I think you need to listen to your self before casting aspertions on anyone
else: clearly, you've never done any serious financing. The first thing you
need in order to convince a backer that you know what you're doing is
unambiguous title; & the merest whiff that a title can't be enforced will be
more than enough to bury your fantasies. There are a number of strategies
which can be followed to break an illegal investment of the kind proposed
here; but the simplest would be to tie the investment up in litigation... it
doesn't matter whether the litigation is justified or not - all you need to
do is break the line of credit which finances it.

As there are no launch systems capable of delivering payload to orbit for $1
per kg & no emergent technologies even threatening to deliver results in
that order of magnitude anytime soon, the rest of your post is purest SF....

All the best,
Robert Clements

Robert, Bill, others,

Gents, please, take a deep breath and then go back read what I wrote
at the beginning. I think that maybe it's time to restate a few
things as first principals rather than as an answer to a question or
making a point.

Bill, you are taking the device I used as an actual argument and not
a way of dealing with irrelevant argument, as I intended. Whenever
people like the ones in this group start talking, they immediately
gravitate (pardon the pun) to launch costs and methods. The point
Robert and I were considering was a legal one and as such launch
methods/costs are irrelevant and to make that point I removed it as
part of the discourse with the device of a cheap/free magic
wand/super technology, you will note I didn't say how it was done,
just that it was so cheap that it made orbital habitats possible, a
convenient device, just like a certain quantum cat in a box. Now I
would love to see a way to get a kilo to orbit for a dollar or less
but such a wonder has little to do with a legal argument. Of course
you are correct, if I had the ability to put such large masses into
orbit at that kind of cost, then I would be in the position to force
the rest of the world to do pretty much as I say, unless, they also
had the technology, where upon my advantage disappears, not to
mention the many other ways that pressure could be applied. However
in this case the sole purpose of the magic launch system was to stop
it being used in becoming one of the arguments, hmmm, .. so much for
that idea.

Robert made a valid point, that the technology to build a habitat is
only half the battle, you have to manage to get the people, parts,
resources, money (the big one) and the backing of some current nation
states before you can have your own little kingdom in the sky (not
that I'm suggesting it will be a kingdom). As for building a habitat
able to house tens or hundreds of thousands of people without anybody
on the ground noticing . you must be kidding! I have no idea just
how many people own telescopes or of the number of professionals who
are looking up but unless you can do all your building in a day, then
somebody WILL see you, the lone exception might be at the stable
point that would put the moon between you and Earth but even there
you may be seen. But even if you managed it, don't you think
somebody will notice when you start moving your population or for
that matter, what will they think of your idea of staking your claim
to resources by turning their former homes into memories? I'm an
Australian and in my humble opinion this is the best place on Earth
to raise a family, however if you were to offer me a place on a
habitat, well I'd move at the drop of a hat. That doesn't mean that
I'd just sit back and let you drop big rocks on my former backyard,
you may just find yourself with an underground rebellion.

As for the wording of the treaties. Building large habitats was not
in the minds of the drafters, they were far more concerned with
either the USSR or the USA, putting a large platform into orbit with
a mass of nuclear tipped missiles on it or putting them on the moon
or anything else and claiming it so that nobody else could do so.
They were also worried that somebody might find something, super
space bugs or mystery element X or whatever, that would give them
such an advantage that they would be able start dictating terms to
everybody else.

Now to drag ourselves back to the here and now, the new US president
has stated his provisional support for a missile defence system,
without getting into that particular can of worms, the one thing that
should be looked at is the fact that the space treaties prohibit the
placing of weapons systems in orbit. If any such system required a
space based component then this could lead a review of the treaties.
A very slim possibility, Robert but who knows.

Darren Brown

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Darren Brown" wrote:
>
> Robert, Bill, others,
>
> Gents, please, take a deep breath and then go back read what I
wrote
> at the beginning. I think that maybe it's time to restate a few
> things as first principals rather than as an answer to a question
or
> making a point.
>
> Bill, you are taking the device I used as an actual argument and
not
> a way of dealing with irrelevant argument, as I intended. Whenever
> people like the ones in this group start talking, they immediately
> gravitate (pardon the pun) to launch costs and methods. The point
> Robert and I were considering was a legal one and as such launch
> methods/costs are irrelevant and to make that point I removed it as
> part of the discourse with the device of a cheap/free magic
> wand/super technology, you will note I didn't say how it was done,
> just that it was so cheap that it made orbital habitats possible, a
> convenient device, just like a certain quantum cat in a box. Now I
> would love to see a way to get a kilo to orbit for a dollar or less
> but such a wonder has little to do with a legal argument. Of
course
> you are correct, if I had the ability to put such large masses into
> orbit at that kind of cost, then I would be in the position to
force
> the rest of the world to do pretty much as I say, unless, they also
> had the technology, where upon my advantage disappears, not to
> mention the many other ways that pressure could be applied.
However
> in this case the sole purpose of the magic launch system was to
stop
> it being used in becoming one of the arguments, hmmm, .. so much
for
> that idea.
>
> Robert made a valid point, that the technology to build a habitat
is
> only half the battle, you have to manage to get the people, parts,
> resources, money (the big one) and the backing of some current
nation
> states before you can have your own little kingdom in the sky (not
> that I'm suggesting it will be a kingdom).

How about the political structure mentioned in Monty Python's Holy
Grail? "We don't have a lord, we're an autonomous collective..." and
so on.

> As for building a habitat
> able to house tens or hundreds of thousands of people without
anybody
> on the ground noticing . you must be kidding! I have no idea just
> how many people own telescopes or of the number of professionals
who
> are looking up but unless you can do all your building in a day,
then
> somebody WILL see you, the lone exception might be at the stable
> point that would put the moon between you and Earth but even there
> you may be seen. But even if you managed it, don't you think
> somebody will notice when you start moving your population or for
> that matter, what will they think of your idea of staking your
claim
> to resources by turning their former homes into memories? I'm an
> Australian and in my humble opinion this is the best place on Earth
> to raise a family, however if you were to offer me a place on a
> habitat, well I'd move at the drop of a hat. That doesn't mean
that
> I'd just sit back and let you drop big rocks on my former backyard,
> you may just find yourself with an underground rebellion.
>
> As for the wording of the treaties. Building large habitats was
not
> in the minds of the drafters, they were far more concerned with
> either the USSR or the USA, putting a large platform into orbit
with
> a mass of nuclear tipped missiles on it or putting them on the moon
> or anything else and claiming it so that nobody else could do so.
> They were also worried that somebody might find something, super
> space bugs or mystery element X or whatever, that would give them
> such an advantage that they would be able start dictating terms to
> everybody else.
>

The treaty prohibits existing nation-states from claiming orbiting
rocks, or from basing weapons in space. However, if a completely
self-sufficient space habitat could be created, it would pretty much
have to be considered a nation of its own, and it would not be
covered under the treaties. It could operate much as some island
nations do now, as a tax haven or internet server-farm location.

> Now to drag ourselves back to the here and now, the new US
president
> has stated his provisional support for a missile defence system,
> without getting into that particular can of worms, the one thing
that
> should be looked at is the fact that the space treaties prohibit
the
> placing of weapons systems in orbit. If any such system required a
> space based component then this could lead a review of the
treaties.
> A very slim possibility, Robert but who knows.
>
> Darren Brown

Just how many nations have signed those treaties? If a non-signatory
is on or near the equator, it could make a good launch site for
conventional rockets...

:) ed

You are right about the $1/kg launch cost, but I was simply contniuing
the fantasy.

As for the backers, would the mafia be interested in changing US drug
policy. You have a hidden assumption that this have to be legitamate.
We are talking about violating treaties anyway. So the people
interested would be on the FBI's most wanted list.

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Clements, Robert"
wrote:
> I think you need to listen to your self before casting aspertions on
anyone
> else: clearly, you've never done any serious financing. The first
thing you
> need in order to convince a backer that you know what you're doing
is
> unambiguous title; & the merest whiff that a title can't be enforced
will be
> more than enough to bury your fantasies. There are a number of
strategies
> which can be followed to break an illegal investment of the kind
proposed
> here; but the simplest would be to tie the investment up in
litigation... it
> doesn't matter whether the litigation is justified or not - all you
need to
> do is break the line of credit which finances it.
>
> As there are no launch systems capable of delivering payload to
orbit for $1
> per kg & no emergent technologies even threatening to deliver
results in
> that order of magnitude anytime soon, the rest of your post is
purest SF....
>
> All the best,
> Robert Clements
>
> > Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:57:16 -0000
> > From: "bill t"
> > Subject: Re: Asteroid use
> >
> > Listen to yourselves. Anyone capable of building a colony
independant
> > of any government isn't going to care about treaties. What is
anyone
> > going to do?
> >
> > If your in a position to threaten the destruction of large cities,
> > which any independant power in space can do, everyone will
continue to
> > turn a blind eye to the legalities.
> >
> > If you can build a launch system at $1 kg you could easily start
> > building infrastructure in space in secret until you were very
close

I realize what you are saying, but everyone seems to be hung up on the
legal issues. The fact is there are no legal issues, because no one
can enforce them. If anyone tries to enforce the treaty they may end
up on the losing end of a war with the people who built the space
structures.

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Darren Brown" wrote:
>
> Robert, Bill, others,
>
> Gents, please, take a deep breath and then go back read what I wrote
> at the beginning. I think that maybe it's time to restate a few
> things as first principals rather than as an answer to a question or
> making a point.
>
> Bill, you are taking the device I used as an actual argument and not
> a way of dealing with irrelevant argument, as I intended. Whenever
> people like the ones in this group start talking, they immediately
> gravitate (pardon the pun) to launch costs and methods. The point
> Robert and I were considering was a legal one and as such launch
> methods/costs are irrelevant and to make that point I removed it as
> part of the discourse with the device of a cheap/free magic
> wand/super technology, you will note I didn't say how it was done,
> just that it was so cheap that it made orbital habitats possible, a
> convenient device, just like a certain quantum cat in a box. Now I
> would love to see a way to get a kilo to orbit for a dollar or less
> but such a wonder has little to do with a legal argument. Of course
> you are correct, if I had the ability to put such large masses into
> orbit at that kind of cost, then I would be in the position to force
> the rest of the world to do pretty much as I say, unless, they also
> had the technology, where upon my advantage disappears, not to
> mention the many other ways that pressure could be applied. However
> in this case the sole purpose of the magic launch system was to stop
> it being used in becoming one of the arguments, hmmm, ?.. so much
for
> that idea.
>
> Robert made a valid point, that the technology to build a habitat is
> only half the battle, you have to manage to get the people, parts,
> resources, money (the big one) and the backing of some current
nation
> states before you can have your own little kingdom in the sky (not
> that I'm suggesting it will be a kingdom). As for building a
habitat
> able to house tens or hundreds of thousands of people without
anybody
> on the ground noticing ?. you must be kidding! I have no idea just
> how many people own telescopes or of the number of professionals who
> are looking up but unless you can do all your building in a day,
then
> somebody WILL see you, the lone exception might be at the stable
> point that would put the moon between you and Earth but even there
> you may be seen. But even if you managed it, don't you think
> somebody will notice when you start moving your population or for
> that matter, what will they think of your idea of staking your claim
> to resources by turning their former homes into memories? I'm an
> Australian and in my humble opinion this is the best place on Earth
> to raise a family, however if you were to offer me a place on a
> habitat, well I'd move at the drop of a hat. That doesn't mean that
> I'd just sit back and let you drop big rocks on my former backyard,
> you may just find yourself with an underground rebellion.
>
> As for the wording of the treaties. Building large habitats was not
> in the minds of the drafters, they were far more concerned with
> either the USSR or the USA, putting a large platform into orbit with
> a mass of nuclear tipped missiles on it or putting them on the moon
> or anything else and claiming it so that nobody else could do so.
> They were also worried that somebody might find something, super
> space bugs or mystery element X or whatever, that would give them
> such an advantage that they would be able start dictating terms to
> everybody else.
>
> Now to drag ourselves back to the here and now, the new US president
> has stated his provisional support for a missile defence system,
> without getting into that particular can of worms, the one thing
that
> should be looked at is the fact that the space treaties prohibit the
> placing of weapons systems in orbit. If any such system required a
> space based component then this could lead a review of the
treaties.

From: bill t [mailto:qwerty172@...]

I realize what you are saying, but everyone seems to be hung up on the
legal issues. The fact is there are no legal issues, because no one
can enforce them. If anyone tries to enforce the treaty they may end
up on the losing end of a war with the people who built the space
structures.

And them on the high ground.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
bill t [mailto:qwerty172@...]
I realize what you are saying, but everyone seems to be hung up on the
legal issues. The fact is there are no legal issues, because no one
can enforce them. If anyone tries to enforce the treaty they may end
up on the losing end of a war with the people who built the space
structures.

And them on the high ground.

Regards,
Mike Combs

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "bill t" wrote:
>
> I realize what you are saying, but everyone seems to be hung up on
the
> legal issues. The fact is there are no legal issues, because no one
> can enforce them. If anyone tries to enforce the treaty they may end
> up on the losing end of a war with the people who built the space
> structures.
>
> Bill
>

Bill,

I don't think that everybody is hung up on the legal issues, it's
just one of many threads but it is an important one. We live a world
of laws and they can kill a project if you don't take them into
account. However you are wrong in saying that there are no legal
issues because nobody can enforce them. (Before I start I know that
there are more than two ways but for my argument I'm looking at two)
Consider the two ways that a habitat can be built, with the backing
of a nation state and without such backing, by a private company.
The way that it is built and how the items are launched are not for
the moment important. If you build the structure with material
hauled up from Earth and you do not arm it with weapons of mass
destruction there is no issue with the treaties beyond inspection to
ensure you are not in violation and things to do with obligations.
However if you plan on using non-terrestrial materials, then you run
into problems with the treaties. Let's say that you have the backing
of a nation state and are using Lunar materials to do the building,
most countries will not be interested in what you are doing but
certain people in them may be, you could be cutting into their
markets or something. For whatever reason they decide to take issue
with you and take you to court, good luck, they will need it, there
is no single court that can do anything, except in the country you
launch from or you are based in. Given that you can move, this is
something that you can avoid but if they can convince a nation state
to take action, then you have a different situation. If the country
you launch from or are based in or are registered in, is a signatory
to the treaty, they can be ordered by UN resolution or by internal
courts or the international court, to stop you from launching. So
let's say that you have the local president in your pocket and he
refuses to do anything and you just keep on doing what you want. It
is possible for sanctions to be imposed and if they are really
serious they can start a war. So let's assume that the worst has
happened and you now find yourself along with your national ally at
war with other countries, what are your options? Certainly you hold
the high ground and this is where you want to be but as the Americans
have found out, you really can not win a war without putting feet on
the ground, air wars are only the start and can not be the finish.
The reluctance of the US to risk casualties on the ground has
resulted in farcical situations in recent years, this is not to cast
doubt on the courage or intelligence of the US military, just the
politicians who give them orders.

Sitting in orbit with your big rocks you will find yourself in the
position of the man who wants to demolish his house but only has a
nuclear weapon. Certainly you could destroy all life on Earth or
maybe even just in that country but that will not accomplish your
goal and I'm not sure how you can confine the effects of orbital
bombardment to a given area, not really, space based weapons tend to
be all or nothing, they wipe out cities but can't kill a single
solder. Life in an orbital habitat, like life in any nation on Earth
will be dependent on trade with the outside, you want to sell to the
people of the world, not turn them into ash. In the past a military
commander only had to worry about what his opponent was up to and
what he could do, today he also has to worry about what the news
media is saying and what happens when the polls go against him.
Bullets are less important than headlines and trade balances.

Besides you assume that you are the only one in orbit, what is to
stop others from having a weapons platform up there that they can
point at you, if you can launch large masses to orbit, chances are
they can too or they can fall back to older but cruder methods. You
may think you are safe up in your orbital fort, where nobody can hit
you and you can hit them at will but it would be an illusion. A few
years ago I was talking to a person who was considering how to attack
an armoured car, his job was to make such a car safe and to do that
he thought about how to attack one and them designed defences to
counter them. He was of the opinion that his latest design was as
strong as it could be without becoming something more than a car and
that it could survive an attack long enough to exit the area. After
seeing what he had done I had to agree with him, until I realised
that while the car was as strong as possible, the weak link was the
driver, he didn't have a hyper-sapiens to drive for him, so I asked
what happed if somebody threw paint over the windows, how would the
driver see to get the car out of the area? He has since solved that
problem (pardon me if I don't say how) but your habitat fighting a
war against somebody on the ground is just like that, if they can't
attack you they will attack your people or at lest their minds and
emotions as well as your bank accounts, in a war, technical
superiority does not guarantee victory, just ask anybody who fought
in Vietnam. One last point, if you were the one and only with the
ability to put up a large mass into orbit and you were sitting up in
space with a gun to the head of the world saying, leave me alone or
I'll shoot, soon it turns to, buy my goods or I'll shoot and then, do
as I command or I'll shoot and worship me slave or I'll shoot. How
long before they all gang up on you and find a way to shoot you
first? Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I'm not saying that any of the above is going to happen but is it
possible? Too bloody right it's possible, I hope I never see just
one group of people with the ability to build orbital habitats.
Habitats are a way to make the human race safer and to allow
diversity and difference to thrive, the more the merrier and in this
case, the safer.

Darren Brown

You want a war from space.

First you take out the full satellite network. No exceptions. That
will ground pretty much all military and commercial airtrafiic. A 10 m
concave mirror and a good telescope could do this.

Then you start lobbing rocks at the major cities. Take out 20-30% of
the population straight away. Next target industrial area using the
same method. Take out 2/3 of the economy.

If they haven't asked for surrendered at this point start targeting
their strategic allies with the same. Make the rest of the world
pressure them into surrender.

You see you only need troops on the ground if you plan to conquer and
stay. If you plan to annihialate without regard to ever taking over a
country their is no reason to keep ground troops.

This of course assumes a fair bit of independance in space.

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Darren Brown" wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "bill t" wrote:
> >
> > I realize what you are saying, but everyone seems to be hung up on
> the
> > legal issues. The fact is there are no legal issues, because no
one
> > can enforce them. If anyone tries to enforce the treaty they may
end
> > up on the losing end of a war with the people who built the space
> > structures.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> Bill,
>
> I don't think that everybody is hung up on the legal issues, it's
> just one of many threads but it is an important one. We live a
world
> of laws and they can kill a project if you don't take them into
> account. However you are wrong in saying that there are no legal
> issues because nobody can enforce them. (Before I start I know that
> there are more than two ways but for my argument I'm looking at two)
> Consider the two ways that a habitat can be built, with the backing
> of a nation state and without such backing, by a private company.
> The way that it is built and how the items are launched are not for
> the moment important. If you build the structure with material
> hauled up from Earth and you do not arm it with weapons of mass
> destruction there is no issue with the treaties beyond inspection to
> ensure you are not in violation and things to do with obligations.
> However if you plan on using non-terrestrial materials, then you run
> into problems with the treaties. Let's say that you have the
backing
> of a nation state and are using Lunar materials to do the building,
> most countries will not be interested in what you are doing but
> certain people in them may be, you could be cutting into their
> markets or something. For whatever reason they decide to take issue
> with you and take you to court, good luck, they will need it, there
> is no single court that can do anything, except in the country you
> launch from or you are based in. Given that you can move, this is
> something that you can avoid but if they can convince a nation state
> to take action, then you have a different situation. If the country
> you launch from or are based in or are registered in, is a signatory
> to the treaty, they can be ordered by UN resolution or by internal
> courts or the international court, to stop you from launching. So
> let's say that you have the local president in your pocket and he
> refuses to do anything and you just keep on doing what you want. It
> is possible for sanctions to be imposed and if they are really
> serious they can start a war. So let's assume that the worst has
> happened and you now find yourself along with your national ally at
> war with other countries, what are your options? Certainly you hold
> the high ground and this is where you want to be but as the
Americans
> have found out, you really can not win a war without putting feet on
> the ground, air wars are only the start and can not be the finish.
> The reluctance of the US to risk casualties on the ground has
> resulted in farcical situations in recent years, this is not to cast
> doubt on the courage or intelligence of the US military, just the
> politicians who give them orders.
>
> Sitting in orbit with your big rocks you will find yourself in the
> position of the man who wants to demolish his house but only has a
> nuclear weapon. Certainly you could destroy all life on Earth or
> maybe even just in that country but that will not accomplish your
> goal and I'm not sure how you can confine the effects of orbital
> bombardment to a given area, not really, space based weapons tend to
> be all or nothing, they wipe out cities but can't kill a single
> solder. Life in an orbital habitat, like life in any nation on
Earth
> will be dependent on trade with the outside, you want to sell to the
> people of the world, not turn them into ash. In the past a military
> commander only had to worry about what his opponent was up to and
> what he could do, today he also has to worry about what the news
> media is saying and what happens when the polls go against him.
> Bullets are less important than headlines and trade balances.
>
> Besides you assume that you are the only one in orbit, what is to
> stop others from having a weapons platform up there that they can
> point at you, if you can launch large masses to orbit, chances are
> they can too or they can fall back to older but cruder methods. You
> may think you are safe up in your orbital fort, where nobody can hit
> you and you can hit them at will but it would be an illusion. A few
> years ago I was talking to a person who was considering how to
attack
> an armoured car, his job was to make such a car safe and to do that
> he thought about how to attack one and them designed defences to
> counter them. He was of the opinion that his latest design was as
> strong as it could be without becoming something more than a car and
> that it could survive an attack long enough to exit the area. After
> seeing what he had done I had to agree with him, until I realised
> that while the car was as strong as possible, the weak link was the
> driver, he didn't have a hyper-sapiens to drive for him, so I asked
> what happed if somebody threw paint over the windows, how would the
> driver see to get the car out of the area? He has since solved that
> problem (pardon me if I don't say how) but your habitat fighting a
> war against somebody on the ground is just like that, if they can't
> attack you they will attack your people or at lest their minds and
> emotions as well as your bank accounts, in a war, technical
> superiority does not guarantee victory, just ask anybody who fought
> in Vietnam. One last point, if you were the one and only with the
> ability to put up a large mass into orbit and you were sitting up in
> space with a gun to the head of the world saying, leave me alone or
> I'll shoot, soon it turns to, buy my goods or I'll shoot and then,
do