UN and international space policy

Is the UN going to build off the Moon and Outer Space Treaties? Any
ideas out there? Should we assume that the UN is through with trying
to regulate space activities?

An article [1] that just came out in a law journal argues that the U.S.
and other space-faring countries should address the matter without
waiting for the UN.

I have read some interesting points of view from "space mavericks" who
think NO regulation should be put in place. I'd be interested in
hearing the opinions of other people out there. I'm not sure no
regulation is right.

Anyone know of investing in space commercialization? This article
(mentioned above) argues that the commercialization of space is about
to explode--are there companies out there that are publicly traded that
invest in outer space commercial activities?

Pardon the random thoughts,

Charles

[1] "A Proposed International Legal Regime for the Era of Private
Commercial Utilization of Space" in The George Washington International
Law Review, Vol. 37, Number 3, 2005. John S. Lewis and Christopher F.
Lewis.

I found an interesting article from Forbes [1] online, granted from a
few years ago, on the subject of investing in space, although more from
the ground up.

Charles

[1] http://sree.net/stories/space.html

OK, I'll stop after this:

I found two websites in a search for publicly traded space companies
[1][2].

Does anyone know anything about these? Are they legit? Anyone invest?

I'm sorry about all the posts and questions.

Charles

[1] http://www.spacehab.com/
[2] http://www.orbital.com/

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 wrote:

Is the UN going to build off the Moon and Outer Space Treaties? Any
ideas out there? Should we assume that the UN is through with trying
to regulate space activities?

Not with Bushwackie's new US ambassador to the UN who is mandated to
dismantle the UN to get out of US way. Denying US military use of space
and a military Lunar base is denying US the right to defend US by what
means necessary, even pre-emptive strikes.

Lunacy, the US military base near Luna City, will be kept secrete even to
lunatics, the residents of Luna City and loonies, ie military personal
who pull a tour of duty at Lunacy, in the interests of ultra-secrecy,
will have all memories of their stay turned into looney tunes.

On 3 Aug 2005 20:00:04 -0700, wrote:

Is the UN going to build off the Moon and Outer Space Treaties? Any
ideas out there? Should we assume that the UN is through with trying
to regulate space activities?

I doubt it. I am sure that some point in the future someone will fence
off somewhere that other people need. Either they can get out the guns
and start shooting, or a higher power would need to sort it out.

The first case of murder in space is bound to be legally interesting.

An article [1] that just came out in a law journal argues that the U.S.
and other space-faring countries should address the matter without
waiting for the UN.

I have read some interesting points of view from "space mavericks" who
think NO regulation should be put in place. I'd be interested in
hearing the opinions of other people out there. I'm not sure no
regulation is right.

It seems like a fair system at the moment that people can lay claim to
land if they can actually go there, fence it off, then to actually
maintain their property.

Still, once things get developed, then you can guess what happens
then. Some spoilsports will form a government, where the following
week you get in your first tax demand.

Those who do not like taxes can always live somewhere remote. :-]

Anyone know of investing in space commercialization? This article
(mentioned above) argues that the commercialization of space is about
to explode--are there companies out there that are publicly traded that
invest in outer space commercial activities?

Yes, there are some. However, many of them are not even worth the
effort, when their plans simply won't get off the ground. This is
because people have learned over time that whatever is out there they
simply cannot get.

There is only two commercial space venture that are worth investing
in. And those two markets happen to be "tourism" and "cargo delivery".

The thing is that they can certainly launch space hotels up there,
where in fact Robert Bigelow plans to put a "bigger than the ISS"
inflatable one up there in the near future.

The big problem here is that your new hotel is so remote that no one
can yet get to it. That is where the current sub-orbital business
comes in.

Now it seems to me like they are currently playing pass the batten,
when I have been watching this engine development, then that got
sucked into Spaceship One. And now Virgin Galactic seems to be putting
serious investment into both Sub-Orbital spacecraft construction and
to then launch paying customers on these things.

So there now seems little doubt that one day in the near future they
will be able to take one more step in getting closer to Bigelow's
exclusive space hotel.

The aspect that I find most concerning is that no other sub-orbital
company has yet get themselves 100km off the ground. This is mostly
because investors are still looking to invest in the sure to succeed,
where anyone else is still questionable. So while some other companies
have the technical skills, then they simply lack the investment.

The key to getting funding is to show active development, where firing
off a rocket engine always highlights that you mean business. Put that
one something that flies and you are then half-way there.

Still, to aid in more and more companies getting into the game, then
they are planning a sub-orbital competition. This X-Prize Cup will
draw in investment through sponsorship, where prizes will be awarded
for technically achievements. So you could say that this will sort out
and help develop those who can technically succeed, from those who
cannot.

So we can only hope that though good television coverage and
sponsorship that this helps to generate the required funding to help
these sub-orbital companies develop their hardware.

What is more is that as time goes on this competition will seek to
make these craft go higher, faster, have greater payloads and of
course to invest in safety.

The end goal to both these methods is to reach orbital. No doubt they
will eventually merge, when it has been proved that there is a market
to pay the high ticket cost, then in time they can hopefully construct
the craft to actually go into LEO.

And when you finally put together passenger launches to LEO with space
hotels, then you have one crap hot tourist destination. Hopefully
these Hollywood stars will get off their lazy asses and to take the
World's best holiday.

The key aspect once they reach orbital is to then lower the ticket
price as much as possible. As quite simply the less it costs to take
the trip, the more people will be willing to go. And that could
certainly result in daily flights and more.

Things certainly won't be hanging around in LEO either, when a hotel
in LEO is not nearly as nice as a hotel on the Moon. And hell they
will even be able to let their tourists outside to bounce around in
the regolith.

It is then quite possible that some people will desire to hang around
longer, where they could set up home on the Moon.

This brings me on to the second aspect of cargo delivery, where that
is another area that looks like it is going places. Or at least it is
with Space-X and their Falcon rockets. The first main stop on this
route could well be delivering supplies to the ISS.

They start doing that and NASA could even get quite interesting in
having them launch their CEV.

And you can only imagine that in the future that anyone needs
something in orbit, then they can put it there for less than any
government can.

I am pleased to see that those markets are already developing nicely,
where I see that I badly need to sort out my bookmarks. The best news
at the moment is that everyone with the resources is coming together
and doing their thing to make it work. And so all it really takes now
is the investment, where I am quite sure that people are happy to
invest in working profitable systems.

So that is what should follow. I am not sure if any of the companies
are trading on the stock market through.

Pardon the random thoughts,

NP. That tends to happen.

Cardman.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 22:27:19 -0700, in a place far, far away, William
Elliot made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 wrote:

Is the UN going to build off the Moon and Outer Space Treaties? Any
ideas out there? Should we assume that the UN is through with trying
to regulate space activities?

Not with Bushwackie's new US ambassador to the UN who is mandated to
dismantle the UN to get out of US way. Denying US military use of space
and a military Lunar base is denying US the right to defend US by what
means necessary, even pre-emptive strikes.

Lunacy, the US military base near Luna City, will be kept secrete even to
lunatics, the residents of Luna City and loonies, ie military personal
who pull a tour of duty at Lunacy, in the interests of ultra-secrecy,
will have all memories of their stay turned into looney tunes.

Does *anyone* sane post to this newsgroup any more? I propose a new
group--sci.space.policy.wackos, in which Maxson, Guth, this character,
and all the others can indulge in their nutty conspiracy theories, so
the rest of us can actually discuss space policy.

h (Rand Simberg) :

Does *anyone* sane post to this newsgroup any more? I propose a new
group--sci.space.policy.wackos, in which Maxson, Guth, this character,
and all the others can indulge in their nutty conspiracy theories, so
the rest of us can actually discuss space policy.

It is getting bad - lately I have been filtering out about 85% of the threads
just to get rid of the anti-bush wachos. I do call them wachos since as far
as they are concerned every problem in the world is Bush's fault which is a
wierd state of mind considering this thread start on a couple of UN treaties
that are so old that a large percentage of the readers of the group are
younger than the paperwork.

Earl Colby Pottinger
--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:45:38 -0500, Earl Colby Pottinger
wrote:

(Rand Simberg) :

Does *anyone* sane post to this newsgroup any more? I propose a new
group--sci.space.policy.wackos, in which Maxson, Guth, this character,
and all the others can indulge in their nutty conspiracy theories, so
the rest of us can actually discuss space policy.

It is getting bad - lately I have been filtering out about 85% of the threads
just to get rid of the anti-bush wachos. I do call them wachos since as far
as they are concerned every problem in the world is Bush's fault

Well, the US is currently the World's only superpower. And they
certainly like to take advantage of that situation.

which is a
wierd state of mind considering this thread start on a couple of UN treaties
that are so old that a large percentage of the readers of the group are
younger than the paperwork.

Get used to it.

In the UK the law concerning obscene pornography is so old that it is
older than any living human on this planet. You would have thought
that tastes would have changed since then.

No one wants to update it, when soon enough other people would start
branding them a pervert.

Cardman.

Originally Posted by Cardman

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:45:38 -0500, Earl Colby Pottinger
wrote:

h (Rand Simberg) :

Does *anyone* sane post to this newsgroup any more? I propose a new
group--sci.space.policy.wackos, in which Maxson, Guth, this character,
and all the others can indulge in their nutty conspiracy theories, so
the rest of us can actually discuss space policy.

It is getting bad - lately I have been filtering out about 85% of the threads
just to get rid of the anti-bush wachos. I do call them wachos since as far
as they are concerned every problem in the world is Bush's fault

Well, the US is currently the World's only superpower. And they
certainly like to take advantage of that situation.

which is a
wierd state of mind considering this thread start on a couple of UN treaties
that are so old that a large percentage of the readers of the group are
younger than the paperwork.

Get used to it.

In the UK the law concerning obscene pornography is so old that it is
older than any living human on this planet. You would have thought
that tastes would have changed since then.

No one wants to update it, when soon enough other people would start
branding them a pervert.

Cardman.

You say: """"""the US is currently the World’s only superpower""""""
and will desappear as superpower and for many reasons.
First, human (everyone) and nations needs freedom and self-assertion.
As a result (I repeat: as a result) an egocentric and arrogant superpower inevitably will oppress and will cause wars (in addition to others wars...) to sustain this status.
As a result, for others nations, partnership is the way to reach a greater strength and true freedom.
The principle itself (partnership) is the negation of a regional superpower who would like to remain the only one superpower.
Partnership (principle) is stronger than self-assertion and with the globalization the partnership is unavoidable.
In a few centuries or earlier the superpower will be the world itself (a smaller superpower would be a tyranny for someone).
EU is the only one example for the world and a hope for the future and for mankind.
If USA go to Mars alone then this will throw down the end of this regional superpower!
Who wants to bet with me?
With me, militate for a World Space Agency!
Rémy

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 15:08:18 +0000, Rémy MERCIER
wrote:

You say: """"""the US is currently the World’s only superpower""""""

That I do. However, in the future China, the EU, and even India,
should start to challenge their sole position.

and will desappear as superpower and for many reasons.

The US should remain a superpower for the known future.

First, human (everyone) and nations needs freedom and self-assertion.

Freedom is a different thing to different people. The US did not bring
freedom to Iraq, when they already had freedom. Now they can look
forwards to a Civil War when the US troops depart.

As a result (I repeat: as a result) an egocentric and arrogant
superpower inevitably will oppress and will cause wars (in addition to
others wars...) to sustain this status.

There is a good saying that applies here. The most dangerous people
are those who speak with good deeds in mind.

A lot of people have certainly died due to Bush wanting to make a
better world.

As a result, for others nations, partnership is the way to reach a
greater strength and true freedom.

That is the way of the world.

Each dominant country acts for their own gain. They enforce their own
values on others. They suppress those that are different from them.
And with power always come abuse of power.

The US currently speaks the word of the righteous.

So it does help to have a power balance in order to protect smaller
countries from the abuse of a superpower. Those countries can then
align with those who can do the best for them.

The down side is that if the difference between superpowers is too
great, then this can lead to Wars. You can already tell that the US
and Chinese see each other as enemies.

The principle itself (partnership) is the negation of a regional
superpower who would like to remain the only one superpower.

The US accepts the future. They are just unhappy that they are no
longer getting their way.

Partnership (principle) is stronger than self-assertion and with the
globalization the partnership is unavoidable.

It certainly seems that way. Just about all countries can now see that
it is no longer helpful to seal up your borders.

In a few centuries or earlier the superpower will be the world itself
(a smaller superpower would be a tyranny for someone).

I doubt that.

Just look at Bush knocking about the Arabs. I guess that is not
uncommon considering WWII was fought through their lands and then that
Israel situation.

So Bush gets all upset about Iran going nuclear, but then he signs
nuclear technology deals with India. One being democratic mostly
English based (not unlike them) and the other non-English and
non-democratic (not like them).

And this explains the whole human problem. There will always be a them
and us. Friend and enemy.

Bush needs to watch more sport. That is how society now deals with a
friend versus enemy battle on the pitch, court or whatever. So if the
US can whip Chinese ass at basketball, then why the need for War?

EU is the only one example for the world and a hope for the future and
for mankind.

Should they ever agree enough to work together. Since we are more
alike than unlike those days, then I guess that we will.

The bigger problem is the Chinese and Arabs. And Bush is getting
really upset over the Arabs now wanting to form a modern society and
to even work together to form a global power base.

If USA go to Mars alone then this will throw down the end of this
regional superpower!

We will have to see if NASA goes alone to the Moon or not. Going alone
is not such a bad thing, when the Chinese and EU/Russians will be
compelled to be as good as the US.

On the other hand, were they to join forces, then this one combined
project would be one of those split funding things hosted by NASA.

Who wants to bet with me?
With me, militate for a World Space Agency!

Nice idea in order to increase funding, but it seems better for space
if they keep insulting the Chinese and annoying the EU. As you may
care to note that their own space plans seem to be advancing nicely.

When competition fails, then they can go with cooperation.

Cardman.