Trump's Space Council chief says space is "not a commons"

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: neo96

This kind of attitude is only going to push Russia and China and the US into a space race for territory wouldn't it ? Don't think that will turn out very well.

Wrong. A space race is a good thing when removed from the context of the Cold War.

Many advances in technology, medicines, and discoveries have been made as a result of the space race.

originally posted by: neo96
Well it isn't a global commons.

New territory belongs to those that get there and stake out their claims.

Most of the world can't do that.

The only real question is who are you going to be paying.

East or West.

Exactly. Calling space a 'commons' implies a 'U.N.-like' authority over space, all asteroids, planets, suns, nebulae and any and all mineral, technological off-shoots, thereof.

I will take the U.S. position over any of that ilk in a heartbeat.

This here space is MY SPACE!

“How can you tell?”

originally posted by: neo96
New territory belongs to those that get there and stake out their claims.

That's not what the Outer Space Treaty says, it says:

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

I think what S. Pace (was he chosen for his name ) is saying is that the US is the best country to help private organisations getting and using space resources (the treaty allows all peaceful uses), probably getting part of those resources in return.

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: djz3ro

This is all playing out strangely like the Wernher von braun warning .

Well it's kinda heading that way. Scary really.

Tribalism isn't going away. Neither is nationalism or protectionism or an (insert country name here)-First Policy.

I think you are all missing something important which is the GREAT possibility, at least initially, that one country, the most capable of doing so, should be the one to run or own outer space.

The future of space travel may depend on it.

Think about it. We can war ad infinum in space. But wouldn't you want to see a more peaceful development in space exploration and travel?

One leader, or space dictator, if you will, might be the best solution to getting this going compared to warring countries.

I can't think of a better country to do it than the US.

a reply to: Gargoyle91

I cant for the life of me understand why we havent claimed mars yet. All we have to do is GET THERE and start building.

Its a whole freaking planet.....thats not incentive enough?

We could own a planet, yet we stay on our little patch of grass.

Nuts.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Gargoyle91

I cant for the life of me understand why we havent claimed mars yet. All we have to do is GET THERE and start building.

Its a whole freaking planet.....thats not incentive enough?

We could own a planet, yet we stay on our little patch of grass.

Nuts.

It's criminally shortsighted.

US - 9,600,000 Sq km

Mars - 145,000,000 Sq km

Space is absolutely inhospitable to human life and our government wants to make it worse.

I think once people are able to colonize space they will quickly declare independence.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
The fifty-first state. Outer space. Owned and operated by American Corporations under the military control of the United States Space Militia.

If there are other civilizations watching us, waiting for us to demonstrate maturity rather than the dangerous infantile nature of limited tribalism this may be the concept that seals our fate.

Fifty-First hmmm.... Kinda like Area "FIFTY ONE" no?

No one will OWN space...
But corporations will get there first.
Not gvmnts.

And what they find/get there will be theirs
as long as they can defend it...

a reply to: tadaman

There are several reasons:

In 2011, it was the last time that the USA sent anyone into space from its own country, and now relies on Russia as a taxi service.

It would be a one way trip, taking close to a year of travel time from the Earth to Mars. And once there is the crew did land, there would be no return trip, so all of those who went would be going on a one way trip, any accidents could be very fatal.

Then there is the cost, as such a trip would require supplies for people, and the first problem would be oxygen mix for people to breath and the other would have to be water. All of which would require weight to be managed and budgeted. Not to mention the psychological aspect of this mission and the effects of long term space travel in zero g.

Then once there, there would need to be structures for them to live and sleep in, food for them to eat, water for drink, air and other necessary things for life, and that has to happen before even starting to explore the planet. Not to mention that now they would also have to look at and be careful about any sort of microbial life there, that would have to be detected and analyzed to ensure that when there is the capacity of round trips that a new plague is not brought back to earth that could ravage and destroy the population present.

And all of this would cost an estimated to be about 300 billion dollars.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

and a whole planet is not incentive enough to overcome those issues? Nothing you said was impossible.

We could consider the conditions early colonists faced when they left their homes throughout history.

Its all just excuses. Money and talent is being spent on dumb things. That doesnt mean that people who want more of our time and energy spent on claiming mars are dumb.

Fly some F22s up there or drive an APC to Mars. Oh yeah, those cant do anything outside of war really.

Unless I'm reading this wrong what has been said is that they want to make expansion into space more attractive for other entities to put their resources into US projects. You go ahead and make MySpace(pun intended) but we're going to build FaceBook. Now where do you want to put your money?

a reply to: tadaman

If you look at it, it is very valid excuses. The first and biggest one is that NASA took a big hit in 2011, when the entire budget and program was downsized, and the USA stopped sending its own people in its own vehicles into space. That alone set the USA back years when it comes to space exploration.

The point being here, is why travel a year only to die at the end of the journey, would not the goal to be travel and then be self sustaining and survive the journey and then the task after that?

While you are correct, consider the conditions early colonists faced when they left their homes, however, air and water were not one of the main worries that they had to deal with either.

I would assume that these people in the d.c are mentally ill and unfit for their positions.