Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Lunar Klondike?
techcentralstation ^ | 7/9/03 | Glenn Reynolds

Posted on 07/15/2003 3:58:42 PM PDT by Brett66

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last

1 posted on 07/15/2003 3:58:42 PM PDT by Brett66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Space; RightWhale; anymouse; RadioAstronomer; NonZeroSum; jimkress; discostu; The_Victor; ...
Space ping.
2 posted on 07/15/2003 3:59:20 PM PDT by Brett66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Strong Conservative Forums Help Prevent Candidates Like This From Winning Elections

Finish Strong. Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

3 posted on 07/15/2003 4:03:31 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
Only a complete cretin and idiot would use a Zimbabweian farmer as an example, considering the current status of same.
4 posted on 07/15/2003 4:03:36 PM PDT by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
Bush's campaign said they would be looking into the matter of private property rights in outer space once they were in office. They have not done so. Sure, he has other things to do, but a campaign promise has not been fulfilled or even begun.

The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty needs to be withdrawn from. Without private property rights in outer space, nothing will happen and we will be stuck on this backwater mudball forever.

5 posted on 07/15/2003 4:04:34 PM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I wouldn't worry about the UN Treaty right now. The un can't even do squat on Earth let alone in space. I believe Bush is pro space.
6 posted on 07/15/2003 4:06:15 PM PDT by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
3M = Martian Mining & Manufacturing
7 posted on 07/15/2003 4:06:21 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Yeah, but I wouldn't worry too much about that idiot treaty. As soon as it's viable to exploit space for natural resources, say goodbye to the UN Outer Space Treaty :)
8 posted on 07/15/2003 4:11:01 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
Richard Steiner, a professor and conservation specialist professional idiot at the University of Alaska, is deeply concerned at the prospect of any country granting licenses for lunar exploitation without proper international consultation.

"The moon is owned by everyone," he says

The moon is owned by anyone with the capability to take, hold and defend it, so far that means America.

9 posted on 07/15/2003 4:12:43 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
Bush is pro space

He needs to do some things in this regard. He has done nothing so far. NASA was in bad shape when he got it, and it still is. The Space Shuttle navel contemplation will do nothing to promote private development of outer space resources.

It's easy:
1) withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty;
2) Open an Office for registering outer space claims;
3) Clear the red tape from private space launches and product delivery.

10 posted on 07/15/2003 4:14:42 PM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
I wouldn't worry too much about that idiot treaty

It's the main legal impediment to private investment in space devlopment.

11 posted on 07/15/2003 4:15:51 PM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
Mr Steiner says it sets a dangerous precedent for more intrusive projects, such as strip-mining.

I can't think of a better desolated place to strip-mine. What an idiot.

12 posted on 07/15/2003 4:16:35 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
un can't even do squat on Earth let alone in space

The UN Treaty has nothing to do with the UN. It is an international treaty.

13 posted on 07/15/2003 4:17:07 PM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
The moon is owned by anyone with the capability to take, hold and defend it, so far that means America.

Not even remotely.

14 posted on 07/15/2003 4:19:05 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I wonder if it has an 6 month notice to withdrawl clause, like the ABM treaty?
15 posted on 07/15/2003 4:19:06 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
It's the main legal impediment to private investment in space devlopment.

Who's going to enforce it? Space cops?

Go. Strip mine to your heart's content.

16 posted on 07/15/2003 4:42:16 PM PDT by irv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
I largely agree. International law should recognize private property in space, probably determined by use. Anyway, whoever goes to a piece of land in space, sets up shop, and defends it will essentially "own" it for as long as he can defend it (legally and/or by force).

I do dissent on your remark regarding the terraformation of Mars, in particular. First, it's not practical or even feasible on any reasonable timescale even if we assume extraordinary effort and technological advances. 200 years is a barely reasonable timescale, but 20,000 years most certainly isn't. There's also the question of the living conditions during the terraformation process as well as unintended consequences.

Second, I do not think terraforming Mars is desirable in the first place. Mars is (could be) completely habitable in artificial environments with just the assumption of current technology (we did it on the Moon and do it in near-Earth orbit at this very moment). Technological advances would be more intelligently directed in this effort, in my opinion. Enclosed domes covering canyons and craters, better surface and sub-surface buildings and vehicles, etc. Advanced materials and technology would make Martian environmental suits increasingly more convenient and comfortable, and so on.

The technology is much less and much simpler than that required to shape an entire planet. It's also immediate, it's known territory, and it would probably have to be done before terraforming occurred anyway. I think it's enough to support a population of any size we desire in great comfort.

Finally, I like Mars the way it is. Similarly, I simply like the beach, the valley, and the mountains around my home the way they are, generally. I also look forward to visiting the desert in the Midwest and the forests in the Northwest in the distant future.

On the other hand, I'm certainly not some idiot "environmentalist" who rates rocks and frogs over human life and standard of living. I would absolutely love to see millions of people inhabiting Mars (and everywhere else). If given an absolute choice, I would take a 100% paved downtown Manhattan over a primitive pygmy tribe "in tune with nature" (gag) without hesitation. But, I also don't think it's an absolute choice. After all, we have some of the worlds greatest forests, mountains, deserts and so forth coexisting with the worlds highest standard of living, despite "environmentalists'" bizzare efforts to destroy both.

I compare the terraformation of Mars to boiling all the Earth's oceans in order to acquire more land to live on. Not realistically possible, and pretty damn stupid when you can just build underwater anyway (and still have that pretty ocean to enjoy, which is pretty nifty).
17 posted on 07/15/2003 4:48:18 PM PDT by Desmond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
it's a one year notice.
18 posted on 07/15/2003 4:49:10 PM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: irv
Who's going to enforce it?

Won't get that far without investment capital. No legal protection = no investment

You'll need $ billions, and you won't get it anywhere.

19 posted on 07/15/2003 4:51:29 PM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
No; centurion is spot-on. Merely an extension of Common Law , Natural Law, and common sense.
20 posted on 07/15/2003 4:56:30 PM PDT by dasboot (Celebrate UNITY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson