Digest Number 79

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