Nasa

[Thorne]

Until you also realise that the space budget appears to be twice what is being provided for to meet future disaster costs ... So you can afford it, but should you be using it for other purposes after all?

My personal opinion (which I'm sure will not surprise you ) is that they could take virtually all of the foreign aid money and split it between space exploration and domestic disaster preparedness. I'm tired of having my country denigrated for trying to help others. (Sure, we've done some bad things: who hasn't? But we're still among the first to respond to a disaster, anywhere in the world. And people hate us for it.) So eliminating foreign aid wouldn't be any problem for me.

I note Tantric's concerns - do we want another Enron. Who's to say there will be, and who's to say that, without any space exploration there won't be? We humans are capable of behaving badly anywhere, but on balance, don't you agree we all behave rather well?

One way to avoid another Enron is to make sure there is plenty of competition. Space is pretty big. Each company grabbing an asteroid, or a small area of Mars, for example, shouldn't present any real problems. After all, even if you tried to claim it all, there's just too damned much of it for any one person, or corporation, to hold onto.
And yes, we all do behave rather well. As long as there's someone with a big stick smacking our butts when we step out of line.

Why can't Americans rely on others for (say) renewable energy?

As you are so fond of noting, MMI, America has tremendous resources. We shouldn't need to rely on others. Especially not with things of such obvious importance. Relying on unstable countries for the necessities is a disaster waiting to happen. It's far better to be self-contained for such things.

[SadisticNature]

My personal opinion (which I'm sure will not surprise you ) is that they could take virtually all of the foreign aid money and split it between space exploration and domestic disaster preparedness. I'm tired of having my country denigrated for trying to help others. (Sure, we've done some bad things: who hasn't? But we're still among the first to respond to a disaster, anywhere in the world. And people hate us for it.) So eliminating foreign aid wouldn't be any problem for me.

One way to avoid another Enron is to make sure there is plenty of competition. Space is pretty big. Each company grabbing an asteroid, or a small area of Mars, for example, shouldn't present any real problems. After all, even if you tried to claim it all, there's just too damned much of it for any one person, or corporation, to hold onto.
And yes, we all do behave rather well. As long as there's someone with a big stick smacking our butts when we step out of line.

As you are so fond of noting, MMI, America has tremendous resources. We shouldn't need to rely on others. Especially not with things of such obvious importance. Relying on unstable countries for the necessities is a disaster waiting to happen. It's far better to be self-contained for such things.

While I agree with most of your statements in this thread I think some of what you are saying here is just outright wrong. I'm not sure if its just your media portraying it this way and you don't have easy access to accurate information on this but the facts show whether home or abroad Americans (particularly at the government level) are very often slow to respond to disasters. New Orleans had offers of aid from Cuba and many other countries before the US made an official response. There are other examples where most of the G2X (whatever X is these days) had responded before the Americans.

I'd also object to the fact that people hate you for responding to disasters. American popularity does well in the disasters you respond to. What the internationalists seem to hate is unilateral declarations of war without UN approval. If you look at international popularity of the US it falls dramatically after both the declaration of the Iraq war. It also rises during the US election and with the Obama victory. One of the primary messages during that campaign was rebuilding America's international reputation from the damage done under the Bush administration.

International views of the US also improved as a result of cessation of water-boarding, a controversial topic which had near consensus opposition outside the US.

Something to think about: If international aid is causing the US's poor reputation, why is it that other countries that are even more active with international aid don't have the same reputation problems?

Lastly, regarding space, in order to have company owned asteroids you have to have a claim law. Deciding just what that claim law is is going to be incredibly controversial. If the standard is landing, does the US now own the entire moon? Just the area near where they landed? Does the government itself own the land to issue as it pleases, is it instead owned by the government organization NASA (which could conceivably sell it to fund further space exploration)? The current claim law for space seems to be it is impossible to claim ownership of land on non-Earth planets.

There are all sorts of potential issues with companies being able to send out cheap explorations whose only purpose is to land on a whole bunch of asteroids then come back to Earth and by so doing that one company owns every asteroid they landed on.

Also if a corporation claims an asteroid what nation owns the asteroid, is the corporation now the government of that asteroid, does the country in which its incorporated own that asteroid, what property tax applies? Are there royalties on the minerals?

As for avoiding an Enron, the problem with Enron was not lack of competition, if anything the problem with Enron is they were uncompetitive (too much competition, too good competition?) and instead of failing and getting fired, they cooked the books to make it appear the company was fine.

[Thorne]

the facts show whether home or abroad Americans (particularly at the government level) are very often slow to respond to disasters. New Orleans had offers of aid from Cuba and many other countries before the US made an official response. There are other examples where most of the G2X (whatever X is these days) had responded before the Americans.

What you're saying is quite possible, I suppose. There's little doubt that the American media has degenerated into partisan and sensationalist reporting rather than factual reporting. But as for New Orleans, the primary failure there involved FEMA, and the government bureaucracy as a whole. The military, on the other hand, responded immediately and effectively, particularly the coast guard. As far as overseas disasters, from what I can gather the offers of aid are extended almost immediately. But when local governments refuse that aid until it's too late, there's little the US, or any other nation, can do other than wait it out.

Something to think about: If international aid is causing the US's poor reputation, why is it that other countries that are even more active with international aid don't have the same reputation problems?

I have no answer for this. I've never understood international politics. Hell, I can hardly understand local politics.

Lastly, regarding space, in order to have company owned asteroids you have to have a claim law. Deciding just what that claim law is is going to be incredibly controversial. If the standard is landing, does the US now own the entire moon? Just the area near where they landed? Does the government itself own the land to issue as it pleases, is it instead owned by the government organization NASA (which could conceivably sell it to fund further space exploration)? The current claim law for space seems to be it is impossible to claim ownership of land on non-Earth planets.

I agree, the problems involved are extreme. Certainly I wouldn't advocate the US should claim the entire moon, as we've only managed to put feet on a very tiny portion, and we have not built any kind of habitation. That should be a major requirement, I would think, for any claims: nothing is yours unless you build on it. Just landing and poking a flag in the dust won't qualify.

Also if a corporation claims an asteroid what nation owns the asteroid, is the corporation now the government of that asteroid, does the country in which its incorporated own that asteroid, what property tax applies? Are there royalties on the minerals?

Why does a nation have to own it? Let the corporation own it, as long as it maintains a viable population/work force and continues utilizing it. No property taxes needed, since no nation would be providing any infrastructure or services to the asteroids. And no royalties, either, unless a corporation mines an asteroid under contract to another corporation/nation/individual.

But overall, I agree there are a lot of problems to overcome. However, we aren't going to overcome them by sitting on our asses looking up at the pretty stars. We're going to have to go there, and soon, before we find ourselves following the dinosaurs down the inevitable path of extinction.

[SadisticNature]

What you're saying is quite possible, I suppose. There's little doubt that the American media has degenerated into partisan and sensationalist reporting rather than factual reporting. But as for New Orleans, the primary failure there involved FEMA, and the government bureaucracy as a whole. The military, on the other hand, responded immediately and effectively, particularly the coast guard. As far as overseas disasters, from what I can gather the offers of aid are extended almost immediately. But when local governments refuse that aid until it's too late, there's little the US, or any other nation, can do other than wait it out.


I have no answer for this. I've never understood international politics. Hell, I can hardly understand local politics.


I agree, the problems involved are extreme. Certainly I wouldn't advocate the US should claim the entire moon, as we've only managed to put feet on a very tiny portion, and we have not built any kind of habitation. That should be a major requirement, I would think, for any claims: nothing is yours unless you build on it. Just landing and poking a flag in the dust won't qualify.


Why does a nation have to own it? Let the corporation own it, as long as it maintains a viable population/work force and continues utilizing it. No property taxes needed, since no nation would be providing any infrastructure or services to the asteroids. And no royalties, either, unless a corporation mines an asteroid under contract to another corporation/nation/individual.

But overall, I agree there are a lot of problems to overcome. However, we aren't going to overcome them by sitting on our asses looking up at the pretty stars. We're going to have to go there, and soon, before we find ourselves following the dinosaurs down the inevitable path of extinction.

I think the chances of governments approving the idea of land subject to whatever laws the corporations so impose, where corporations could move their headquarters to reduce taxation and other such exploits is near 0%. There is also a problem where if there are legal complications and no jurisdiction and no nation attached, where are those matters resolved? If the corporation is headquartered in its own nation which lacks a legal system how do you even handle legal disputes with the entity? When one starts to ponder the complexities here one wonders why nations would ever allow this to occur.

I also think following the dinosaurs down the inevitable path of extinction is probably hyperbole. The time scale is such that we probably have another 500+ years to get this done, and political conditions making space unpopular are likely to change by then.

[Thorne]

I think the chances of governments approving the idea of land subject to whatever laws the corporations so impose, where corporations could move their headquarters to reduce taxation and other such exploits is near 0%.

Maybe, but with governments seemingly eager to get out of the space race, the time may come when there's damned little they can do about it.

There is also a problem where if there are legal complications and no jurisdiction and no nation attached, where are those matters resolved? If the corporation is headquartered in its own nation which lacks a legal system how do you even handle legal disputes with the entity?

They would have to be dealt with as a separate nation, I suppose. Like the Vatican. A whole new area of law, maybe: Interplanetary Law.

When one starts to ponder the complexities here one wonders why nations would ever allow this to occur.

Chances are they won't. But their need for the production of these industries will force them to at least tentatively accept the situation. I have no particular love of the Corporation as supreme lawgiver, by any means. But I also don't like the idea that every scrap of dust throughout the solar system has to be controlled by some greedy government entity already on Earth.

I would imagine that the whole situation would become similar to the opening of the American West, with small communities forming and establishing laws, with large corporations replacing the old cattle barons, all leading eventually to either the establishment of new nations or the invitation of old nations to take control. If some rich recluse wants to build a home on a rock in the Asteroid Belt, why should he have to pay taxes and declare fealty to some government that's 100 million miles away on a good day?

I also think following the dinosaurs down the inevitable path of extinction is probably hyperbole. The time scale is such that we probably have another 500+ years to get this done, and political conditions making space unpopular are likely to change by then.

500 years is not a long time as far as a species is concerned. That would represent about 0.3% of total span of homo sapiens existence. Just because we point to an asteroid impact as being the smoking gun which ended the dinosaurs doesn't mean they died off immediately. It took thousands of years, perhaps tens of thousands, for the last of the species to die.

Aside from that, looking back through history I don't see a hell of a lot of improvement in political conditions over the last 500 years, or even the last 1000 years. How can we expect their to be any change over the next 500?

[SadisticNature]

Maybe, but with governments seemingly eager to get out of the space race, the time may come when there's damned little they can do about it.


They would have to be dealt with as a separate nation, I suppose. Like the Vatican. A whole new area of law, maybe: Interplanetary Law.


Chances are they won't. But their need for the production of these industries will force them to at least tentatively accept the situation. I have no particular love of the Corporation as supreme lawgiver, by any means. But I also don't like the idea that every scrap of dust throughout the solar system has to be controlled by some greedy government entity already on Earth.

I would imagine that the whole situation would become similar to the opening of the American West, with small communities forming and establishing laws, with large corporations replacing the old cattle barons, all leading eventually to either the establishment of new nations or the invitation of old nations to take control. If some rich recluse wants to build a home on a rock in the Asteroid Belt, why should he have to pay taxes and declare fealty to some government that's 100 million miles away on a good day?


500 years is not a long time as far as a species is concerned. That would represent about 0.3% of total span of homo sapiens existence. Just because we point to an asteroid impact as being the smoking gun which ended the dinosaurs doesn't mean they died off immediately. It took thousands of years, perhaps tens of thousands, for the last of the species to die.

Aside from that, looking back through history I don't see a hell of a lot of improvement in political conditions over the last 500 years, or even the last 1000 years. How can we expect their to be any change over the next 500?

Political conditions have improved dramatically in the past 500 years. We've gone from Monarchies to Democracy's, from an institution where everyone is subject to the whims of the leaders to a government of law.

If we have a similarly 'lackluster' change in the next 500 years, then I think progress will be just fine.

Furthermore a lot of the barrier is technological, and we've had huge technological advances even in the last 10 years. If that continues, eventually the price of spacecraft will come down so far that exploration is viable.

[Thorne]

Political conditions have improved dramatically in the past 500 years. We've gone from Monarchies to Democracy's, from an institution where everyone is subject to the whims of the leaders to a government of law.

The forms have changed, perhaps, but the people running them haven't. Ask the women of Afghanistan if things are better for them than 500 years ago. Or the people in central Africa. Or countless other nations around the world who's political leaders' only concerns are improving their own lives at the expense of their people. No, the conditions are the same. It's only the rhetoric which has changed.

Furthermore a lot of the barrier is technological, and we've had huge technological advances even in the last 10 years. If that continues, eventually the price of spacecraft will come down so far that exploration is viable.

Which is precisely my point. It has gotten to the point where corporations, instead of nations, will be leading the way. That's what will cause the prices to fall. That's what will fuel the colonization of space and the planets. Only when the corporations and the rugged individualists have gone in and tamed things will the governments step in and start trying to control things. Hopefully, this time we won't let them.

[steelish]

While I agree with most of your statements in this thread I think some of what you are saying here is just outright wrong. I'm not sure if its just your media portraying it this way and you don't have easy access to accurate information on this but the facts show whether home or abroad Americans (particularly at the government level) are very often slow to respond to disasters. New Orleans had offers of aid from Cuba and many other countries before the US made an official response. There are other examples where most of the G2X (whatever X is these days) had responded before the Americans.

As part of a disaster response team I can assure you, there are reasons rescue personnel don't rush right into a disaster and start working. There has to be cohesion between responders, there has to be organization, and there has to be a realistic approach. It's easy to criticize when watching on television and seeing people sitting on rooftops awaiting someone to come along and rescue them. I agree, why not paddle in, get the people, and paddle out.

Properly trained personnel have to be assigned to do these types of things, otherwise not only do you have the original people in need of rescue, now you have the people who attempted to rescue them in need of rescue themselves. Unseen dangers were everywhere in New Orleans...downed power lines, cars, bodies, sewage, street signs, small trees, etc. all submerged and ready to cause havoc with not only rescuers, but those being rescued. There were unstable buildings, aggressive animals (displaced wildlife such as snakes, rats, spiders, etc. - some of which were poisonous). There are rescuers who are trained to go into unstable buildings and search. Searches had to be done in an orderly fashion so as not to cause double the work. Records of what had been done and who had been rescued, from what house, etc had to be put on paper or in computers. Many people have no clue the amount of "engineering" goes into a rescue operation and I myself was once guilty of sitting on the sidelines and scoffing at the length of time it took to respond.

America is nothing if not innovative. Due to the outcry for faster response after Katrina, the U.S. has adapted an organized response system that is much quicker than before. That being said, a state in which a disaster occurs still needs it's Governor to ask the President for help before we can be deployed by executive order.

[SadisticNature]

I don't think its that the other countries involved rush in and send untrained people to do dangerous jobs. The success rates of those rescue missions seems to suggest otherwise.

I'm not criticizing the people involved in disaster response or rescue. I'm merely suggesting that it was unreasonable for someone to claim that America was the first in and resented for it. Because they typically aren't the first in, and they typically are resented for other reasons.

I'm glad the US has improved their system since Katrina, seeing a repeat of that would be tragic.

As part of a disaster response team I can assure you, there are reasons rescue personnel don't rush right into a disaster and start working. There has to be cohesion between responders, there has to be organization, and there has to be a realistic approach. It's easy to criticize when watching on television and seeing people sitting on rooftops awaiting someone to come along and rescue them. I agree, why not paddle in, get the people, and paddle out.

Properly trained personnel have to be assigned to do these types of things, otherwise not only do you have the original people in need of rescue, now you have the people who attempted to rescue them in need of rescue themselves. Unseen dangers were everywhere in New Orleans...downed power lines, cars, bodies, sewage, street signs, small trees, etc. all submerged and ready to cause havoc with not only rescuers, but those being rescued. There were unstable buildings, aggressive animals (displaced wildlife such as snakes, rats, spiders, etc. - some of which were poisonous). There are rescuers who are trained to go into unstable buildings and search. Searches had to be done in an orderly fashion so as not to cause double the work. Records of what had been done and who had been rescued, from what house, etc had to be put on paper or in computers. Many people have no clue the amount of "engineering" goes into a rescue operation and I myself was once guilty of sitting on the sidelines and scoffing at the length of time it took to respond.

America is nothing if not innovative. Due to the outcry for faster response after Katrina, the U.S. has adapted an organized response system that is much quicker than before. That being said, a state in which a disaster occurs still needs it's Governor to ask the President for help before we can be deployed by executive order.