Posted on 06/22/2004 11:37:31 AM PDT by atomic conspiracy
SPACE PRIVATIZATION: ROAD TO CONFLICT? June 21, 2003
By Bruce Gagnon
The news brings us the story of "space pioneers" launching privately funded craft into the heavens. A special prize is offered to the first private aerospace corporation who can successfully take a pilot and a "space tourist" into orbit.
Is this "privatization" of space a good thing? Is there any reason to be concerned about the trend? Are there any serious questions that should be raised at this historic moment?
Three major issues come immediately to mind concerning space privatization. Space as an environment, space law, and profit in space.
We've all probably heard about the growing problem of space junk where over 100,000 bits of debris are now tracked on the radar screens at NORAD in Colorado as they orbit the earth at 18,000 m.p.h. Several space shuttles have been nicked by bits of debris in the past resulting in cracked windshields. The International Space Station (ISS) recently was moved to a higher orbit because space junk was coming dangerously close. Some space writers have predicted that the ISS will one day be destroyed by debris.
As we see a flurry of launches by private space corporations the chances of accidents, and thus more debris, becomes a serious reality to consider. Very soon we will reach the point of no return, where space pollution will be so great that an orbiting minefield will have been created that hinders all access to space. The time as certainly come for a global discussion about how we treat the sensitive environment called space before it is too late.
When the United Nations concluded the 1979 Moon Treaty the U.S. refused, and still does, to sign it. One key reason is that the treaty outlaws military bases on it but also outlaws any nation, corporation, or individual from making land "claims" on the planetary body. The 1967 U.N. Outer Space Treaty takes similar position in regard to all of the planetary bodies. The U.N., realizing we needed to preempt potential conflict over "ownership" of the planetary bodies, made claim that the heavens were the province of all humankind.
As the privateers move into space, in addition to building space hotels and the like, they also want to claim ownership of the planets because they hope to mine the sky. Gold has been discovered on asteroids, helium-3 on the moon, and magnesium, cobalt and uranium on Mars. It was recently reported that the Haliburton Corporation is now working with NASA to develop new drilling capabilities to mine Mars.
One organization that seeks to rewrite space law is called United Societies in Space (USIS). They state, "USIS provides legal and policy support for those who intend to go to space. USIS encourages private property rights and investment. Space is the Free Market Frontier." Check their web site at http://www.space-law.org
The taxpayers, especially in the U.S. where NASA has been funded with taxpayer dollars since its inception, have paid billions of dollars in space technology research and development (R & D). As the aerospace industry moves toward forcing privatization of space what they are really saying is that the technological base is now at the point where the government can get out of the way and lets private industry begin to make profit and control space. Thus the idea that space is a "free market frontier."
Of course this means that after the taxpayer paid all the R & D, private industry now intends to gorge itself in profits. One Republican Congressman from Southern California, an ally of the aerospace industry, has introduced legislation in Congress to make all space profits "tax free". In this vision the taxpayers won't see any return on our "collective investment."
So let's just imagine for a moment that this private sector vision for space comes true. Profitable mining on the moon and Mars. Who would keep competitors from sneaking in and creating conflict over the new 21st century gold rush? Who will be the space police?
In the Congressional study published in 1989 called Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years we get some inkling of the answer. The forward of the book was signed by many politicians like former Sen. John Glenn (D-OH) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). The author reported to Congress on the importance of military bases on the moon and suggested that with bases there the U.S. could control the pathway, or the "gravity well", between the Earth and the moon. The author reported to Congress that "Armed forces might lie in wait at that location to hijack rival shipments on return."
Plans are now underway to make space the next "conflict zone" where corporations intend to control resources and maximize profit. The so-called private "space pioneers" are the first step in this new direction. And ultimately the taxpayers will be asked to pay the enormous cost incurred by creating a military space infrastructure that would control the "shipping lanes" on and off the planet Earth.
After Columbus returned to Spain with the news that he had discovered the "new world," Queen Isabella began the 100 year process to create the Spanish Armada to protect the new "interests and investments" around the world. This helped create the global war system.
Privatization does not mean that the taxpayer won't be paying any more. Privatization really means that profits will be privatized. Privatization also means that existing international space legal structures will be destroyed in order to bend the law toward private profit. Serious moral and ethical questions must be raised before another new "frontier" of conflict is created.
It might seem dangerous at first glance, but with Rutan's success this week, and with the inclusion of the question of private property rights in the President's Commission report a week ago, and the President's campaign promise to look into private property rights in outer space, it isn't really hanging so far out there.
When the private sector starts cranking in outer space it would be a large task to keep track of everyone's whereabouts. Even on earth we lose track of airplanes and boats now and then. If there is going to be a problem, though, the Navy would have the capability to take appropriate action. A crazed lone prospector might do some damage, it happens here, it happened in Colorado a couple weeks ago, but it wouldn't bring down civilization.
We've all probably heard about the growing problem of space junk where over 100,000 bits of debris are now tracked on the radar screens at NORAD in Colorado as they orbit the earth ..It's really time to put this old saw about 'tracking debris on radar screens at NORAD' to rest; space debris, including any earth orbiting object is actually detected and logged by this network:
US Naval Space Command Space Surveillance System, or NAVSPASUR for short.Official website:
www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/spasur_at.htm
Plain language interpretation of above (including pictures of the approximately two mile long transmitting antenna):
www.zilker.net/~crossley/NAVSPASUR/how.html
The short story:
How NAVSPASUR WorksThis network, or one like it, as descibed here:The transmitters all operate at 216.98MHz CW (continuous wave), and have phased-array antennae aligned perpendicular to the great circle of the transmitter sites, approximately north-south. This creates a narrow fan beam perpendicular to the Earth's surface. The Lake Kickapoo transmitters form the most powerful CW station on earth, at 768kW radiated power.
The receiver sites also use phased array antennae. The phased array elements are oriented perpendicular to the fan beam great circle (approximately north-south), and there are two such antennae separated along the great circle, approximately in the east-west direction. Separate but phase-locked receivers provide interferometric measurements between the two arrays. The receivers cover the frequency range 216.965-216.995 MHz, implying the expected range of Doppler shifts is +/- 15kHz.
Each receiver site can generate the two angular measurements to define a line from the receiver site to the point where an object passed through the beam. Measurement sets from two receiver sites can be combined to define the point where the object passed through the beam.
Using its north-south phased array antennas, each receiver can also generate the north-south angle change rate of an object passing through the width of the beam.
The time of arrival of a reflection is also measured, and also its Doppler shift. Combined with the north-south angle change rate, these data enable derivation of all three orbital velocity vector components provided the orbital body reflection is recorded by at least two receiving stations.
www.spaceweather.com/glossary/nasameteorradar.html
can also be used to actually listen to meteor showers (actually, the doppler shifted reflected RF energy they reflect back to earth) ...
It is also possible to hear 'refections' using the NAVSPASUR system as desribed here:
Amateur Reception of NAVSPASUR Returns
It is possible to receive the return signals from bodies passing through the NAVSPASUR fan beam, given adequate equipment in an appropriate location.
The receiver must provide single-side-band mode, and cover the 216.98MHz frequency. A receiver reported to accomplish this is the ICOM R8500, but it seems likely that the Icom PCR1000 would be adequate, much less expensive, and more suited to integration into the system proposed below. Communications receivers and good quality scanners from other manufacturers provide equivalent performance.
While what you say is true, the gov't, representing all of us, is also the ultimate owner--the public. An individual private citizen must play by the rules, and that is because that is what we all together want. At least we get to pick our leaders every now and then, and we have private property rights. The discussion of what private property is and implies and how it is possible and what private property rights are and where they come from gets heated, but after all the arguments we still have to face reality.
I think you are right that nasa does a lot of stuff that it doesn't have to do. However, Nasa will always be an important factor on the frontiers of space. Once we all live in our space colonies at lagrange points and in lunar orbit, Nasa will be pushing the borders with Martian bases and Jovian exploration. At that leading edge its important to have the government compile the resources of the whole country to do the incredible. Also, a military presence in space to enforce our claims will become necessary.
I think they are on the right track to turn over nonhuman leo launches to the private sector. But there isn't anything else yet that is cost effective. and, i guess suborbital manned missions for private prizes.
But if we do make a public claim to all celestial bodies and open it up for the private sector, then we are going to need some military assets to back it up. As well as catchy answers wo europeans who want to know why they can't start their own soveriegn colonies w/ our military protection.
"Of course this means that after the taxpayer paid all the R & D, private industry now intends to gorge itself in profits."
I certainly hope so. Can't think of a more legitimate, democratic and socially responsible outcome.
"Space law?"
"It's a large and growing specialization."
Sounds like we need a pre-emptive strike NOW, before the threat is imminent and it's too late.
I'll be sure to keep an eye out for it. Thanks!
Yeah, that's what needs to be done. *relief* I thought you were agreeing with the article! he he
The first part of the solution has already been done.
If liberals ran everything, we'd probably still be living in caves and grunting to one another about the harmful effects of this thing that is a reddish/yellowish color, flickers, creates pollution, and turns things into ash.
Would you favor establishing private property rights in outer space? It would appear to be the only practical way private corporations would gain an interest in developing outer space.
I don't mind being the only one that is right on this issue, but I wouldn't mind company.
Interesting question that I can't begin to do justice, but I will give my opinion.
The only good comparison we have for such endeavors are the Americas of the 15th through 18th centuries. Since there aren't any "natives" in the surrounding space, we can ignore that aspect (impact on natives) of colonization in the Americas during that time period .
When it comes to Mars, Luna/Moon, etc., obviously we don't want a corporation or other group of individuals, landing an expedition and saying "we claim the whole of Mars/whatever for our group". That would be ludicrous and equal to a few people crossing the Oklahoma border during the land rush and saying "we claim all of this entire territory for ourselves".
There is also another aspect that makes that (somebody claiming everything) moot - The various Kings and Queens claimed this or that land/colony in the Americas that was "discovered" in their name. It didn't help those colonies to really thrive at all - sure, having a royal garrison around afforded some protection, but along with it came the royal taxes and rules on what one could own and hunt and do, etc.
When you look at the colonies that thrived, on the whole many were setup by private companies/organizations. Even though the lands were owned by King such-and-such, where people/companies could exert some form of ownership or have the hope of some form of ownership in the future, they tended to thrive, or at least survive.
People tend to work hardest when they work for themselves and can profit from the fruits of their labor in some fashion. They begin to get frustrated/angry when being told what to do (similar to early American colonists who were told what they could do, how much they had to do, when and how to worship, etc.). You create the conditions for some kind of revolt, when you have such strict controls (especially when the motherland is a long distance away).
Maybe apply the same theory to Mars, etc. - allow individuals and companies/groups of individuals to have some form of ownership.They obviously should be rewarded for their efforts, and shouldn't have to worry about another organization (whether a nation or another company or the UN or whatever) coming in and taking over or annexing their property/area (even if it was adjacent).
The thought that their hard work and resources they've spent could be taken from them at the stroke of some politician's pen would make many shy away from taking such risks.
In regards to open space, corporations, individuals, etc. should be able to setup how they see fit, within a reasonable standard. Obviously we would want people to be careful where they setup spacestations and the like.
Think of it as your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Apply that to the various orbits/space. Say "yes, you can build a spacestation, however you can't interfer with other groups/nations in their space endeavors, just as you wouldn't want them interfering in yours".
The problem is, many liberals don't want any kind of private ownership in space - either because they are statists, or they assume that people going into space privately have bad intentions. Similar to Senator Lieberman and other democrats wanting a strict control of the internet and TV content - he assumes that we are all out to use the internet to molest children, spread hate and racism, or undermine the government.
When you look at what the space shuttle originally was going to be, and what it became after Congress and the White House were done with it, you'd see what I mean.
Jack-of-all-trades spacecraft and master-of-none is what we end up with.
I think they can also do a better job when it comes to safety. We've seen too many examples of government bureaucracy creating unsafe conditions, both in NASA, and outside, both directly and indirectly.
If you want a good example of politics in space, check out the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. He did an inordinate amount of research and took a long look at the politics that would crop up on large colonies.
Granted, at the time he wrote it, the Soviet Union was still a power, and so he had half the characters grow up in a statist atmosphere and their beliefs towards individual ownership reflected it (and he did a good job of showing that through the trilogy). Their politics and whining can be extremly annoying, but overall a good read.
It's interesting, how since he wrote that, we've seen more and more of the larger multi-national corporations he discussed, coming into being - large mergers between large companies, that leave some of them more influential and powerful than some nations....it's not hard to imagine the mega-corporations in his trilogy coming into existence within a few decades.
I think it might be like an extension of the Law of the Sea, or like the Opening of the West. There were probably four major kinglike nations exploring the world 3-4-5 centuries ago. Each set up colonies in distinctive style. English, French, Spanish, and Russian kings had different ideas, and the English monarchy had the best success. The American Federal system might emulate the English colonial system, or it might have trouble doing that because of being a Constitutional Republic. OTOH, the Feds weren't at all slow to gobble up the West even before they had a plan to govern it. All of these systems have or had the ability to create private property; the Czar and the French king are kind of quiet these days, and the English have removed much of the power from their king. So, if we are to have private property in outer space, and orderly development, we ought to consider whether a kind of crown charter, or a gov't lease or patent might do the job that needs doing.
One thing I do not see is a gov't developing outer space. Not even China. It's too much in many ways for a public program to handle. The private sector will do the most possible, and all they need is private property rights.
And how are we going to get space colonies set up? You have two models, the corporate sort of outpost, and the mining town that sort of develops along the outskirts.
With a corporate outpost, the company provides everything and its like a temporary hardship assignment. You have to be careful that the corporation doesn't manipulate the people.
A mining town is a difficult analogy to set up because space colonies aren't as easily built as a few shacks. There has to be money from somewhere.
Hm, how about this plan: You have a conglomeration of American companies that need to have people in space that get together and raise funds to start a colony. The colony is run by the government as a territory. The government gets the benefit of the taxes, a military base, and a legitimate claim to sovereignty over the station and other celestial objects. Necessary stuff that doesn't turn a profit in space yet, like health care, dining, etc would have to be covered by the conglomerate, and in more mature stations (w/ permanent residents) by co-ops.
Government of space colonies will all be right here on earth. The market will be right here on earth even if materials are delivered to a lunar base or a Mars base. This arrangement will dominate space development for thousands of years. If a space colony can eventually grow to a significant size, say, 30 million population, then there can be some thought of independence and moving the market to the colony. That's for the future and every idea we have about it now might be considered utopic.
The first task is to establish a business that produces something of value from celestial resources at a profit large enough to make the investment attractive in a competitive investment world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.