Asteroid use

Robert,

You seemed to have taken my words a little too literally, what I was
trying to say wasn't particularly referring to tax cuts or any
specific promise that one of our elected representatives makes,
rather that the general public is not really interested in this
subject and if they were told that they would benefit, even at the
expense of space development as a whole, then they would be happy to
take it. That is not to be taken as meaning that there would be no
political cost, just that if it became an issue I feel it would be on
the grounds that they were backing out of an international agreement
rather than backing out of an agreement about space usage, domestic
politcal cost only comes with an issue the public has a real interest
in. Concerning the US in particular, well it seems that there is a
part of the population, which may not be large but is vocal, that is
against anything they involves the UN, they seem to feel that if
somehow diminishes US self rule, they would only criticise the
withdrawal from the treaty as not being enough and want the scrapping
of all the others. Have you read any of the treaties? I must again
preface my comments by saying that I am not a lawyer but because of
my work, over the years I have had reason to review or read a fair
amount of legislation and while I understand the difference between
laws and treaties, these ones seem to be rather poorly written or
rather changed a lot to accommodate different interests. A good bit
of legislation is direct and to the point with little or no area
where you are unclear as to what is intended, covering all
eventualities. Now I know that in reality things are not always like
that and that treaties are intended to apply in different
circumstances but reading them I see places where things are a little
unclear or not covered. An example is that they only seem to apply
to governments, it states that a government can not claim any
extraterrestrial material, unless it lands on Earth in a natural way
but fails to stop an individual from doing the same. From what I
read and I grant I have not read them all, there is nothing to stop a
company from launching a craft and laying claim to anything it can
hold. Really it seems to mostly written to stop the moon, any
asteroid and any kind of space platform from being armed with weapons
of mass destruction, partially nuclear weapons. Still it would be
our interests if the treaties were changed to allow property rights
but frankly that would require more cooperation than I see being
available for sometime.

Darren Brown

Robert Clements Wrote:-

You ignore a number of obvious attack points for the position for
hypothetical polly to take. To begin with, tax cuts aren't the big
vote
winners they used to be - even in USAmerica... the mere fact that such
policies which probably increase taxes if any serious
commercialisation
takes place only makes it easier. Secondly, the broad international
opposition to the complete commercialisation of space as demonstrated
by
UNISPACE III. One of the supporters of the e2 mission is the NSSA
(National
Space Society of Australia), who's parent body (the NSS) takes a loopy
prohomesteading line which is opposed by about 90% of the local
membership... we made it clear that NSSA support was acceptable only
as long
as unacceptable USAmerican policies were not enforced from without; &
were
able to quote a list of international organisations who WOULDN'T
support our
mission if such nonsenses appeared in our agenda, effectively making
the
mission unflyable. We've had no problems since; & may be very close to
putting together the financial package which flies our mission
accordingly.

Bear in mind, though, that the commercialisation of space carries
costs that
noncommercial space never does: insurance is a big one; as are taxes.
Repudiation of the Outer Space Treaty would be a lot harder
politically than
most advocates - who by & large have very little real political
experience -
would imagine. Modification would be a lot easier; but would require
international support for the modifications rather than unilateral
nonsense... the licencing of space assets is therefore more likely
than
unlimited property rights.

All the best,
Robert Clements

> From: "Darren Brown"
> Subject: Re: Asteroid use
>
> Robert,
>
> Very possibly but politicians have the an incredible ability to
> overlook such things. I'm not sure I agree so much about the US
> domestic side of it though, still, not living there my view is
> coloured (the spelling of things like coloured says it all, really;-
)
> by my measuring everything against by an Australian standard. And
I
> have to say that all people have a tendency to overlook flaws and
> defects when it's their interests at stake. If a politician of any
> country stood and told his constituents that by getting out of this
> treaty he could lower the tax rate, people would be lining up to
burn
> the thing. On top of this tendency is the fact, regrettable but
> true, that most people don't care much about this subject.
Consider
> that in places, unlike Australia, where voting is optional, the
> biggest problem facing a party or interest group is managing to get
> enough people up off their bums and out to the polls. The key to
> getting a decent set of international laws and conditions to
regulate