Space privatization: Road to conflict?

People's Weekly World ^ | 07/22/04 | Bruce Gagnon

[KevinDavis]

Recent 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.

[KevinDavis]

This part is interesting:
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 it also outlaws any nation, corporation, or individual from making land “claims” on the planetary body. The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty takes a similar position in regard to all of the planetary bodies, arguing that the heavens are the province of all humankind.

Looks like we are not bound by UN Space Treaty...

[KevinDavis]

[Brett66]

Oh boy, Bruce GAGnon gets to share his brilliance with us:

It was recently reported that the Halliburton Company is now working with NASA to develop new drilling capabilities to mine Mars.

And let's not ignore this bit of brilliance:

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.

Oh yeah, spooooky private enterprise and Halliburton are coming to contaminate space GAGnon.

[gitmo]

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?

The Final Frontier.

[Tax Government]

Isn't there a moon crater, asteroid, beautiful nebula, galaxy or comet we can name Halliburton?

[irv]

As the privateers move into space

I especially liked this line, equating those who believe in private property rights with pirates.

[XBob]

You may think you are 'joking' about Halliburton in Space, however, there was serious consideration at one time.

I remember, in the early 1980's, a cover story, article, and drawing of astronauts assembling a space station in space, in suits with the Brown-Root insignia. (Brown-Root is a major Halliburton entity).

If you look through the library stacks of Engineering News-Record from about 1981,2-3, you should find it.

I think we would have been far better off if we had done that, and just contracted it out those many years ago to a great Engineering-Construction firm like Lumas, Haliburton, Fluor-Daniel, or Bechtel.

[Army Air Corps]

Where do I sign up to be a space pirate? Do I have to provide my own eyepatch?

[KevinDavis]

Hmm I don't know. How about a ship named Halliburton??

[atomic conspiracy]

This same article was posted at FR last month after it appeared on the website of the ultra-luddite Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, of which Gagnon is director. A repost was very much in order, however: It is very interesting that it has now found its way to an openly communist publication.

[BlazingArizona]

Bruce Gagnon is a well-known space Luddite. Most people who are "against" space exploration are actually against public funding of it, and couldn't care less if private parties want to risk their cash in in the empyrean.

Gagnon is one of the few who oppose ANY development of space, even if private.

[solitas]

Most people who are "against" space exploration are actually against public funding of it, and couldn't care less if private parties want to risk their cash in in the empyrean.

wow!    Now, there's a word I haven't heard since "thirteen across: an eight letter word for 'the true and ultimate heavenly paradise'"     :D

[RightWhale]

The 1967 Treaty was signed. The Moon Treaty was not. Keep them separated in your mind as discussion begins to grow. Discussion will grow because the issue of private property rights was addressed in the President's Commission on Moon, Mars, and Beyond report.

A special prize is offered to the first private aerospace corporation who can successfully take a pilot and a “space tourist” into orbit.

The author confuses public and private, natural person and corporation. It is well he raises these issues even though he is taking such an ignorant attitude.

Private property already exists to the extent that anything you may already own and launch is still your private property no matter where it goes in outer space--per 1967 Treaty. Production of resources--celestial is the term in the treaty--celestial resources would be prohibited not only for private persons and public corporations, but for any sovereign state that signed the 1967 Treaty, and more of the same for the Moon Treaty.

[Jackknife]

AAAAYYYE MATEY !! LASH THE MAST!!

[Frank_Discussion]

And it shows this gagster's COMPLETE misunderstanding of the English language and global history. What a sanctimonious a$$hat!

[JimRed]

Who will be the space police?

Starfleet, of course!

[Frank_Discussion]

Where do I sign up to be a space pirate? Do I have to provide my own eyepatch?

Talk to this guy:



He'll fix you up.

[Army Air Corps]

ROFLMAO!

[frithguild]

Here are some of the provisions of the 1979 Treaty, which, no doubt, the wacko who wrote this loves:

ARTICLE 7

1. In exploring and using the moon, States Parties Vshall take measures to prevent the disruption of the existing balance of its environment, whether by introducing adverse changes in that environment, by its harmful contamination through the introduction of extra-environmental matter or otherwise. States Parties shall also take measures to avoid harmfully affecting the environment of the earth through the introduction of extraterrestrial matter or otherwise.

*** ARTICLE 11

2. The moon is not subject to national appropriation by any claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or byany other means.

3. Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person. The placement of personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on or below the surface of the moon, including structures connected with its surface or subsurface, shall not create a right of ownership over the surface or the subsurface of the moon or any areas thereof. The foregoing provisions are without prejudice to the international regime referred to in paragraph 5 of this ARTICLE.

***

5. States Parties to this Agreement hereby undertake to establish an international regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the exploitation of the natural resources of the moon as such exploitation is about to become feasible….In order to facilitate the establishment of the international regime referred to in paragraph 5 of this ARTICLE, States Parties shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations as well as the public and the international scientific community, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable, of any natural resources they may discover on the moon.

6. The main purposes of the international regime to be established shall include:

***

d. An equitable sharing by all States Parties in the benefits derived from those resources, whereby the interests and needs of the developing countries, as well as the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly to the exploration of the moon, shall be given special consideration. ARTICLE 15

1. Each State Party may assure itself that the activities of other States Parties in the exploration and use of the moon are compatible with the provisions of this Agreement. To this end, all space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on the moon shall be open to other States Parties.