You may want to look at this site:

http://mob.nfesc.navy.mil/

Such a platform may work well with your ideas, if you can discount
the organization that's promoting it.

If modified it could take the Boeing Sea-Launch project to a whole
new realm. You could have 5,000 of your followers on this platform,
launching rockets, doing assembly work, doing ground support,
tracking, etc. Basically a small floating country.

Hope you find it interesting. I certainly did. I've even
incorporated it into some of my thinking, but more as an off-shoot
rather than central to the goal of space development.

In a message dated 9/6/02 5:46:54 PM, tango_dancer@... writes:

<< You may want to look at this site:

http://mob.nfesc.navy.mil/

Such a platform may work well with your ideas, if you can discount
the organization that's promoting it.

If modified it could take the Boeing Sea-Launch project to a whole
new realm. You could have 5,000 of your followers on this platform,
launching rockets, doing assembly work, doing ground support,
tracking, etc. Basically a small floating country.

Hope you find it interesting. I certainly did. I've even
incorporated it into some of my thinking, but more as an off-shoot
rather than central to the goal of space development. >>

This will really simpify all the launch business with least amount of
paperwork! In fact it could be used as a way to drop-kick the space tourism
rather than struggling through thick defense to the goal. Why don't we think
of it in term of as a way to start up the transportation business so that the
concepts will be proved and improved in the first few years until our reconds
are solid enough that the nervous nellies in the states are reassured that it
won't post real dangers to their tax bases. Let's keep think guys. The less
delays and costs we have, the more attractive space transportation will be to
investors.

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions,
that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when
wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little
rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as
necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful
rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of
the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should
render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions
as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound
health of government." ----Thomas Jefferson

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ravenart@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/6/02 5:46:54 PM, tango_dancer@h... writes:
>
><< You may want to look at this site:
>
> http://mob.nfesc.navy.mil/
>
> Such a platform may work well with your ideas, if you can discount
> the organization that's promoting it.
>
> If modified it could take the Boeing Sea-Launch project to a whole
> new realm. You could have 5,000 of your followers on this
platform,
> launching rockets, doing assembly work, doing ground support,
> tracking, etc. Basically a small floating country.
>
> Hope you find it interesting. I certainly did. I've even
> incorporated it into some of my thinking, but more as an off-shoot
> rather than central to the goal of space development. >>
>
> This will really simpify all the launch business with least amount
of
> paperwork! In fact it could be used as a way to drop-kick the
space tourism
> rather than struggling through thick defense to the goal. Why
don't we think
> of it in term of as a way to start up the transportation business
so that the
> concepts will be proved and improved in the first few years until
our reconds
> are solid enough that the nervous nellies in the states are
reassured that it
> won't post real dangers to their tax bases. Let's keep think
guys. The less
> delays and costs we have, the more attractive space transportation
will be to
> investors.
>
> Carl E. Mullin
>

I'm not sure what you mean. I didn't get the impression that the
Mobile Offshore Base was something that could be built on a
shoestring. What I did read was the the bean-counters in the Navy
were trying to figure out if it was worth spending $2-3 billion per
module, for a five module system.

In the end, it may be cheaper to launch from the US and jump through
all of the bureacratic hoops, than it would be to spend $10-20
billion dollars on a launch platform and floating island for a new
nation of space enthusiasts who don't want to have bureaucratic
oversight from any government organization.

On Friday, September 6, 2002, at 10:15 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:

> In the end, it may be cheaper to launch from the US and jump through
> all of the bureacratic hoops, than it would be to spend $10-20
> billion dollars on a launch platform and floating island for a new
> nation of space enthusiasts who don't want to have bureaucratic
> oversight from any government organization.
>

Not only that, but if you build your own platform and/or get an island
outside of a nation-state, no nation-state will come to your defense.
There are plenty of armed groups with boats that could easily invade
your little piece of land. Once you start supplying your own defense,
it get's expensive and you start looking a lot like a ---- nation state.

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect and
deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

On Friday, September 6, 2002, at 10:15 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:

> In the end, it may be cheaper to launch from the US and jump through
> all of the bureacratic hoops, than it would be to spend $10-20
> billion dollars on a launch platform and floating island for a new
> nation of space enthusiasts who don't want to have bureaucratic
> oversight from any government organization.
>

Not only that, but if you build your own platform and/or get an island
outside of a nation-state, no nation-state will come to your defense.
There are plenty of armed groups with boats that could easily invade
your little piece of land. Once you start supplying your own defense,
it get's expensive and you start looking a lot like a ---- nation state.

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect and
deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Don't underestimate the cost of rules and regulation from government :-(

Besides, like who would come trying to invade you and for what purpose?

Besides to create an effective defense system is not all THAT expensive,
especially if you are willing to think outside the box, which should
certainly be a given if you are high tech enough and bold enough to be
considering Space Launches :-)

For less than a 100 million you could be pretty defensable. You can even do
the rest of the world a favor by buying up the black market weapons out
there for your defenses, pretty cheaply :-)

Defense 1, tomahawk / harpoon and other cruise missile categorys will do a
tremendous damage against incoming ships...launch 3-4 of them against even a
plallenx anti missile gun and your pretty sure to have a 'hit' Cost per
missile between $1million (Terrorist R' US Superstore) and $10 million each.

There are many older missile systems that are retired from US /Soviet
arsenals because they are not as useful against stealth agents...but they
still work great for low tech adversaries, even line of sight with laser or
wire guidance.

Cheap "eye in the sky" continuously flying solar powered recon aircraft can
provide long range advance warning of incoming threat. Infrared and such
with telescopic video cameras...bad weather moves in fly higher to 40k above
most clouds. If its really bad weather why worry about low tech (or even
high tech) adversaries making it through :-)

Even a decent weather radar on a high enough perch to look beyond earth
curvature can provide incoming data.

Add a couple of older fighter jets, or even converted commercial aviation
aircraft (737 without stage three noise level jets can be had for under
$2-million each with 50,000 lbs + payload) Coverting them to iron bombers
would be easy enough, even literally dropping "iron" on an enemy from 20,000
ft would be devasting to many small water craft invaders... designed to
spread out as they fall to cover a 1/2 miles square foot print would all but
insure a hit and sink or at least have the perps seriously reconsider the
act.

Add to your arsenal a few dozen torpedos at low spread also insure a certain
contact no matter how fast their incoming boats are or manueverable.

Along all the coast, a series of well placed vulcan gattling gun bunkers,
remote controlled, with overlap can reduce the attractiveness of sea
invasions if they do indeed get by the harpoons, 737 iron bombers and
torpedos.

Now if its a big invader like the US, you can hang it up because of the
inequality of volumes, but just about anything else you can defend against
cheaply.

We haven't even touched gas or chemical type weapons which are very cheap.
You don't even have to be lethal with them. Knock out gas etc. does the job
as well too. In that way, your own personal does not get harmed, yet you
incapacitate invaders.

Remember that most of the world countries do not have a defense system even
equal to whats been mentioned here, look at Panama, Belize, Costa Rica,
Honduras, Ecuador, etc etc. A few simple non agression pacts and mutual
assistences agreements goes a long way... If you are doing Space launches,
then you can provide cheap satellite launches for your neighbor countries
and get their assistence that way. :-)

Now being a rogue nation with a nasty attitude would be bad idea, but almost
anything else, what the hey? Besides, you'll want tourist coming in to see
launches for extra income so you don't want to get too strong an image, do
you? :-)

> > In the end, it may be cheaper to launch from the US and jump through

On Monday, September 9, 2002, at 11:00 AM, panamabob wrote:

> Don't underestimate the cost of rules and regulation from government :-(
>
> Besides, like who would come trying to invade you and for what purpose?
>

Pirates, to take your money, sell your possesions, get your base, and
use any women.

> Besides to create an effective defense system is not all THAT expensive,

Except that you never quite know if you've got enough, now do you? And
yes, it is VERY expensive.

The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr. Tito
going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

How small a base are YOU talking about?
The little "base" we're planned for will have 12,000-20,000 folks. Is that
your idea of size as well?

Where in the world are you planning on setting up? Equatorial area I assume?

As previously outlined, a $100mm would get you quite a set-up against
"pirates"... Pirates may have shoulder mounted surface to air missiles, but
against a barrage of iron falling from even 10,000 ft its pretty much
useless. Also against lead bullets from phalynx gun system as well. :-)

Never enough defense? Isn't that the echo of the old cold war scenarios and
the proliferation of ICBM's etc? :-)

Besides, truth be known we have pretty much been shown there IS no ultimate
defense...case in point 9/11.

Now the money they are gonna get? What cash money? Todays society is
generally electronic money; credit cards, debit cards, wire transfers. I'm
sure you would adopt the same techniques of economic transactions.

Take over your base? Come in through the volcan gattling gun bullet screen,
ouch. Small group overpowering your own security force is perhaps possible
(terrorist threats have proven out ) but
supposedly commercial aircraft have scanned for major munitions and weapons
prior to boarding aircraft at its origination point, and marine craft are
brought in to port facility with defenses in place as well... non port
arrivals are not allowed and intercepted by aircraft or gun boats (hydrofoil
gunship runs $5 million)

One would think that encryption codes for access to systems would discourage
take-over attempts as well... we also ARE talking ROCKET SCIENCE here, so
basic skills would have to be quite advanced. Those kind of intellectual
skills would lead more to a financial takeover through stock markets etc.
rather than physical agression.

Take away your women? How big a group do you envision coming in on these
raids? Why wouldn't they want to take handsome men as well? Lets be
politically correct now :-P

Perhaps the pirate take over scenario would be fitting for an oil platform
base or similar, but anything larger would be quite a stretch.

I would tell you more of the security systems and defense systems we plan,
but it would jeopardize security :-) The previous examples I've given are
doable and sufficient to discourage most of the situations.

In our defense system, e'nuff said that beneath skin ID implants of
residents is one of the keys...
:-P

The reason you never really know if your defense is adequate is that
there's no way to do a definitive test. Also, you never know if you've
thought of the attack your opponent is going to use (think 9/11).

On Monday, September 9, 2002, at 01:51 PM, panamabob wrote:

> Never enough defense? Isn't that the echo of the old cold war scenarios
> and
> the proliferation of ICBM's etc? :-)
>

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect and
deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

True enuff,,, oklahoma bomber, uni-bomber, and 9 / 11 are proof that
ingenious people will find a way through any defense... and it not
necessarily be expensive or high tech to deal with a Super Powers.

Look at the success Vietnam had with its cheap equipment; a line of soldiers
firing their machine guns straight up while aircraft flys through the wall
of lead insured take-down. Granted they lost many lives compared to US, but
still it shows that a dedicated enemy will usually do what they want. What
do you do about explosive carrying kids? Shoot them? Nothings neat anymore.

Key perhaps is in eliminating "reward" for the action. Propietary equipment
that will not work anywhere else is one way. Imagine stealing a photomic
computer... where do you get software to run it or a techy to fix it :-)

There are many small caribbean island nations you could could literally take
over with the kind of money you are talking about for creating launch
facility.Hire all the folks to work for the project and you could get "laws"
passed in your favour.

The question is will the bigger countries allow you to have launch
capability that can also be used to launch missiles at THEM :-)

Possible "Terrorist take over" could be their excuse to shut down your
endeavor unless you have 'partners" with big business as well.

:-)

In a message dated 9/9/02 7:09:11 PM, panamabob@... writes:

<< The question is will the bigger countries allow you to have launch
capability that can also be used to launch missiles at THEM :-)

Possible "Terrorist take over" could be their excuse to shut down your
endeavor unless you have 'partners" with big business as well. >>

Use Washington's own words: "alliances with none and peaceful trade with
all". Set up a large stautue with that statement. This will get the American
people's attention and they will wonder why USA is bombing the place if we're
such a big fan of nonaggressive commerical trade.

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions,
that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when
wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little
rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as
necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful
rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of
the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should
render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions
as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound
health of government." ----Thomas Jefferson

In a message dated 9/9/02 4:49:35 PM, panamabob@... writes:

<< I would tell you more of the security systems and defense systems we plan,
but it would jeopardize security :-) The previous examples I've given are
doable and sufficient to discourage most of the situations.

In our defense system, e'nuff said that beneath skin ID implants of
residents is one of the keys...
:-P >>

Perfect security is possible. But you need to die first. A real security
mean you do your best to avoid the worst and learn from your mistakes in the
smaller matter. The only security system that will work is human brain and
the will to use it in rational manner.

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions,
that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when
wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little
rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as
necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful
rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of
the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should
render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions
as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound
health of government." ----Thomas Jefferson

In a message dated 9/9/02 2:41:35 PM, aglobus@... writes:

<< Pirates, to take your money, sell your possesions, get your base, and
use any women.

> Besides to create an effective defense system is not all THAT expensive,

Except that you never quite know if you've got enough, now do you? And
yes, it is VERY expensive. >>

It can be expensive IF you take advice from your fears. I want to ask you a
question: why are people in the job of stealing in the first place? Because
people who steal made a economic choice in a way that is rational to them.
If a man compare the cost of stealing assets or working for same assets and
see that he can steal more cheaply and *importantly* do so at a lower cost of
harm to himself and he have a low regard for private property, he will do
crime. But if the cost is higher than what he will pay for an honset job, he
will rather work in an honest job. The reason we don't hear about this talk
is that the media spend too much time demonize the theives and because we
think them monsters we fail to put ourselves in their shoes. The only way we
can truly protect ourselves is by thinking like the robber. Speaking as a
security in a famous art museum in NYC, there are many ways to foil the
robbers' desires. The first and most important is mindgames. You must
communicate to would-be robber that you are wise to his game and are willing
to repay in kind. I don't need a gun in a bad area of NYC, a thick walking
stick will communicate the danger to my robbers very well. Whatever you do,
never roll over, despite what the cops and some do-gooders will tell you.
You have to raise the cost for the robbers, just don't do it in a way that
increase your danger.

I want to ask one more detail before finishing thsi topic and it's a good
news. The Law of Imbalance states that the results are always out of balance
with the efforts. With respect to crime, 80% of lawbreakers committed only
20% of crimes. Those tend to be crimes of passion and or chanch. Such people
are not harden felons when they do such deeds. On other hand, 80% of crimes
are committed by only 20% of people! Those are the hard cons, the pros. In
other word, if you catch, or even kill, just the few of the pros you reduce
the crime rate vastly. Those pros are also more rational than the passionate
crimicals. They tends to measure costs very carefully. This is why most of
them left crime or the state when the state allow such things like hidden gun
on citizen's person. The hiding of guns add a major uncertainity in the
robbers' mind and discourage them from committing crime. Those ideas I
meations are just something to think about when doing security. In all such
case, I always recommend you to seek out security experts and self-defense
instructors.

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions,
that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when
wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little
rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as
necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful
rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of
the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should
render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions
as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound
health of government." ----Thomas Jefferson

Oops, did someone forget to tell the USA about what great respect and
admiration the Iranians had for the USA years ago? Everything they bought or
did was USA based...food, cars, everything...

Sometimes the American people are not privy to what really is going on
outside the borders. Businesses sometimes "spin" the realities as it best
suits them.

"Trust me" is the first great lie :-)

If suddenly Boeing Aerospace feels like you may be successful in launching
cheap satellites, what do you think may happen? Especially if you don't
have some other big dog in your yard like the French or Brits or even
Japanese?

Are you a revolutionary or trouble -maker? Who decides?

In a message dated 9/9/02 11:16:36 PM, panamabob@... writes:

>

If I have to chose I'll be both! My favorite mytholical hero is the Raven of
Indian myths. Not only does he create mess and was a sneaky fellow, he also
create the worlds and cultures and laws as well.

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions,
that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when
wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little
rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as
necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful
rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of
the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should
render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions
as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound
health of government." ----Thomas Jefferson

Hmmm. Sounds too complicated for US government to think it out... they will
let your God figure it for them out by sending in their "simplification
squad" i.e. the Marines, Seals, Rangers.

They know one thing, friend or foe...no gray areas. :-(

Don't even consider a discussion with them on the topic.

In a message dated 9/10/02 7:55:47 AM, panamabob@... writes:

>

That's because power is the only thing that matter to them. All other topics
are just masks meant for hiding their lust.

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions,
that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when
wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little
rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as
necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful
rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of
the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should
render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions
as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound
health of government." ----Thomas Jefferson

What ever... the point is YOUR dead :-(
no discussions about anything esoterical

Your surviving friends can put the prose on the tombstone for you and the
beat-nik poets will sing praises to your memory

> That's because power is the only thing that matter to them. All other
topics

Yeah, well, by definition a democracy has a certain proportion of apathetic,
stupid or venal "rulers" (voters) who sometimes take the whole mess in
bizarre directions. This criticism of democracies is hardly new--Plato led
a rebellion against the Athenian republic, arguing instead for a rule by
philosopher-kings whose selfless, enlightened reign would result in the best
of all possible outcomes for the people. Plato, centuries of European
monarchies, and the Lenninist system all depended heavily on leaders arising
with super-human character and a complete lack of self-interest. None of
these systems found a consistent supply of these remarkable individuals, and
all collapsed as a viable form of government, once apathetic, stupid and
venal rulers began to dominate.

The American electorate are heartily sorry when we realize they've let the
government do unnecessary damage to others. But the number instances when
that was clearly the case at the time the decision had to be made is very
small. Democracies often look dismal in hindsight--but then so do most
other forms of government. But until you geniuses invent time travel you
may have to get used to the American democracy, warts and all.

Somebody mentioned Iran, which I totally agree has been given a raw deal.
Even post-1980, Iran is one of the best examples of a Muslim country trying
to come to grips with its violent fundamentalist minority in a democratic
and reasonable way. Yet it keeps ending up on our State Dept's most
dangerous list, because it has a faction in its government which keeps
funneling government resources into terrorism. How much patience must we
have with the Iranian government's tolerance for this?

Now back to the Spacesettlers topic. Could the US coexist with an island
nation or oil platform nation dedicated to space travel, or with an
independent nation in orbit? My gut reaction would be that we'd want to
push for some kind of United Nations special status, so that this fragile
nation's fate could more easily be protected by all of mankind, for the good
of all, with the consent of all. People tend to overlook Neil Armstrong's
phrase from Tranquility Base, "We come in peace for all mankind." LockMart
and Boing Aerospace be damned, I think America would want a space-faring
nation to prosper "for all mankind."

Brad

>From: "panamabob"
>Reply-To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: To senualpilgram's Free State Proposal
>Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:57:26 -0400
>
>Hmmm. Sounds too complicated for US government to think it out... they
>will
>let your God figure it for them out by sending in their "simplification
>squad" i.e. the Marines, Seals, Rangers.
>
>They know one thing, friend or foe...no gray areas. :-(
>
>Don't even consider a discussion with them on the topic.
>
> > If I have to chose I'll be both!
>

http://www.hotmail.com

> Now back to the Spacesettlers topic. Could the US coexist with an
island
> nation or oil platform nation dedicated to space travel, or with
an
> independent nation in orbit? My gut reaction would be that we'd
want to
> push for some kind of United Nations special status, so that this
fragile
> nation's fate could more easily be protected by all of mankind,
for the good
> of all, with the consent of all. People tend to overlook Neil
Armstrong's
> phrase from Tranquility Base, "We come in peace for all
mankind." LockMart
> and Boing Aerospace be damned, I think America would want a space-
faring
> nation to prosper "for all mankind."
>
> Brad

This very issue has been rattling around in my head for the last few
years. To answer your question, IMHO, yes an independent nation can
exist in space, but I think it will have to exist in a legal
fiction. That is it must be classified as the first extraterristrial
nation. Its interests will be considerably different from those of
the earth's nations and this legal fiction will allow it to sidestep
the Moon and Outer Space treaties with the forebearance of the
earth's nations. An example of different interests and perspectives,
consider that most non-space-faring nations don't care at all about
LEO pollution, but a habitat nation, and perhaps its corporations
who will have to transit LEO to reach earth, may advocate measures
to remediate the existing pollution and limit the amount of crap
that is cast off by launch vehicles.

I think the diplomats of many countries will see the futility of
extending individual national sovereignty to celestial objects. Can
you imagine . . this part of the moon belongs to us, so if you want
to step foot on it, you have to go to Tycho base and clear customs,
meanwhile each country is claiming individual NEOs and trying to
enforce their claim. Bringing those fights to the earthside
diplomatic arenas. Protests on earth when the richer nations can
extend sovereignty to the detriment of the poorer ones. And where
does it all lead? A big mess. The treaties in question are well
drafted, and ahead of their time, but they overlooked a few issues.
One, they invisioned that the UN would have the prime role in
spearheading future colonization into space. Considering the
conduct, corruption and cronyism of the UN over the last decades,
that thought is anathema to most space enthusiasts/professionals.
Secondly, while they were thinking of the future, they didn't think
through the implications of the treaty far enough into the future.
History has shown us that all colonies strive for independence, and
it is quite likely that the habitats, the mars colony, and the alpha
centauri colony will not be too happy with the puppet masters so far
away on earth. The treaties don't allow for independent nations in
space.

Also, if you read the treaties, they lay claim to all celestial
objects for the benefit of all of mankind. Now while some may
ridicule the proposition that there is ET life it out, it surely
must be considered arrogant to claim human sovereignty over alien
worlds and far away galaxies.

So, I think that eventually the diplomatic wrangling will lead to
recognition of the status of an extraterrestrial state. While the
nationists of all nations will scream that they can't extend their
national boundaries into space, at least a sense of order and a
lessening of conflict between nations on earth will be the order of
the day. The new state in orbit must insure equal access to space
for all, not play favorites, and sever the linkage between
sovereignty over space objects and terrestrial politics. Better to
have one set of laws, designed for the interests of all of the
spacefaring peoples, than to have UN drafted laws, drafted by people
who've never been to space, have no ideas of the practical issues,
but have those diplomats draft the laws to jockey for position in
earth-based politics.

So, while observer status status at the UN is likely, I wouldn't
favor status as a member state. Maybe we should consider the
possibility that this new nation will have the same status as the
UN, except it will bind all of the space based nations, of which it
will be the first. The Space Nations (SN) and the United Nations
(UN) will be equal bodies, except for the immediate future, the SN
will have only one member nation.

I think that this solution is the most pragmatic and orderly. The
earth's space faring nations will have to balance their space
ambitions (which this solution would hinder) against the interests
that they have in their own backyard (such a solution would calm the
foes of a space faring nation.) Individual national interests could
still be influenced by domestic legislation that is directed at
corporations doing business in the new ET nation. These corporations
could serve as proxies for extending national influence into space,
while still following the laws of the ET nation, and placating
terrestrial critics.

Now, if the interests of the space nations conflict with those of
the earth, then we've openned up a whole new pandora's box . . .

In a message dated 9/10/02 1:59:28 PM, tango_dancer@... writes:

<< Now, if the interests of the space nations conflict with those of
the earth, then we've openned up a whole new pandora's box . . . >>

Then let's play!

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of
Pennsylvania (1759)

On Monday, September 9, 2002, at 08:04 PM, Ravenart@... wrote:

> It can be expensive IF you take advice from your fears. I want to ask
> you a
> question: why are people in the job of stealing in the first place?
> Because
> people who steal made a economic choice in a way that is rational to
> them.

Or they just don't like you and want to hurt you. Perhaps they feel you
are unbelievers and interpret their religion as requiring them to kill
unbelievers (not a random example). I've received many emails and
letters from people who believe space colonization is blasphemous.
People's motivations are not only economic, and simple displaying power
by hurting weaklings is surprisingly popular.

The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr. Tito
going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

On Tuesday, September 10, 2002, at 06:34 AM, Brad Walsh wrote:

> Democracies often look dismal in hindsight--but then so do most
> other forms of government.

I believe it was Winston Churchill who said something like: "Democracy
is the worst possible form of government, except for the others."

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

In a message dated 9/11/02 12:21:24 PM, aglobus@... writes:

<< Or they just don't like you and want to hurt you. Perhaps they feel you
are unbelievers and interpret their religion as requiring them to kill
unbelievers (not a random example). I've received many emails and
letters from people who believe space colonization is blasphemous.
People's motivations are not only economic, and simple displaying power
by hurting weaklings is surprisingly popular. >>

Just keep in mind that such people tends to be in minority. More to point,
such people tends to be open about their desires to act on their ideology
long before actual harm. The talk about "he seem like such a nice guy" after
acts say very little and are often false, more of a ritual for the media.
However, I want us to take a care here. General fear like what we are
discussing here of the ideological violence can become uncontrollable anixety
if those theories are allow to run without facts. Just because one BIll
wrote a letter complaining about space colonization being against a god's
will, dose not mean there is a plot. Any actual and serious plots will
involded a very small group. Most people who want to stop us will use other
means than violence and will tends to not risk their persons by trepressing.

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of
Pennsylvania (1759)

On Wednesday, September 11, 2002, at 07:15 PM, Ravenart@... wrote:

> Just because one BIll
> wrote a letter complaining about space colonization being against a
> god's
> will, dose not mean there is a plot. Any actual and serious plots will
> involded a very small group. Most people who want to stop us will use
> other
> means than violence and will tends to not risk their persons by
> trepressing.
>
I'm sure there's not a plot now. But don't discount the possibility as
space colonization becomes more near-term. Although most people that
oppose space colonization will be fine, it only takes a few with weapons
to cause a lot of problems (think 19 guys with box-cutters and flying
skills last September).

The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~500 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

In a message dated 9/13/02 2:11:09 PM, aglobus@... writes:

<< Although most people that
oppose space colonization will be fine, it only takes a few with weapons
to cause a lot of problems (think 19 guys with box-cutters and flying
skills last September). >>

Easy for me to deal with. I will do what my favorite sept. 11 cartoon do (it
show the entire group of passagers pointing their guns at the cowed
box-cutter guys who protested "Relax! We're just checking to see if there's
any box that need to be opened!"). If I see anybody up to no good, I'll pack
on my belt and say, "Hey varmit! Are ya lost or are ya up to no good 'round
here? Cause if ya are and ya resist peaceful arrest, this Winchester will buy
ya a quick ticket to da heaven ya always brayin' about!"
:-)

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of
Pennsylvania (1759)