Worth The Mission?

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:48:17 -0400, in a place far, far away,
(Herman Rubin) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Forty acres on the moon might be a little more appealling, if it
weren't against the Outer Space Treaty...

So?

Perhaps it's time to renegotiate that.

It's actually long past time, but it doesn't seem to be on anyone's
policy radar right now.

Do you think that ANY government on Earth, including
US, wants individuals (not agents of governments) on
the Moon or anywhere else in space?

I doubt if many governments have given it much thought. I don't think
that the US government cares, though some individuals within it might.

Why do you think that the US has interpreted the treaty on
space activities in such a way that it can prevent any
American from launching anywhere in the world without
explicit government approval? It has blocked private
companies from doing experimentation it does not approve of.

This is tangential, but an Oregon State graduate student
has been called to appear before Congress because his
research showed that government policy was wrong in
managing burned forests. The grant was canceled, and
attempts were made to block publication of this, but
the journals went ahead anyhow. The government is now
directing more than 90% of the scientific research in
the US.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

(Herman Rubin) wrote in news:e8bpp9$4qq4
@odds.stat.purdue.edu:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:48:17 -0400, in a place far, far away,
(Herman Rubin) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Forty acres on the moon might be a little more appealling, if it
weren't against the Outer Space Treaty...

So?

Perhaps it's time to renegotiate that.

It's actually long past time, but it doesn't seem to be on anyone's
policy radar right now.

Do you think that ANY government on Earth, including
US, wants individuals (not agents of governments) on
the Moon or anywhere else in space?

I doubt if many governments have given it much thought. I don't think
that the US government cares, though some individuals within it might.

Why do you think that the US has interpreted the treaty on
space activities in such a way that it can prevent any
American from launching anywhere in the world without
explicit government approval?

Because that's what the clear language of the treaty says?

http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm

quote
Article VI

States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for
national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other
celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental
agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national
activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in
the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer
space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require
authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party
to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including
the Moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization,
responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the
international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty
participating in such organization.
/quote

I mean, you can't get much clearer than "activities of non-governmental
entities... shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the
appropriate State Party to the Treaty".

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:54:39 -0400, in a place far, far away,
(Herman Rubin) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Do you think that ANY government on Earth, including
US, wants individuals (not agents of governments) on
the Moon or anywhere else in space?

I doubt if many governments have given it much thought. I don't think
that the US government cares, though some individuals within it might.

Why do you think that the US has interpreted the treaty on
space activities in such a way that it can prevent any
American from launching anywhere in the world without
explicit government approval?

Because that was a reasonable interpretation of the treaty
requirements.

(Herman Rubin) wrote:

Do you think that ANY government on Earth, including
US, wants individuals (not agents of governments) on
the Moon or anywhere else in space?

The way international law works, most governments would find it
difficult to understand the question. According to the OST in
particular, even an individual who is not an explicit agent of his
government is still under his government's direct supervision.

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 09:55:53 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore (Strider)" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Forty acres on the moon might be a little more appealling, if it
weren't against the Outer Space Treaty...

So?

Perhaps it's time to renegotiate that.

It's actually long past time, but it doesn't seem to be on anyone's
policy radar right now.

Do you think that ANY government on Earth, including
US, wants individuals (not agents of governments) on
the Moon or anywhere else in space?


Ultimately yes.

Otherwise we limit ourselves greatly.

For example, I think it's very likely in the next 100 years Solar Power Sats
will be built. Being able to own and control resources on the Moon I think
increases the chances for that.



--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:54:39 -0400, (Herman
Rubin) wrote:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:48:17 -0400, in a place far, far away,

Do you think that ANY government on Earth, including
US, wants individuals (not agents of governments) on
the Moon or anywhere else in space?

I doubt if many governments have given it much thought. I don't think
that the US government cares, though some individuals within it might.

Why do you think that the US has interpreted the treaty on
space activities in such a way that it can prevent any
American from launching anywhere in the world without
explicit government approval?

Because the plain language of the treaty says it has to? And, more
importantly, because the plain language of the treaty says that the
United States Government is liable for anything that goes wrong?
If you build a rocket, try to launch it into space, and land on
Moscow instead, the Russians don't sue you, they sue the Government
of the United States of America. And they win. Automatically.

This does motivate the United States Government to make some small
effort to ensure that rockets launched by Americans can be counted
on to not land on Moscow, and so you don't get to launch a rocket
until you've filled out the, "this is why a reasonable person would
not be worried about this rocket falling on Moscow", paperwork.

Sorry if that bothers you. As someone who lives rather closer than
Moscow to one of the US's new commercial spaceports, I'm kind of
happy that rockets don't go up without some oversight as to where
they might come down.


How you go from this, to a broad governmental suppression of all
non-governmental spaceflight, is beyond me. Have you not been
paying the least bit of attention to the development of the regulatory
process over the past few years? It is difficult to imagine any
government being more attentive to the desires of its citizens in
any area, as has the United States Government in the area of private
space flight. The United States Government has been not merely willing,
but positively *eager*, to license American private citizens to launch
rockets into space.


It has blocked private companies from doing experimentation it does not
approve of.

That's remarkably vague. I don't suppose you'd be willing to supply
examples, so that we have something concrete to debate?

In particular, though, I haven't heard of the United States Government's
having *ever* denied any private company's request for a launch license.


[1] Or seriously damage the natural environment. That one is also
mandatory, courtesy of well-established law that isn't going to
change any time soon. But there's a whole lot of desert in this
country, and ocean around it, that wouldn't be seriously harmed by
dropping a rocket on it. So long as you're not fool enough to be
running the thing on MMH and NTO, at least.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

(Herman Rubin) wrote:

:The government is now
:directing more than 90% of the scientific research in
:the US.

Cite?

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

There isn't much science or exploratory work of any kind, bold or
timid, occuring on Shuttle or ISS.

They're both exploring vast new areas in the consumption of federal funds.

Paul

In article . net,
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 09:55:53 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore (Strider)" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Forty acres on the moon might be a little more appealling, if it
weren't against the Outer Space Treaty...

So?

Perhaps it's time to renegotiate that.

It's actually long past time, but it doesn't seem to be on anyone's
policy radar right now.

Do you think that ANY government on Earth, including
US, wants individuals (not agents of governments) on
the Moon or anywhere else in space?


Ultimately yes.

Otherwise we limit ourselves greatly.

The large governments do not want to deal with many agents.
They greatly want to limit the ones they have to deal with.
Having individuals, with different value systems than those
which can be associated with countries, in space will threaten
their feeling of security.

For example, I think it's very likely in the next 100 years Solar Power Sats
will be built. Being able to own and control resources on the Moon I think
increases the chances for that.

This is one place where governments will definitely want to
control. They realize they have to put up with other national
powers, but they want it all regulated. Our advances have come
from lack of regulation, not from politicians and bureaucrats.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Herman Rubin) wrote:


:The government is now
:directing more than 90% of the scientific research in
:the US.

Cite?

This one is easy. Just look at the funding for research.

Now, you may say that funding does not mean direction. To
some extent, you may be correct. But who decides that a
particular line of research is to be supported?

There is a recent case in point. A student at, I believe,
Oregon State University, found in his research that the
commonly used policy for managing forest areas which have
been subject to forest fires is not that good. There was
an attempt made to keep the results from being published,
the funding was withdrawn, and the student has been called
to testify before a Congressional committee. The attempts
to withhold publication and peer comments have failed.

Another one is the genome project. I do not remember the
names, but a researcher came up with a new method of
analyzing the genome. The funding agency did not think
it would work, and discontinued his funding. In this case,
he was able to get private research, and even set up a
company to do this, and showed that it did in fact work,
and very well. Medicine is one of the best supported
outside the government. But there are many examples in
the recent literature of the government trying to block
medical research.




"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

One property of basic research is that one does not know
what will be found, so a "reasonable" proposal of how the
research will be carried out and an estimate of what will
be the result cannot be made. We need to encourage the
unreasonable man, and can you imagine a government doing
such things?
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558