been made… before a de facto arrangement supersedes all our better ideas… is the time to create a legal framework that benefits everybody by encouraging development and peaceful competition for the resources and the markets. Right now, there are no sovereignty issues for the Moon. Therefore, no government has any business getting its panties in a bunch over taxation of resources extracted from sources not owned or controlled by that government. Now if the US or Botswana want to tax light helium or platinum entering their sovereign territory, that’s up to the US or Botswana. However, as it stands the US and Botswana have no legal claim on resources in or under the lunar regolith. Those resources belong to humanity, and it is to humanity that remittances must be made. Of course, the aforegoing is nothing more than idealist claptrap once a few billion private dollars get involved. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, now is the time to sort out a legal framework that will benefit everybody and obviate the need for an expensive militarization of space and the kind ruinous competition that make reading about the Wild West and the colonization of Africa so diverting.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Webstral

This is exactly what we need to prevent. I think the danger of this sort of thing is so immediate and so great that we need to take active steps to prevent it. The trick is to convince all of the major players that taking steps to prevent the Moon from becoming the latest Africa is really in everybody’s best interests. I’m aware that pulling off such a trick will be quite the accomplishment.

There is a precedent - Antarctica.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Honestly, I can't see anything being brought back in commercial quantities from space - the costs involved are just too great.
The real profits will be along the lines of advances in technology, not raw materials.

Have faith in capitalism. It's all a matter of cost-benefit ratios. Investors will find $25 billion to invest if they are convinced they can make $100 billion. If you’re interested, I can recommend some reading that lays out the numbers. Once tokamak fusion can be made to be profitable, the energy values of light helium will blow the lid off conventional thinking.
I agree, though, that the advances in technology will be quite profitable. Look at what the world got out of Apollo.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

There is a precedent - Antarctica.

That’s a good example of preventing a mad race for resources. I’m glad you re-introduced it to the dialogue. Our challenge is to move beyond creating a scientific preserve and towards development of the resources.