Digest Number 79

--- 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