Charles Krauthammer Blows It

Mike Rhino wrote:

In the case of the moon, I think the secret is to put habitats, tourism, and
colonies into the initial plan instead of repeating Apollo and hand waving
that at some future date we'll have something better. If you send habitats
before the first manned flight, that will give you a chance to test out your
rockets to make sure they work.

I liked the Star Trek fans' suggestion a lot better: Repeal the Outer
Space Treaty and replace it with a "Space Homesteading Act," analogous
to the Homestead Act of 1862 that opened up the American West to
colonization and commercial development. That is, stop this
self-defeating socialist fluff that the Moon, Mars, etc. belong to the
"common heritage of humanity" (meaning no one has any real stake in it).

Instead, the Space Homesteading Act will mandate that the U.N. can just
*give away* the title to large tracts on the Moon and Mars to any
commercial developers willing to develop the land and put people on that
land for a minimum of, say, 10 years. If Bill Gates wants to own 1,000
square miles of the Moon, let him, under the proviso that he has to
develop it for his purposes for at least 10 years without one dime of
government money. It could be used for advertising (anyone with
binoculars could easily spot the giant Microsoft Windows logo on the
moon), or any other purpose.



--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

"Steven L." wrote:

:Instead, the Space Homesteading Act will mandate that the U.N. can just
:*give away* the title to large tracts on the Moon and Mars to any
:commercial developers willing to develop the land and put people on that
:land for a minimum of, say, 10 years.

While I generally like the thought, why does the UN get to *give away*
title? When did they become the landlords? Guess who they're going
to 'give' it to?

--
"Have you noticed that the most subtle shedders of blood have always
been the most civilized gentlemen? If civilization has not made man
more bloodthirsty, it has at least made him more hideously and
abominably bloodthirsty. Formerly he saw bloodshed as an act of
justice, and with a clear conscience exterminated whomever he
thought he should. And now we consider bloodshed an abomination,
yet engage in this abomination more than ever."
-- Dostoyevsky "Notes From The Underground"

"Steven L." wrote:

Mike Rhino wrote:

In the case of the moon, I think the secret is to put habitats, tourism, and
colonies into the initial plan instead of repeating Apollo and hand waving
that at some future date we'll have something better. If you send habitats
before the first manned flight, that will give you a chance to test out your
rockets to make sure they work.

I liked the Star Trek fans' suggestion a lot better: Repeal the Outer
Space Treaty and replace it with a "Space Homesteading Act," analogous
to the Homestead Act of 1862 that opened up the American West to
colonization and commercial development.

Star Trek fans love such fluffy headed nonsense, it appeals to their
simpleminded views of human nature and their utter ignorance of
economics.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:
Star Trek fans love such fluffy headed nonsense, it appeals to their
simpleminded views of human nature and their utter ignorance of
economics.


I do note that although they have no money in the future, they do have
"credits".
So Star Trek did foresee the credit card economy.
On the other hand, their opinions of what a Inverse Tachyon Field can do
are wildly exaggerated.

Pat

In sci.space.policy, on Wed, 07 Mar 2007 03:47:18 GMT,
Steven L. sez:
Mike Rhino wrote:

In the case of the moon, I think the secret is to put habitats, tourism, and
colonies into the initial plan instead of repeating Apollo and hand waving
that at some future date we'll have something better. If you send habitats
before the first manned flight, that will give you a chance to test out your
rockets to make sure they work.

I liked the Star Trek fans' suggestion a lot better: Repeal the Outer
Space Treaty and replace it with a "Space Homesteading Act," analogous
to the Homestead Act of 1862 that opened up the American West to
colonization and commercial development. That is, stop this
self-defeating socialist fluff that the Moon, Mars, etc. belong to the
"common heritage of humanity" (meaning no one has any real stake in it).

Instead, the Space Homesteading Act will mandate that the U.N. can just
*give away* the title to large tracts on the Moon and Mars to any
commercial developers willing to develop the land and put people on that
land for a minimum of, say, 10 years. If Bill Gates wants to own 1,000
square miles of the Moon, let him, under the proviso that he has to
develop it for his purposes for at least 10 years without one dime of
government money. It could be used for advertising (anyone with
binoculars could easily spot the giant Microsoft Windows logo on the
moon), or any other purpose.

Standard boilerplate for western Canada went something like, you
get the rights to 160 acres, but you have to put one? two? five?
- some such number new acres into production in each of the first
ten years or you lose it. If you make it, you get the deed after
ten years. For space, you could run it like, after ten years,
if you have been living there the whole time and you're still
alive, you get the deed.

--
================================================== ========================
Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.