No more American manned spaceflights

[Matt Wiser]

Except for a few fanatics over on spacepolitics.com, there's hardly anyone saying that the Commercial Sector should take over all of HSF. What NASA has in mind is the commercial sector taking over the ISS support mission, first with cargo, then crew rotation. They'd rather spend the money buying the service from American companies rather than the Russians. The Russians aren't happy at the prospect, as you'd expect. Congress views the commercial sector as the least of two bad options (they'd rather have NASA handle the mission, but know the money's not there). NASA would have oversight of commercial flights to ISS re: crew safety, and the FAA would be overseeing other aspects of U.S. commercial space flights-whether it's for NASA, another space agency (NASA is in charge of safety for all NASA-sponsored astronauts-the Japanese, ESA, Canadians, etc.), or a space tourism flight. Congress, though, insisted in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that Orion be capable of backing up the private sector if they can't handle the mission, and Lockheed-Martin (Orion's prime contractor) has said that they can man-rate an existing rocket by 2014 if they got the go-ahead for to do just that, and to have Earth orbit flight test of Orion as well.

Lockheed-Martin, btw, has indicated that they can fly an Orion Asteroid Mission in 2019. If that's the case, then lunar exploration gets speeded up.

[Webstral]

Not everybody listens to Alex Jones I guess.
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=LL17ST243as

Im genuinely at a loss as to whether he believes what hes saying or whether its all part of operating within his niche.

Personally I'm a great supporter of the UN (although I think it is perpetually hamstrung by the veto powers of the permanent Security Council members) and I'd love to see the UN used as a means to help all of humanity benefit from the bounties of space. Luna would be just a start. The asteroid belt contains absolutely vast mineral riches. The atmosphere of the gas giants could be mined for almost limitless amounts of Helium-3.

Many of my countrymen take issue with the UN. Some of the given reasons represent very reasonable concerns. Some of the given reasons are pure poppycock. Most of the given reasons have various ratios of legitimacy and poppycockedness. I have some issues the UN, but this isnt the occasion to go into them. As a vehicle for supporting and managing lunar development, the UN is the best available choice for keeping the Moon from becoming either an Antarctica (a scientific preserve virtually bereft of commercial development) or a Wild West (a virtual free-for-all in which the rule of law frequently is observed through its breach). A lunar Antarctica will not deliver the resources humanity very much needs at this juncture in history, while a lunar Wild West will reward the wealthy and aggressive in the short term and probably lead to the militarization of space as the wealthy players attempt to secure by force of arms what the power of law has failed to secure. If the UN is the agency that authorizes a lunar colonial government, then the big investors who will naturally want to manipulate the system to secure advantages for themselves (and themselves only) will have a much bigger task than corrupting the government of some economically supine banana republic. At the same time, there will be an opportunity for every nation to both participate in creating the charter for the lunar colonial government (LCG) and in receiving the benefits thereof. Every nation will have a chance to have a voice in the formulation of the rules for developing lunar resources. Equal access to lunar resources through the LCG will enable all nations with corporations capable of assembling capital to participate in an orderly lunar gold rush. Nations incapable of participating directly in development of the resources nevertheless will benefit from disbursement of tax revenues and participation in the charter-building and monitoring process. Truculent nations (though wishing to impede the process for a variety of reasons) can be managed by parliamentary procedure. Nations engaging in warfare not sanctioned by the UN, genocide, or crimes against humanity would lose their access to disbursements from the taxation of lunar enterprises.

[ShadoWarrior]

in fact the US military programe seems far more ordered and practical. Maybe if you put the USAF in charge of NASA's budget and then invited the commercial sector to take a greater role and attracted foreign space agencies to participate it might work.

Good grief no! The USAF only seems "more ordered" because as a non-civilian agency they are better at hiding their screw-ups. The USAF is much less efficient, hard as that may be to believe, than NASA at managing budgets. And it's been USAF involvement (meddling) with the shuttle program that has been a major contributor to the STS being the mess that it's been, right from the beginning. The original NASA designs were much more practical and elegant, including SSTO. It was the USAF that forced NASA into so many spec changes that we ended up with the costly, klunky kluge that's been flying since '81.

[Fusilier]

'Fraid not.

Then I guess we won't be agreeing, that's all.

[Webstral]

...NASA seems to have been punished for bad management and the squandering its resources by the politicians and bureaucracy that runs it, at the expense of its highly capable scientists, engineers and astronauts.

Well said. The Apollo program did its job so well that the political support for Apollo withered on the vine. Ever since then, NASA has been run by bureaucrats, not scientists and engineers.

It was the USAF that forced NASA into so many spec changes that we ended up with the costly, klunky kluge that's been flying since '81.

This underscores the problem that military men are military men. Putting the USAF in charge of the US space program would be like putting the US Navy in charge of merchant shipping. Without making any claims about the degree to which space has been militarized already, we should pursue a philosophy of minimizing and retarding the militarization of space instead of giving militarization a de facto embrace by bringing the USAF into it any more than they already are. Sooner or later, there will be an armed presence in space far more significant than anything we can point to today. At one end of the spectrum is a set of competing forces busting budgets in Cold War fashion to ensure that each nations commercial interests in space are oeprotected against interference by the forces of competing nations. At the other end of the spectrum is a small constabulary-type force in operation to enforce agreed-upon rules for all commercial interests regardless of national origin. We should pursue policies to get as far towards the latter end of the spectrum as possible.

[Matt Wiser]

An armed presence in space is inevitable. Sad to say, but it's more likely going to be on the national level instead of the UN's. And no country is going to want the UN to have any kind of taxation authority, ever. Want an example of that Back in the early '90s, the UN was thinking about some kind of tax on international airline tickets to fund its operations. Not a single country supported it, and the idea died a quick death. Same thing will apply here.

[Webstral]

An armed presence in space is inevitable.

Space already has been militarized, though I can't comment on the degree to which it has been weaponized. I'm not debating whether there will be an armed presence in space, Matt. You know I'm no peacenik or flower child. But degree matters.

Sad to say, but it's more likely going to be on the national level instead of the UN's. And no country is going to want the UN to have any kind of taxation authority, ever. Want an example of that Back in the early '90s, the UN was thinking about some kind of tax on international airline tickets to fund its operations. Not a single country supported it, and the idea died a quick death. Same thing will apply here.

The context is different. A tax on international airline flights is a tax on existing operations that are being taxed by national governments already. No one likes new taxes. This is why it's so important to get the legal framework in place before resource exploitation begins. A treaty signed by the various member states is a must. I won't pretend it will be easy--just vital.

And no country is going to want the UN to have any kind of taxation authority, ever.

Goodness knows these sorts of extreme statements are fun to write. However, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. To say that getting international cooperation on such a matter will be a gargantuan task would be reasonable. National soverignty is, after all, the reason Americans tend to give for hating the UN. To say it can never happen is an example of cocksuredness which is rather unlike you, Matt.

[Targan]

And no country is going to want the UN to have any kind of taxation authority, ever.

That's a big assumption. I personally am not opposed to the UN having taxation authority. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't give them carte blanche but I don't write off the idea out of hand.

I think European nations might be willing to consider it, for instance. After all they've already subsumed some of their national sovereignty by joining the EU.

I tend to be wary of making such sweeping statements (not saying I don't occasionally make them though ).

[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.

[Webstral]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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 everybodys best interests. Im aware that pulling off such a trick will be quite the accomplishment.

There is a precedent - Antarctica.

[Webstral]

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 youre 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.

There is a precedent - Antarctica.

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

[pmulcahy11b]

An armed presence in space is inevitable.

I forgot who it was, but an SF author once said that when mankind is able to reach the stars and joins the interstellar community, our biggest export to other planets will be mercenaries -- so great is the human capacity and willingness to fight.