Digest Number 79

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.