Bush administration may rethink space treaty

GOVXEC.com ^ | 10/25/04 | Beth Dickey

[KevinDavis]

A veteran space program observer who recently represented the Bush campaign in a policy debate said the president is considering whether to continue U.S. participation in an international treaty banning nuclear weapons in space.

[KevinDavis]

Smart move....

[KevinDavis]

[King Prout]

good.

[Brett66]

That would be fantastic if he were to do this, he'll have to do it within the next four years. He's the only president I've seen in my lifetime that would have the backbone to do this.

[KevinDavis]

I think this is slow pullout of the UN. I disagree with Bush on a few issues, however, he does have a backbone. That is why on 11/02/04 I'm proudly voting for Bush. This guy thinks about the future!!!

[Freepdonia]

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SPACE GERMS!!!!!

[Batrachian]

This treaty killed off the Orion spacecraft. True, they never would have been built anyway, but still...

[ClaudiusI]

I'm glad someone else here knows about what happened to Orion.
Though, as far as I knew, the treaty which killed it had
already been revoked.
That's one really important reason for any pro-space person to
vote for Bush. Because I bet anything Kerry will kill Project
Prometheus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prometheus

[RightWhale]

The issue of private property rights in space was raised in a June report by the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy. The Moon-Mars Commission, as it is popularly known, concluded that treaty prohibitions on private ownership "could strangle a nascent space industry in its cradle." Bush's plan for the NASA to return humans to the moon by 2020 depends heavily on commercial investment.

There is no asteroid mining, moon mining, or any private space base. We could conclude that a nascent space industry has been strangled in its cradle.

[Batrachian]

Yes, I think it was the nuclear test ban treaty, contrary to what I said. Although it's true that a treaty made Orion technically illegal, the concept has some real problems when you actually try to build it. It was originally based on clean fusion bombs that did not rely on a fission trigger, and those were never developed. There where other issues as well.

The thing never would have been built, treaty or not, but the fact that it was a real government project with funding shows how serious the commitment was back then. For the wrong reasons, unfortunately. Once the Soviets where beaten, the entire rationale for deep space exploration vanished, and we have never gone back.

As for Project Prometheus, JF Kerry would kill that faster than the goose he shot in Ohio. Can't have that nasty nuclear stuff in space, after all. Might offend the U.N.

[Batrachian]

"We could conclude that a nascent space industry has been strangled in its cradle."

Except for a multi-billion dollar commercial space launch industry, of course. I think the vast cost of space exploration is more of a hindrance than some hypothetical treaty, but in principle you're right. Why destroy our prospects over some starry-eyed idea that we must keep space pure from the evils of capitalism and private property?

[Paleo Conservative]

Fantastic!

[RightWhale]

Except for a multi-billion dollar commercial space launch industry

Anything you already own and launch remains your property per the Treaty.