Discussion:
If outer space is to be shared, it requires a global effort - OT
(too old to reply)
a***@gmail.com
2019-07-20 23:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Space is our destiny"
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-21 00:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future. SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.

Lynn
Johnny1A
2019-07-21 05:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future. SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled? Not so much. Space is too big to control, for one thing. Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific people, of course.

But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to have the last word.
J. Clarke
2019-07-21 05:42:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 22:33:45 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future. SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled? Not so much. Space is too big to control, for one thing. Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to have the last word.
Not necessarily. Bear in mind that if Starship ends up as described
it will have larger capacity than the ISS and be able to go to Mars.
With that in operation and owned by a private company, governments are
going to have a lot less say in what goes on in space.

And it's going to be quite interesting to see one of those docked to
ISS.
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-21 20:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future. SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled? Not so much. Space is too big to control, for one thing. Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ? For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2019-07-21 23:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.

As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.

(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
J. Clarke
2019-07-21 23:31:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 16:10:54 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
With the kind of spacelift they are going to have at their disposal,
they effectively become a nuclear power in their own right. Is
anybody going to be stupid enough to test their limits?
Kevrob
2019-07-22 01:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.

[quote]

Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.

[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties

I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2019-07-22 01:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Whoever wrote that treaty was suffering from a massive failure of
imagination. There is no way to ban weapons of mass destruction in
space. A single rock can be more destructive than all the atomic
bombs and poisons and diseases that the militaries of the world have
produced put together.
Peter Trei
2019-07-22 03:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Whoever wrote that treaty was suffering from a massive failure of
imagination. There is no way to ban weapons of mass destruction in
space. A single rock can be more destructive than all the atomic
bombs and poisons and diseases that the militaries of the world have
produced put together.
As has been discussed earlier, there's a huge difference between creating
a colony, creating a financially successful colony, and making a colony that
is independent enough of Earth and its powers and pricipalities that it can
ignore them.

otoh, there's no particular reason to think that states, and their corporations,
while feel a need to 'share' any particular part of outer space.

pt
Kevrob
2019-07-22 03:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Whoever wrote that treaty was suffering from a massive failure of
imagination. There is no way to ban weapons of mass destruction in
space. A single rock can be more destructive than all the atomic
bombs and poisons and diseases that the militaries of the world have
produced put together.
Stationing suitable-sized "shot" in orbit would violate
the treaty, if that is classed as a WMD.

Kevin R
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-07-22 05:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the
future.  SpaceX
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Whoever wrote that treaty was suffering from a massive failure of
imagination. There is no way to ban weapons of mass destruction in
space. A single rock can be more destructive than all the atomic
bombs and poisons and diseases that the militaries of the world have
produced put together.
Stationing suitable-sized "shot" in orbit would violate
the treaty, if that is classed as a WMD.
Yes, we've all read _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress._ But whatever
mass-driver Heinlein's characters were using to throw canisters
of grain (and, later, rocks) at Earth is something we don't have
at present, possibly never will have.

If we had, if we had any hope of having any time soon, a
mechanism for propelling a mass even out of Luna's comparatively
low gravity *and sending it to a chosen target*, I hope we'd be
working on ways of using it to move Earth-grazing asteroids away
from us. (My hopes might be in vain, humans being humans, but
I'm still convinced we don't have the tech to do it.)
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
J. Clarke
2019-07-22 11:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the
future.  SpaceX
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Whoever wrote that treaty was suffering from a massive failure of
imagination. There is no way to ban weapons of mass destruction in
space. A single rock can be more destructive than all the atomic
bombs and poisons and diseases that the militaries of the world have
produced put together.
Stationing suitable-sized "shot" in orbit would violate
the treaty, if that is classed as a WMD.
Yes, we've all read _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress._ But whatever
mass-driver Heinlein's characters were using to throw canisters
of grain (and, later, rocks) at Earth is something we don't have
at present, possibly never will have.
If we had, if we had any hope of having any time soon, a
mechanism for propelling a mass even out of Luna's comparatively
low gravity *and sending it to a chosen target*, I hope we'd be
working on ways of using it to move Earth-grazing asteroids away
from us. (My hopes might be in vain, humans being humans, but
I'm still convinced we don't have the tech to do it.)
I think you're missing the point. There are several projects under
way to move asteroids around and none of them are based on the kind of
spacelift that SpaceX will, if all goes well, have available to them
in the next decade. No need for anything on the Moon, no need for
anything in Earth orbit, just recover an asteroid and go "oops" in the
recovery and there goes New York or DC or The Hague or Beijing or all
life on Earth.

And an electromagnetic launcher on the Moon is really not much of a
technological trick. We know how to make maglev trains--that's
basically what an electromagnetic launcher is except that it goes fast
enough to achieve escape velocity. We can't do that on Earth
effectively because of atmospheric friction, but there's no reason it
can't be done on the Moon. And the technology to hit targets with
high precision existed long before everyone had something more
powerful than a Cray 1 in their shirt pocket.
Scott Lurndal
2019-07-22 13:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Yes, we've all read _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress._ But whatever
mass-driver Heinlein's characters were using to throw canisters
of grain (and, later, rocks) at Earth is something we don't have
at present, possibly never will have.
And an electromagnetic launcher on the Moon is really not much of a
technological trick.
Indeed. The _American Screamer_ roller coaster at the California
Adventure starts out with an electromagnetic linear motor launch.

As for launching into orbit from earth, there are a couple of efforts underway
into that as well (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpinLaunch)
p***@hotmail.com
2019-07-27 05:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the
future.  SpaceX
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Whoever wrote that treaty was suffering from a massive failure of
imagination. There is no way to ban weapons of mass destruction in
space. A single rock can be more destructive than all the atomic
bombs and poisons and diseases that the militaries of the world have
produced put together.
Stationing suitable-sized "shot" in orbit would violate
the treaty, if that is classed as a WMD.
Yes, we've all read _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress._ But whatever
mass-driver Heinlein's characters were using to throw canisters
of grain (and, later, rocks) at Earth is something we don't have
at present, possibly never will have.
If we had, if we had any hope of having any time soon, a
mechanism for propelling a mass even out of Luna's comparatively
low gravity *and sending it to a chosen target*, I hope we'd be
working on ways of using it to move Earth-grazing asteroids away
from us. (My hopes might be in vain, humans being humans, but
I'm still convinced we don't have the tech to do it.)
Low Lunar orbital velocity is only about 3,350 mph, Lunar escape
velocity about 5,075 mph. This is well within the range of speeds
considered practical for mag-lev trains.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
David DeLaney
2019-07-28 04:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Low Lunar orbital velocity is only about 3,350 mph, Lunar escape
velocity about 5,075 mph. This is well within the range of speeds
considered practical for mag-lev trains.
One of Trent's escape plans used this; unfortunately, he got shot in the
process and ended up rather more injured than planned. But at least he freed
the Linars by stealing the LINK, and walked through a wall!

Dave, no, this wasn't game of thrones
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
J. Clarke
2019-07-22 11:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Whoever wrote that treaty was suffering from a massive failure of
imagination. There is no way to ban weapons of mass destruction in
space. A single rock can be more destructive than all the atomic
bombs and poisons and diseases that the militaries of the world have
produced put together.
Stationing suitable-sized "shot" in orbit would violate
the treaty, if that is classed as a WMD.
So the asteroid belt is a violation of the treaty?
Kevrob
2019-07-22 14:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Whoever wrote that treaty was suffering from a massive failure of
imagination. There is no way to ban weapons of mass destruction in
space. A single rock can be more destructive than all the atomic
bombs and poisons and diseases that the militaries of the world have
produced put together.
Stationing suitable-sized "shot" in orbit would violate
the treaty, if that is classed as a WMD.
So the asteroid [I think there's a word missing here. Mining? ]
belt is a violation of the treaty?
Moving matter from the Belt into Earth orbit as a potential megadeath
weapon is likely against the treaty. There's no "case law" yet, though.

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2019-07-23 01:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Whoever wrote that treaty was suffering from a massive failure of
imagination. There is no way to ban weapons of mass destruction in
space. A single rock can be more destructive than all the atomic
bombs and poisons and diseases that the militaries of the world have
produced put together.
Stationing suitable-sized "shot" in orbit would violate
the treaty, if that is classed as a WMD.
So the asteroid [I think there's a word missing here. Mining? ]
belt is a violation of the treaty?
Moving matter from the Belt into Earth orbit as a potential megadeath
weapon is likely against the treaty. There's no "case law" yet, though.
How about if you don't move it into Earth orbit? Why does it need to
be in Earth orbit? It just needs to be in an orbit that hits Earth.
If that orbit is of the galaxy and well past solar escape speed so
much the better.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
Johnny1A
2019-07-22 20:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Whoever wrote that treaty was suffering from a massive failure of
imagination. There is no way to ban weapons of mass destruction in
space. A single rock can be more destructive than all the atomic
bombs and poisons and diseases that the militaries of the world have
produced put together.
True and false at once.

Yeah, a big enough asteroid impact could surpass the megatonnage of the superpowers, but that's close to being irrelevant. Nukes are vastly more convenient and faster as WMDs, asteroid bombardment is slower, easily to repel, and harder.

That said, of course keeping WMDs out of space is impossible. Any spacecraft with serious performance is a modest WMD in itself. Serious exploitation of space almost mandates an extensive nuclear industry that lends itself to weaponization readily.

Where humans go, war follows. Space won't be an exception.
J. Clarke
2019-07-23 01:12:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:42:14 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Whoever wrote that treaty was suffering from a massive failure of
imagination. There is no way to ban weapons of mass destruction in
space. A single rock can be more destructive than all the atomic
bombs and poisons and diseases that the militaries of the world have
produced put together.
True and false at once.
Yeah, a big enough asteroid impact could surpass the megatonnage of the superpowers, but that's close to being irrelevant. Nukes are vastly more convenient and faster as WMDs, asteroid bombardment is slower, easily to repel, and harder.
That's like saying that a nuke is inferior to a rifle bullet.
Post by Johnny1A
That said, of course keeping WMDs out of space is impossible. Any spacecraft with serious performance is a modest WMD in itself. Serious exploitation of space almost mandates an extensive nuclear industry that lends itself to weaponization readily.
Why is a nuclear industry needed for "serious exploitation of space"?
Post by Johnny1A
Where humans go, war follows. Space won't be an exception.
Titus G
2019-07-23 03:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
That's like saying that a nuke is inferior to a rifle bullet.
It is for murder at close quarters but probably less chance of error for
suicide.
Quadibloc
2019-07-23 05:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:42:14 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Serious exploitation of space almost mandates an extensive nuclear industry that lends itself to weaponization readily.
Why is a nuclear industry needed for "serious exploitation of space"?
It is true that nuclear rockets make it possible to achive higher values of
delta-V, thus permitting much shorter travel times to distant parts of the Solar
System.

However, I would still be inclined to think your view is correct: serious
exploitation of space does _not_ depend on being able to get to Pluto or Mars in
a few months. Serious exploitation of space can start with the Moon, and if the
asteroids are mined, the materials mined can patiently wait to be sent to where
they are used on a low-energy trajectory.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-07-23 09:05:48 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 22:23:15 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:42:14 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Serious exploitation of space almost mandates an extensive nuclear industry that lends itself to weaponization readily.
Why is a nuclear industry needed for "serious exploitation of space"?
It is true that nuclear rockets make it possible to achive higher values of
delta-V, thus permitting much shorter travel times to distant parts of the Solar
System.
Nope. Highest delta-v of any technology that we know how to produce
is ion engines, which can be powered by solar panels. Downside is
that it's very low thrust--can't launch from anything larger than an
asteroid and takes time to build up speed.

Nuclear gives you high thrust and modest specific impulse, which would
mostly be useful for launching from Earth or Venus.
Post by Quadibloc
However, I would still be inclined to think your view is correct: serious
exploitation of space does _not_ depend on being able to get to Pluto or Mars in
a few months. Serious exploitation of space can start with the Moon, and if the
asteroids are mined, the materials mined can patiently wait to be sent to where
they are used on a low-energy trajectory.
John Savard
Gene Wirchenko
2019-07-22 19:14:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 18:23:32 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <***@my-deja.com>
wrote:

[snip]
Post by Kevrob
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Which I think might get the response of "Since you are accusing
us of it, we might as well have the benefits: we claim sovereignty."

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Johnny1A
2019-07-22 20:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Kevin R
It isn't the UNO that matters. The Outer Space Treaty will matter exactly as much as the relevant national governments want it to matter, just like all previous treaties.

But before a corporation can become an independent power, free of supervisory control by national governments, it has to have solid _military_ power to go along with whatever economic strength it has, and it has to have a base of support that the national governments can't take away or destroy by force.

We are a long, long way from any space corporation having that. Any such organization, for the foreseeable future, will have to be registered with and (officially or unofficially) protected by some national government. That government will hold the final say.

If someone somehow threw together an unregistered, truly independent organization to act in space, either thaht organization must muster enough _power_ to protect itself and its interests, or it will be fair game for national governments until it finds a patron.

Space is not the place to look for libertarian fulfilment.
J. Clarke
2019-07-23 01:16:41 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Kevin R
It isn't the UNO that matters. The Outer Space Treaty will matter exactly as much as the relevant national governments want it to matter, just like all previous treaties.
But before a corporation can become an independent power, free of supervisory control by national governments, it has to have solid _military_ power to go along with whatever economic strength it has, and it has to have a base of support that the national governments can't take away or destroy by force.
If a base of support that can't be taken away by national governments
is necessary for a power to be independent then no nations on Earth
are independent. The US can take down most of them single-handed, but
a big enough coalition can take down the US.
Post by Johnny1A
We are a long, long way from any space corporation having that. Any such organization, for the foreseeable future, will have to be registered with and (officially or unofficially) protected by some national government. That government will hold the final say.
Until the corporation drops a rock on that nation's capitol and then
asks how many more they would like.
Post by Johnny1A
If someone somehow threw together an unregistered, truly independent organization to act in space, either thaht organization must muster enough _power_ to protect itself and its interests, or it will be fair game for national governments until it finds a patron.
If it has the ability to destroy all life on Earth and nobody has the
means to stop it, what then?
Post by Johnny1A
Space is not the place to look for libertarian fulfilment.
Johnny1A
2019-07-29 05:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Kevin R
It isn't the UNO that matters. The Outer Space Treaty will matter exactly as much as the relevant national governments want it to matter, just like all previous treaties.
But before a corporation can become an independent power, free of supervisory control by national governments, it has to have solid _military_ power to go along with whatever economic strength it has, and it has to have a base of support that the national governments can't take away or destroy by force.
If a base of support that can't be taken away by national governments
is necessary for a power to be independent then no nations on Earth
are independent. The US can take down most of them single-handed, but
a big enough coalition can take down the US.
Of other _nations_, yes. And yes, regardless of _de jure_ status, the politics of actual _power_ limit everyone's sovereignty. That'll be true in space as well.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
We are a long, long way from any space corporation having that. Any such organization, for the foreseeable future, will have to be registered with and (officially or unofficially) protected by some national government. That government will hold the final say.
Until the corporation drops a rock on that nation's capitol and then
asks how many more they would like.
Long before it reaches that point, the corporation's owners are dead.

Bombardment from the Moon requires a substantial on-site infrastructure, which requires time to set up and would be nearly impossible to do it in secret. Further, it's not the uber-weapon RAH describes it as in _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_ unless you use much bigger chunks of rock than he did, making the project that much more expensive and hard to hide.

Further, the rocks will need time to get to their targets, and radars will see them coming. So even if they can't be stopped, the target nation has lots of time to wipe out the Lunar facilities that fired them. The wiping out part would be fairly easy with near-future tech.

Deflecting asteroids is scarier, and could involve rocks big enough to do _big_ damage...but it also takes a long _time_. If you don't happen to have a big asteroid in the right orbit for an easy deflection, you have to move one. The further you have to move it, and the bigger a rock you want to drop, the harder it is and the longer it takes. Furthermore, this kind of attack is almost by definition impossible to conceal as the rock approaches, leaving the attacker vulnerable to being wiped out again.

Seriously, the asteroid attack meme from SF is vastly overrated. Nukes do almost everything rocks can do, are cheaper, faster, more precise, easier to conceal, easier to deliver, etc.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If someone somehow threw together an unregistered, truly independent organization to act in space, either thaht organization must muster enough _power_ to protect itself and its interests, or it will be fair game for national governments until it finds a patron.
If it has the ability to destroy all life on Earth and nobody has the
means to stop it, what then?
Granted, if they've got a Death Star or a bunch of Imperial Star Destroyers available in the near future, than yeah, they can defy the national governments. :lol:

But in the real universe, no private space corporation is going to have that kind of power any time soon, barring some incredible unforeseen technological breakthrough. Wiping out all life on Earth is beyond human power for the foreseeable future. Wiping out civilization in a survivable way (for the space corp.) might be theoretically possible in the foreseeable future, but as a practical matter, not so much.

Conceivably, a space corporation in the next few decades might gain the power to do serious damage, if unopposed, but the same technologies that enable that enable the national governments to reach out into space and do the same sort of thing. If SpaceCorp starts nuking cities (vastly more likely than throwing rocks), somebody is going to start nuking SpaceCorp...and SpaceCorp is a much easier target, esp. if their markets, relatives, etc. are on Earth.

Realistically, we're not likely to see genuinely independent businesses in space. In the more distant future, we may well see independent _states_ and societies and governments, just as has happened in the past with expansion.
Robert Carnegie
2019-07-29 09:06:22 UTC
Permalink
What if it's not human beings but robots in space
that revolt against rule from Earth? They probably
won't have terrestrial hostages at our mercy.
J. Clarke
2019-07-30 02:42:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 22:43:47 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Kevin R
It isn't the UNO that matters. The Outer Space Treaty will matter exactly as much as the relevant national governments want it to matter, just like all previous treaties.
But before a corporation can become an independent power, free of supervisory control by national governments, it has to have solid _military_ power to go along with whatever economic strength it has, and it has to have a base of support that the national governments can't take away or destroy by force.
If a base of support that can't be taken away by national governments
is necessary for a power to be independent then no nations on Earth
are independent. The US can take down most of them single-handed, but
a big enough coalition can take down the US.
Of other _nations_, yes. And yes, regardless of _de jure_ status, the politics of actual _power_ limit everyone's sovereignty. That'll be true in space as well.
And that's the point. In space, SpaceX is pretty much going to have
absolute power until somebody else comes up with an equivalent to
Starship.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
We are a long, long way from any space corporation having that. Any such organization, for the foreseeable future, will have to be registered with and (officially or unofficially) protected by some national government. That government will hold the final say.
Until the corporation drops a rock on that nation's capitol and then
asks how many more they would like.
Long before it reaches that point, the corporation's owners are dead.
How? They're on Mars.
Post by Johnny1A
Bombardment from the Moon requires a substantial on-site infrastructure, which requires time to set up and would be nearly impossible to do it in secret. Further, it's not the uber-weapon RAH describes it as in _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_ unless you use much bigger chunks of rock than he did, making the project that much more expensive and hard to hide.
The thing that amazes me about science fiction fans is how little
imagination they have, and how little understanding of the universe.

This is the second post in which someone has gone on about the Moon
like it is the only source of rocks in the entire universe. Hint--why
lift little rocks off the Moon when there are great big huge rocks
that don't have to be lifted off of _anything_.
Post by Johnny1A
Further, the rocks will need time to get to their targets, and radars will see them coming.
So what? What are you going to do about them?
Post by Johnny1A
So even if they can't be stopped, the target nation has lots of time to wipe out the Lunar facilities that fired them. The wiping out part would be fairly easy with near-future tech.
Interesting thought, set them up on Moon-skimming trajectories so that
people like you who can't get beyond 50 year old science fiction will
waste a lot of time looking for something on the Moon to destroy.
Post by Johnny1A
Deflecting asteroids is scarier, and could involve rocks big enough to do _big_ damage...but it also takes a long _time_.
So?
Post by Johnny1A
If you don't happen to have a big asteroid in the right orbit for an easy deflection, you have to move one.
So?
Post by Johnny1A
The further you have to move it, and the bigger a rock you want to drop, the harder it is and the longer it takes.
So?
Post by Johnny1A
Furthermore, this kind of attack is almost by definition impossible to conceal as the rock approaches, leaving the attacker vulnerable to being wiped out again.
How does this make the attacker vulnerable to being wiped out? You've
said it takes a long time, but haven't put two and two together--the
attacker is going to be a long way away from that asteroid, so how do
you find him?
Post by Johnny1A
Seriously, the asteroid attack meme from SF is vastly overrated. Nukes do almost everything rocks can do, are cheaper, faster, more precise, easier to conceal, easier to deliver, etc.
Uh, the biggest hole ever made with a nucler weapon is 1200 feet
across. A relatively insignificant meteor made a crater 3 times that
diameter in Arizona. A somewhat larger one made the 60-mile diameter
crater whose contents now provide electric power to much of Eastern
Canada and New England. And then there's the little issue with the
dinosaurs. A rock can do vastly more damage than nukes.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If someone somehow threw together an unregistered, truly independent organization to act in space, either thaht organization must muster enough _power_ to protect itself and its interests, or it will be fair game for national governments until it finds a patron.
Or becomes its own patron.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
If it has the ability to destroy all life on Earth and nobody has the
means to stop it, what then?
Again, paucity of either imagination or understanding of the universe.
There are several near-earth asteroids in the dinosaur-killer range.
Post by Johnny1A
But in the real universe, no private space corporation is going to have that kind of power any time soon, barring some incredible unforeseen technological breakthrough.
Except SpaceX.
Post by Johnny1A
Wiping out all life on Earth is beyond human power for the foreseeable future.
Another dinosaur killer might not wipe out all life but it would
pretty much put paid to humanity. A half dozen of them?
Post by Johnny1A
Wiping out civilization in a survivable way (for the space corp.) might be theoretically possible in the foreseeable future, but as a practical matter, not so much.
Conceivably, a space corporation in the next few decades might gain the power to do serious damage, if unopposed, but the same technologies that enable that enable the national governments to reach out into space and do the same sort of thing.
Not if the first outfit to develop serious spacefaring capability
doesn't let them. SpaceX is going to be launching ISS-sized objects
at a single go in a few years. Technologically the US government
could do that too, but they aren't going to until they actually
percieve a threat, by which time it may be too late.
Post by Johnny1A
If SpaceCorp starts nuking cities (vastly more likely than throwing rocks), somebody is going to start nuking SpaceCorp...and SpaceCorp is a much easier target, esp. if their markets, relatives, etc. are on Earth.
Why start nuking cities? Missile silos are hardened against pathetic
little nuclear bombs, not rocks at escape speed. A 400 foot diameter
rock has more explosive yield than any atomic bomb ever made. Bye-bye
silos. Not that those missiles can attack anything in deep space in
any case.
Post by Johnny1A
Realistically, we're not likely to see genuinely independent businesses in space. In the more distant future, we may well see independent _states_ and societies and governments, just as has happened in the past with expansion.
When the business owns the rock it is based on, it becomes a
government.
Johnny1A
2019-08-01 04:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 22:43:47 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Kevin R
It isn't the UNO that matters. The Outer Space Treaty will matter exactly as much as the relevant national governments want it to matter, just like all previous treaties.
But before a corporation can become an independent power, free of supervisory control by national governments, it has to have solid _military_ power to go along with whatever economic strength it has, and it has to have a base of support that the national governments can't take away or destroy by force.
If a base of support that can't be taken away by national governments
is necessary for a power to be independent then no nations on Earth
are independent. The US can take down most of them single-handed, but
a big enough coalition can take down the US.
Of other _nations_, yes. And yes, regardless of _de jure_ status, the politics of actual _power_ limit everyone's sovereignty. That'll be true in space as well.
And that's the point. In space, SpaceX is pretty much going to have
absolute power until somebody else comes up with an equivalent to
Starship.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
We are a long, long way from any space corporation having that. Any such organization, for the foreseeable future, will have to be registered with and (officially or unofficially) protected by some national government. That government will hold the final say.
Until the corporation drops a rock on that nation's capitol and then
asks how many more they would like.
Long before it reaches that point, the corporation's owners are dead.
How? They're on Mars.
Which is not hard to reach, if the tech to do this at all is available. Even if that wasn't true, which it is, it's doubtful they'd be hostage immune.

Realistically, you're not ever likely to see a private corporation, all by themselves on Mars or the Moon, the state apparatus will expand out with them. Yeah, the corp owners might be on Mars, but so will the patron state's forces, too, from the get-go.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Bombardment from the Moon requires a substantial on-site infrastructure, which requires time to set up and would be nearly impossible to do it in secret. Further, it's not the uber-weapon RAH describes it as in _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_ unless you use much bigger chunks of rock than he did, making the project that much more expensive and hard to hide.
The thing that amazes me about science fiction fans is how little
imagination they have, and how little understanding of the universe.
This is the second post in which someone has gone on about the Moon
like it is the only source of rocks in the entire universe. Hint--why
lift little rocks off the Moon when there are great big huge rocks
that don't have to be lifted off of _anything_.
Why bother? Nukes are better for almost all purposes.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Further, the rocks will need time to get to their targets, and radars will see them coming.
So what? What are you going to do about them?
If it's a chain of little rocks being fired by a mass driver from the Moon, there might not be time to stop them (but there might be, too, it would depend on if any preparations had been made for such eventualities). But little rocks aren't that big a problem, you just wipe out the launch facilities and capture or kill the users, and eat the damage.

Big rocks from the Moon is difficult because of the gravity, as you note, if you want big rocks it's easier to use a near-Earth asteroid. But that has its own practical difficulties.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
So even if they can't be stopped, the target nation has lots of time to wipe out the Lunar facilities that fired them. The wiping out part would be fairly easy with near-future tech.
Interesting thought, set them up on Moon-skimming trajectories so that
people like you who can't get beyond 50 year old science fiction will
waste a lot of time looking for something on the Moon to destroy.
Earth is going to know _exactly_ where the launch facilities are, regardless of the trajectory, unless the people on Earth are all total idiots. That's common in fiction but much rarer in reality.

Setting up the launch infrastructure in secret would be borderline impossible with foreseeable tech. You might could hide it once it existed, but the installation process would be very noticeable.

The most likely, by far, scenario for such a Lunar bombardment would be conversion of already-extant facilities. This might well be possible, but the locations won't be a secret, and it would be more useful for terrorist style one-off attacks than a war-winning bombardment.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Deflecting asteroids is scarier, and could involve rocks big enough to do _big_ damage...but it also takes a long _time_.
So?
So your target has lots of time to see it coming and stop you.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If you don't happen to have a big asteroid in the right orbit for an easy deflection, you have to move one.
So?
Time and expense. Time is mission critical, and expense/effort rises fast if your potential impactor is not in the right place for it.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Furthermore, this kind of attack is almost by definition impossible to conceal as the rock approaches, leaving the attacker vulnerable to being wiped out again.
How does this make the attacker vulnerable to being wiped out? You've
said it takes a long time, but haven't put two and two together--the
attacker is going to be a long way away from that asteroid, so how do
you find him?
If he's a long way from that asteroid, it stops being a problem. It isn't hard to deflect an impactor with plenty of warning. It's actually harder to make it hit than it is to stop it from hitting. For the latter, all you have to do is deflect it _very_ slightly, in any particular direction, or speed it up or slow it down in its orbit _very_ slightly. Unless it's already very close, that'll convert a hit into a near miss (or a wide miss with a little more warning), and a near miss is as good as a light-year.

No, if you want your asteroid to impact a space-capable world, that rock is either going to have to come on very fast, or be well protected as it makes its approach. The more warning time, the easier the defender's job. All the defender has to do, on a scale of hundreds of millions of miles, is defect the rock by a few thousand miles in any direction, maybe even less depending on the exact angle of approach. It's just not that hard, if you've got serious space flight.

Now, if you can somehow keep the rock totally hidden from the defenders until just before impact, that's another matter, but that gets into 'stealth in space' issues.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Seriously, the asteroid attack meme from SF is vastly overrated. Nukes do almost everything rocks can do, are cheaper, faster, more precise, easier to conceal, easier to deliver, etc.
Uh, the biggest hole ever made with a nucler weapon is 1200 feet
across. A relatively insignificant meteor made a crater 3 times that
diameter in Arizona. A somewhat larger one made the 60-mile diameter
crater whose contents now provide electric power to much of Eastern
Canada and New England. And then there's the little issue with the
dinosaurs. A rock can do vastly more damage than nukes.
A .50 caliber rifle will make a bigger hole in a human than a derringer, but it won't kill him any deader.

Yeah, _if_ you can deliver your rock, it can make a much bigger hole than extant nukes. OTOH, it takes much longer, costs much more, and is harder to make work against a space-capable enemy. Plus, if for some reason you need the power, nukes can fairly easily be made much bigger than anything we've tested.

They didn't stop making nukes bigger after the 1950s because they couldn't make them bigger, they stopped because there was no _use_ for bigger ones.

Hitting Earth with big rocks, even if you can do it, only makes sense if you're at war with everybody down there. If your argument is just with one nation-state, then throwing another Dinosaur Killer only means that now all the former neutrals and sympathizers want you dead too. Small rocks can be more discriminate, but the smaller the rock the easier it is to defend against and the more the nukes vs. rocks tilts toward nukes.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If someone somehow threw together an unregistered, truly independent organization to act in space, either thaht organization must muster enough _power_ to protect itself and its interests, or it will be fair game for national governments until it finds a patron.
Or becomes its own patron.
As I said. But if it does that, it's no longer a corporation, it's a state, and will be forced to transform into a form that can perform that role. The more it becomes its own patron, the more it starts to look like a government itself.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
If it has the ability to destroy all life on Earth and nobody has the
means to stop it, what then?
Again, paucity of either imagination or understanding of the universe.
There are several near-earth asteroids in the dinosaur-killer range.
Leaving only the issues of motive, delivery, and surviving the attempt.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
But in the real universe, no private space corporation is going to have that kind of power any time soon, barring some incredible unforeseen technological breakthrough.
Except SpaceX.
SpaceX is not going to be wielding any such power any time soon, if ever.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Wiping out all life on Earth is beyond human power for the foreseeable future.
Another dinosaur killer might not wipe out all life but it would
pretty much put paid to humanity. A half dozen of them?
Post by Johnny1A
Wiping out civilization in a survivable way (for the space corp.) might be theoretically possible in the foreseeable future, but as a practical matter, not so much.
Conceivably, a space corporation in the next few decades might gain the power to do serious damage, if unopposed, but the same technologies that enable that enable the national governments to reach out into space and do the same sort of thing.
Not if the first outfit to develop serious spacefaring capability
doesn't let them.
Unless the rivals wait a bizarrely long time, the first outfit won't be able to stop them.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If SpaceCorp starts nuking cities (vastly more likely than throwing rocks), somebody is going to start nuking SpaceCorp...and SpaceCorp is a much easier target, esp. if their markets, relatives, etc. are on Earth.
Why start nuking cities? Missile silos are hardened against pathetic
little nuclear bombs, not rocks at escape speed. A 400 foot diameter
rock has more explosive yield than any atomic bomb ever made. Bye-bye
silos. Not that those missiles can attack anything in deep space in
any case.
As I said, if everybody on Earth is an idiot and sits back and does nothing for decades on end while somebody builds up that kind of power, yeah. That's not a probable scenario.
J. Clarke
2019-08-01 12:31:52 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 22:43:47 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an international
space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon.
And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute,
including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to
have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments. Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
There are probably folks enamored of the UN Outer Space Treaty,
which the USA and 108 other states have agreed to, who would
want Musk or any other private actor to file an EIS describing
the effects of their activities ON MARS.
[quote]
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing
of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all
other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that
space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no
nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The
Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military
space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the
placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#List_of_parties
I'd assume that any corporation setting up a permanent colony
will be accused of claiming sovereignty. IANAL, and there are
undoubtedly innumerable test cases before anyone can say what
would happen under international agreements.
Kevin R
It isn't the UNO that matters. The Outer Space Treaty will matter exactly as much as the relevant national governments want it to matter, just like all previous treaties.
But before a corporation can become an independent power, free of supervisory control by national governments, it has to have solid _military_ power to go along with whatever economic strength it has, and it has to have a base of support that the national governments can't take away or destroy by force.
If a base of support that can't be taken away by national governments
is necessary for a power to be independent then no nations on Earth
are independent. The US can take down most of them single-handed, but
a big enough coalition can take down the US.
Of other _nations_, yes. And yes, regardless of _de jure_ status, the politics of actual _power_ limit everyone's sovereignty. That'll be true in space as well.
And that's the point. In space, SpaceX is pretty much going to have
absolute power until somebody else comes up with an equivalent to
Starship.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
We are a long, long way from any space corporation having that. Any such organization, for the foreseeable future, will have to be registered with and (officially or unofficially) protected by some national government. That government will hold the final say.
Until the corporation drops a rock on that nation's capitol and then
asks how many more they would like.
Long before it reaches that point, the corporation's owners are dead.
How? They're on Mars.
Which is not hard to reach, if the tech to do this at all is available.
The tech belongs to the company. Why would it allow the government to
use it to damage the company?
Post by Johnny1A
Even if that wasn't true, which it is, it's doubtful they'd be hostage immune.
Unless the hostages are on Mars.
Post by Johnny1A
Realistically, you're not ever likely to see a private corporation, all by themselves on Mars or the Moon, the state apparatus will expand out with them. Yeah, the corp owners might be on Mars, but so will the patron state's forces, too, from the get-go.
Only if the company lets it. How do the patron state's forces get to
Mars?

You really aren't grasping the disparity in capability that is going
to exist between SpaceX and any government.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Bombardment from the Moon requires a substantial on-site infrastructure, which requires time to set up and would be nearly impossible to do it in secret. Further, it's not the uber-weapon RAH describes it as in _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_ unless you use much bigger chunks of rock than he did, making the project that much more expensive and hard to hide.
The thing that amazes me about science fiction fans is how little
imagination they have, and how little understanding of the universe.
This is the second post in which someone has gone on about the Moon
like it is the only source of rocks in the entire universe. Hint--why
lift little rocks off the Moon when there are great big huge rocks
that don't have to be lifted off of _anything_.
Why bother? Nukes are better for almost all purposes.
Keep repeating that and maybe some day you'll believe it.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Further, the rocks will need time to get to their targets, and radars will see them coming.
So what? What are you going to do about them?
If it's a chain of little rocks being fired by a mass driver from the Moon, there might not be time to stop them (but there might be, too, it would depend on if any preparations had been made for such eventualities). But little rocks aren't that big a problem, you just wipe out the launch facilities and capture or kill the users, and eat the damage.
You and your Moon fixation.
Post by Johnny1A
Big rocks from the Moon is difficult because of the gravity, as you note, if you want big rocks it's easier to use a near-Earth asteroid. But that has its own practical difficulties.
Not really. Not with the kind of capability SpaceX is developing.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
So even if they can't be stopped, the target nation has lots of time to wipe out the Lunar facilities that fired them. The wiping out part would be fairly easy with near-future tech.
Interesting thought, set them up on Moon-skimming trajectories so that
people like you who can't get beyond 50 year old science fiction will
waste a lot of time looking for something on the Moon to destroy.
Earth is going to know _exactly_ where the launch facilities are, regardless of the trajectory, unless the people on Earth are all total idiots. That's common in fiction but much rarer in reality.
How are they going to know? We can't image the Apollo landing sites
with the best telescopes in the world.
Post by Johnny1A
Setting up the launch infrastructure in secret would be borderline impossible with foreseeable tech. You might could hide it once it existed, but the installation process would be very noticeable.
To who?
Post by Johnny1A
The most likely, by far, scenario for such a Lunar bombardment would be conversion of already-extant facilities. This might well be possible, but the locations won't be a secret, and it would be more useful for terrorist style one-off attacks than a war-winning bombardment.
You and your pathetic moon-fixation.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Deflecting asteroids is scarier, and could involve rocks big enough to do _big_ damage...but it also takes a long _time_.
So?
So your target has lots of time to see it coming and stop you.
Stop you how? And how are they going to see it coming? Coat asteroid
with black radar absorbant. Now what? Hint--we don't detect
asteroids with radar now--it's telescopes and optics and we're still
missing some that come close.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If you don't happen to have a big asteroid in the right orbit for an easy deflection, you have to move one.
So?
Time and expense. Time is mission critical,
Critical to what mission? The mission of helping you with your
argument?
Post by Johnny1A
and expense/effort rises fast if your potential impactor is not in the right place for it.
So?
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Furthermore, this kind of attack is almost by definition impossible to conceal as the rock approaches, leaving the attacker vulnerable to being wiped out again.
How does this make the attacker vulnerable to being wiped out? You've
said it takes a long time, but haven't put two and two together--the
attacker is going to be a long way away from that asteroid, so how do
you find him?
If he's a long way from that asteroid, it stops being a problem.
So if he's a long way from the asteroid it's going to somehow
magically not create a vast crater when it hits and destroy the
ecosystem?
Post by Johnny1A
It isn't hard to deflect an impactor with plenty of warning.
So when has that actually been done? You're saying something is
"easy" that no government on Earth today can do.
Post by Johnny1A
It's actually harder to make it hit than it is to stop it from hitting. For the latter, all you have to do is deflect it _very_ slightly, in any particular direction, or speed it up or slow it down in its orbit _very_ slightly. Unless it's already very close, that'll convert a hit into a near miss (or a wide miss with a little more warning), and a near miss is as good as a light-year.
But how are you going to do that when all you have is little ICBMs and
the enemy has things the size of the ISS in orbit with Saturn-V class
delta-v and payload.
Post by Johnny1A
No, if you want your asteroid to impact a space-capable world,
We are talking about a space-capable company and a world that didn't
take space seriously until the company had already seized the high
ground.
Post by Johnny1A
that rock is either going to have to come on very fast, or be well protected as it makes its approach.
Or be well stealthed.
Post by Johnny1A
The more warning time, the easier the defender's job. All the defender has to do, on a scale of hundreds of millions of miles, is defect the rock by a few thousand miles in any direction, maybe even less depending on the exact angle of approach. It's just not that hard, if you've got serious space flight.
With what? The government's only "serious space flight" they rent
from the company.
Post by Johnny1A
Now, if you can somehow keep the rock totally hidden from the defenders until just before impact, that's another matter, but that gets into 'stealth in space' issues.
Which aren't that difficult.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Seriously, the asteroid attack meme from SF is vastly overrated. Nukes do almost everything rocks can do, are cheaper, faster, more precise, easier to conceal, easier to deliver, etc.
Uh, the biggest hole ever made with a nucler weapon is 1200 feet
across. A relatively insignificant meteor made a crater 3 times that
diameter in Arizona. A somewhat larger one made the 60-mile diameter
crater whose contents now provide electric power to much of Eastern
Canada and New England. And then there's the little issue with the
dinosaurs. A rock can do vastly more damage than nukes.
A .50 caliber rifle will make a bigger hole in a human than a derringer, but it won't kill him any deader.
Good luck wiping out every dinosaur on Earth with a .50 caliber rifle.
We aren't talking about an attack on person, we are talking about an
attack on a civilization.
Post by Johnny1A
Yeah, _if_ you can deliver your rock, it can make a much bigger hole than extant nukes. OTOH, it takes much longer, costs much more, and is harder to make work against a space-capable enemy.
There's the rub. The enemy isn't space-capable unless the company
lets it be space-capable.
Post by Johnny1A
Plus, if for some reason you need the power, nukes can fairly easily be made much bigger than anything we've tested.
If that were the case someone would have done it.
Post by Johnny1A
They didn't stop making nukes bigger after the 1950s because they couldn't make them bigger, they stopped because there was no _use_ for bigger ones.
They stopped making them bigger because they couldn't _move_ the
bigger ones.
Post by Johnny1A
Hitting Earth with big rocks, even if you can do it, only makes sense if you're at war with everybody down there.
Which you may be. The idea is to convince them to leave you alone.
_All_ of them.
Post by Johnny1A
If your argument is just with one nation-state, then throwing another Dinosaur Killer only means that now all the former neutrals and sympathizers want you dead too.
Since they're all dead you don't care.
Post by Johnny1A
Small rocks can be more discriminate, but the smaller the rock the easier it is to defend against and the more the nukes vs. rocks tilts toward nukes.
Uh, we can't defend against ICBMs, let alone a hail of rocks.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If someone somehow threw together an unregistered, truly independent organization to act in space, either thaht organization must muster enough _power_ to protect itself and its interests, or it will be fair game for national governments until it finds a patron.
Or becomes its own patron.
As I said. But if it does that, it's no longer a corporation, it's a state, and will be forced to transform into a form that can perform that role. The more it becomes its own patron, the more it starts to look like a government itself.
So what is different from the form of a corporation and the form of a
state run by an oligarchy?
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
If it has the ability to destroy all life on Earth and nobody has the
means to stop it, what then?
Again, paucity of either imagination or understanding of the universe.
There are several near-earth asteroids in the dinosaur-killer range.
Leaving only the issues of motive, delivery, and surviving the attempt.
You keep asserting that devlecing asteroids is easy, but then it
becomes hard when it suits you. Make up your mind.

Motive, get the damned Earth government off our backs.

Surviving the attempt--we're not on Earth.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
But in the real universe, no private space corporation is going to have that kind of power any time soon, barring some incredible unforeseen technological breakthrough.
Except SpaceX.
SpaceX is not going to be wielding any such power any time soon, if ever.
You don't seem to grasp how much of a game-changer Starship is going
to be. Most people don't. They still don't grasp the concept of
"Saturn V payload in space for the cost of fuel".
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Wiping out all life on Earth is beyond human power for the foreseeable future.
Another dinosaur killer might not wipe out all life but it would
pretty much put paid to humanity. A half dozen of them?
Post by Johnny1A
Wiping out civilization in a survivable way (for the space corp.) might be theoretically possible in the foreseeable future, but as a practical matter, not so much.
Conceivably, a space corporation in the next few decades might gain the power to do serious damage, if unopposed, but the same technologies that enable that enable the national governments to reach out into space and do the same sort of thing.
Not if the first outfit to develop serious spacefaring capability
doesn't let them.
Unless the rivals wait a bizarrely long time, the first outfit won't be able to stop them.
Why, what are the rivals going to do about it?
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If SpaceCorp starts nuking cities (vastly more likely than throwing rocks), somebody is going to start nuking SpaceCorp...and SpaceCorp is a much easier target, esp. if their markets, relatives, etc. are on Earth.
Why start nuking cities? Missile silos are hardened against pathetic
little nuclear bombs, not rocks at escape speed. A 400 foot diameter
rock has more explosive yield than any atomic bomb ever made. Bye-bye
silos. Not that those missiles can attack anything in deep space in
any case.
As I said, if everybody on Earth is an idiot and sits back and does nothing for decades on end while somebody builds up that kind of power, yeah. That's not a probable scenario.
So you're saying that all of a sudden the US government (the only one
with the resources to actually do anything--India and China are still
struggling to get to where the US was in 1970 and the Russians just
don't have the economy) will start rushing to create capability that
it has never had or wanted before, and that somehow they are going to
turn the pork machine that is NASA back into something effective? Why
are they going to do this when the company is bringing in tax money
and buying politicians?
Johnny1A
2019-08-03 03:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Interesting thought, set them up on Moon-skimming trajectories so that
people like you who can't get beyond 50 year old science fiction will
waste a lot of time looking for something on the Moon to destroy.
Earth is going to know _exactly_ where the launch facilities are, regardless of the trajectory, unless the people on Earth are all total idiots. That's common in fiction but much rarer in reality.
How are they going to know? We can't image the Apollo landing sites
with the best telescopes in the world.
Because the construction project itself with be radio and heat 'noisy', and the movement of people and machines will be tracked by the government that controls SpaceX, and others as well.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Setting up the launch infrastructure in secret would be borderline impossible with foreseeable tech. You might could hide it once it existed, but the installation process would be very noticeable.
To who?
To anyone watching the Moon with even modest capable, current-day-technology sensor gear. It would be _obvious_.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Deflecting asteroids is scarier, and could involve rocks big enough to do _big_ damage...but it also takes a long _time_.
So?
So your target has lots of time to see it coming and stop you.
Stop you how? And how are they going to see it coming? Coat asteroid
with black radar absorbant. Now what? Hint--we don't detect
asteroids with radar now--it's telescopes and optics and we're still
missing some that come close.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If you don't happen to have a big asteroid in the right orbit for an easy deflection, you have to move one.
So?
Time and expense. Time is mission critical,
Critical to what mission? The mission of helping you with your
argument?
Hitting Earth with an NEA impactor. It's _hard_ to do, and easy to stop.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
How does this make the attacker vulnerable to being wiped out? You've
said it takes a long time, but haven't put two and two together--the
attacker is going to be a long way away from that asteroid, so how do
you find him?
If he's not with the asteroid, there's no urgent _need_ to get him, because his asteroid is harmless. Of course in practice, the kind of extensive space infrastructure necessary for this sort of work would be quite obvious.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If he's a long way from that asteroid, it stops being a problem.
So if he's a long way from the asteroid it's going to somehow
magically not create a vast crater when it hits and destroy the
ecosystem?
If he's not with it, it doesn't hit. It gets deflected.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
It isn't hard to deflect an impactor with plenty of warning.
So when has that actually been done? You're saying something is
"easy" that no government on Earth today can do.
Nobody has changed any asteroid orbits _at all_ yet, to hit Earth or miss it. But if SpaceX can deflect a rock toward Earth, somebody else can use the tech to knock it away, and the latter is easier as a matter of physics.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
It's actually harder to make it hit than it is to stop it from hitting. For the latter, all you have to do is deflect it _very_ slightly, in any particular direction, or speed it up or slow it down in its orbit _very_ slightly. Unless it's already very close, that'll convert a hit into a near miss (or a wide miss with a little more warning), and a near miss is as good as a light-year.
But how are you going to do that when all you have is little ICBMs and
the enemy has things the size of the ISS in orbit with Saturn-V class
delta-v and payload.
We're already positing that the tech exists to deflect asteroids. If SpaceX has, so do other space corporations and all the major governments. If they don't have it, neither does SpaceX.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
No, if you want your asteroid to impact a space-capable world,
We are talking about a space-capable company and a world that didn't
take space seriously until the company had already seized the high
ground.
Fantasy-thinking. There's no believable scenario where that happens.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
that rock is either going to have to come on very fast, or be well protected as it makes its approach.
Or be well stealthed.
Post by Johnny1A
The more warning time, the easier the defender's job. All the defender has to do, on a scale of hundreds of millions of miles, is defect the rock by a few thousand miles in any direction, maybe even less depending on the exact angle of approach. It's just not that hard, if you've got serious space flight.
With what? The government's only "serious space flight" they rent
from the company.
Or use other companies or their own facilities, or confiscate SpaceX's, not that they would have to do it. If SpaceX is out there, so are the governments, pretty much automatically.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Now, if you can somehow keep the rock totally hidden from the defenders until just before impact, that's another matter, but that gets into 'stealth in space' issues.
Which aren't that difficult.
:lol:

Which are effectively _impossible_ within known physics.

I think I can safely say you've lost the debate. I accept your concession of defeat.
J. Clarke
2019-08-03 05:52:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:55:27 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Interesting thought, set them up on Moon-skimming trajectories so that
people like you who can't get beyond 50 year old science fiction will
waste a lot of time looking for something on the Moon to destroy.
Earth is going to know _exactly_ where the launch facilities are, regardless of the trajectory, unless the people on Earth are all total idiots. That's common in fiction but much rarer in reality.
How are they going to know? We can't image the Apollo landing sites
with the best telescopes in the world.
Because the construction project itself with be radio and heat 'noisy', and the movement of people and machines will be tracked by the government that controls SpaceX, and others as well.
So it's noisy. The government doesn't know what they're doing, just
that they're doing something. And since they're known to be out there
mining . . .

As for the movement of people and machines being tracked by the
government, tracked with _what_, the sensor array from the Starship
Enterprise?

We have enough trouble tracking large objects. Tracking spaceships in
deep space that don't want to be tracked is way, way beyond us.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Setting up the launch infrastructure in secret would be borderline impossible with foreseeable tech. You might could hide it once it existed, but the installation process would be very noticeable.
To who?
To anyone watching the Moon with even modest capable, current-day-technology sensor gear. It would be _obvious_.
OK, with modest capable current day technology sensor gear, show me
the Apollo landing sites. I'm sorry, but you have a very very
exaggerated opinion of what is capable with current technology.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Deflecting asteroids is scarier, and could involve rocks big enough to do _big_ damage...but it also takes a long _time_.
So?
So your target has lots of time to see it coming and stop you.
Stop you how? And how are they going to see it coming? Coat asteroid
with black radar absorbant. Now what? Hint--we don't detect
asteroids with radar now--it's telescopes and optics and we're still
missing some that come close.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If you don't happen to have a big asteroid in the right orbit for an easy deflection, you have to move one.
So?
Time and expense. Time is mission critical,
Critical to what mission? The mission of helping you with your
argument?
Hitting Earth with an NEA impactor. It's _hard_ to do, and easy to stop.
So you claim. Funny how hard it is to deflect an asteroid when you
want it to be hard and easy when you want it to be easy. Why is time
so mission critical? Is the government going to equip Earth with a
massive Bergenholm and dodge or something? As for deflection being
easy, what are you going to deflect it _with_?
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
How does this make the attacker vulnerable to being wiped out? You've
said it takes a long time, but haven't put two and two together--the
attacker is going to be a long way away from that asteroid, so how do
you find him?
If he's not with the asteroid, there's no urgent _need_ to get him, because his asteroid is harmless.
Right, sure it is. It's only harmless if it misses and it's not going
to miss unless you do something about it. And you don't have the
means to do anything about it. If you think you do, describe that
means. Also describe the means by which it is going to get past the
very very capable spacecraft that try to stop it.
Post by Johnny1A
Of course in practice, the kind of extensive space infrastructure necessary for this sort of work would be quite obvious.
Yes, it would, but it would not be specific to dropping asteroids on
DC. So what of it? Or are you referring to infrastructure on the
asteroid? If so, please show me a photo taken from Earth or the
Hubble or the Webb or any other instrument accessible to the
government of details on the same scale as this infrastructure on an
actual asteroid.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If he's a long way from that asteroid, it stops being a problem.
So if he's a long way from the asteroid it's going to somehow
magically not create a vast crater when it hits and destroy the
ecosystem?
If he's not with it, it doesn't hit. It gets deflected.
By what, your swinging cock?
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
It isn't hard to deflect an impactor with plenty of warning.
So when has that actually been done? You're saying something is
"easy" that no government on Earth today can do.
Nobody has changed any asteroid orbits _at all_ yet, to hit Earth or miss it. But if SpaceX can deflect a rock toward Earth, somebody else can use the tech to knock it away, and the latter is easier as a matter of physics.
What tech? Who else has the tech?

You are still not getting it. SpaceX is doing on a shoestring what
goverments in the collective spend vast amounts failing to do.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
It's actually harder to make it hit than it is to stop it from hitting. For the latter, all you have to do is deflect it _very_ slightly, in any particular direction, or speed it up or slow it down in its orbit _very_ slightly. Unless it's already very close, that'll convert a hit into a near miss (or a wide miss with a little more warning), and a near miss is as good as a light-year.
But how are you going to do that when all you have is little ICBMs and
the enemy has things the size of the ISS in orbit with Saturn-V class
delta-v and payload.
We're already positing that the tech exists to deflect asteroids. If SpaceX has, so do other space corporations and all the major governments. If they don't have it, neither does SpaceX.
Which other space corporations? There aren't any others.

You seem to think that technology transfer is instantaneous and
automatic. If it was then everybody would be flying reusable boosters
now today, when in fact only one other outfit is trying and they have
yet to actually fly anything except a small scale suborbital test
article.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
No, if you want your asteroid to impact a space-capable world,
We are talking about a space-capable company and a world that didn't
take space seriously until the company had already seized the high
ground.
Fantasy-thinking. There's no believable scenario where that happens.
Reality thinking. No government is actually taking space seriously.
The Chinese are going for national prestige. So are the Indians. The
Russians are content to keep flying their '60s boosters as long as
somebody is willing to pay for them. The US government sees it as a
jobs program.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
that rock is either going to have to come on very fast, or be well protected as it makes its approach.
Or be well stealthed.
":lol:" is an admission that you don't actually have an argument. We
have trouble detecting rocks that nobody is actually trying to hide.
Why do you think that we would do any better if it was covered in
absorbent coatings?
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
The more warning time, the easier the defender's job. All the defender has to do, on a scale of hundreds of millions of miles, is defect the rock by a few thousand miles in any direction, maybe even less depending on the exact angle of approach. It's just not that hard, if you've got serious space flight.
With what? The government's only "serious space flight" they rent
from the company.
Or use other companies
Which companies would those be? In the real world there is SpaceX and
there are the also-rans.
Post by Johnny1A
or their own facilities,
What facilities would those be? STS which costs a billion dollars a
shot and can barely struggle to the Moon with an Apollo?
Post by Johnny1A
or confiscate SpaceX's,
Yeah, they're going to confiscate equipment that is not even on the
planet.
Post by Johnny1A
not that they would have to do it. If SpaceX is out there, so are the governments, pretty much automatically.
Sez you. How do the governments get there, and why do the governments
get there? You seem to think that governments _care_ what happens in
space. If they _did_ then they would be doing something other than
tiny little programs to send a few robots out and a jobs program that
is never going to fly anything.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Now, if you can somehow keep the rock totally hidden from the defenders until just before impact, that's another matter, but that gets into 'stealth in space' issues.
Which aren't that difficult.
You admit failure again.
Post by Johnny1A
Which are effectively _impossible_ within known physics.
What physics is this?
Post by Johnny1A
I think I can safely say you've lost the debate. I accept your concession of defeat.
I think I can safely say that you are clueless. Tell us by what means
you believe that asteroids are detected and tracked and why it is
impossible to defeat that technology. Paint something black and an
optical telescope can't see it. And that is how asteroids are
detected and tracked, with optical telescopes.
h***@gmail.com
2019-08-03 14:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:55:27 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Interesting thought, set them up on Moon-skimming trajectories so that
people like you who can't get beyond 50 year old science fiction will
waste a lot of time looking for something on the Moon to destroy.
Earth is going to know _exactly_ where the launch facilities are, regardless of the trajectory, unless the people on Earth are all total idiots. That's common in fiction but much rarer in reality.
How are they going to know? We can't image the Apollo landing sites
with the best telescopes in the world.
Because the construction project itself with be radio and heat 'noisy', and the movement of people and machines will be tracked by the government that controls SpaceX, and others as well.
So it's noisy. The government doesn't know what they're doing, just
that they're doing something. And since they're known to be out there
mining . . .
As for the movement of people and machines being tracked by the
government, tracked with _what_, the sensor array from the Starship
Enterprise?
We have enough trouble tracking large objects. Tracking spaceships in
deep space that don't want to be tracked is way, way beyond us.
Asteroids etc aren't burning reaction mass and don't have life support, computers etc.
Tracking a spaceship is a lot easier than tracking a rock which isn't accelerating by emitting combustion products and isn't maintaining a survivable temperature.
Nor is it likely that 1 rocket could carry enough gear to shift an asteroid.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Setting up the launch infrastructure in secret would be borderline impossible with foreseeable tech. You might could hide it once it existed, but the installation process would be very noticeable.
To who?
To anyone watching the Moon with even modest capable, current-day-technology sensor gear. It would be _obvious_.
OK, with modest capable current day technology sensor gear, show me
the Apollo landing sites.
Are they doing excavation there?
Manufacturing?
Hell does it have a residence with heating and oxygen?

Voyager has a 23W radio and we still receive signals from it 10 light hours away (admittedly it takes a 34m diameter radio telescope)
Post by J. Clarke
I'm sorry, but you have a very very
exaggerated opinion of what is capable with current technology.
You're ignoring the fact that rockets are a lot easier to see than rocks.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Deflecting asteroids is scarier, and could involve rocks big enough to do _big_ damage...but it also takes a long _time_.
So?
So your target has lots of time to see it coming and stop you.
Stop you how? And how are they going to see it coming? Coat asteroid
with black radar absorbant. Now what? Hint--we don't detect
asteroids with radar now--it's telescopes and optics and we're still
missing some that come close.
How much reaction mass are you burning to move an asteroid to hit earth?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If you don't happen to have a big asteroid in the right orbit for an easy deflection, you have to move one.
So?
Time and expense. Time is mission critical,
Critical to what mission? The mission of helping you with your
argument?
Hitting Earth with an NEA impactor. It's _hard_ to do, and easy to stop.
So you claim. Funny how hard it is to deflect an asteroid when you
want it to be hard and easy when you want it to be easy. Why is time
so mission critical? Is the government going to equip Earth with a
massive Bergenholm and dodge or something? As for deflection being
easy, what are you going to deflect it _with_?
How long do you think it's going to take to get an asteroid to hit earth?
How big a technological lead do you think company A will have over company B or a government by the time they can get something to the asteroid belt and move a large asteroid out of orbit?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
How does this make the attacker vulnerable to being wiped out? You've
said it takes a long time, but haven't put two and two together--the
attacker is going to be a long way away from that asteroid, so how do
you find him?
If he's not with the asteroid, there's no urgent _need_ to get him, because his asteroid is harmless.
Right, sure it is. It's only harmless if it misses and it's not going
to miss unless you do something about it. And you don't have the
means to do anything about it. If you think you do, describe that
means. Also describe the means by which it is going to get past the
very very capable spacecraft that try to stop it.
So you have a fleet of spacecraft all of which are crewed by people who are happy to go along with dumping an asteroid on earth...
and nobody else has spacecraft...

This is really sounding right up there with operation Sealion for credibility...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Of course in practice, the kind of extensive space infrastructure necessary for this sort of work would be quite obvious.
Yes, it would, but it would not be specific to dropping asteroids on
DC. So what of it? Or are you referring to infrastructure on the
asteroid? If so, please show me a photo taken from Earth or the
Hubble or the Webb or any other instrument accessible to the
government of details on the same scale as this infrastructure on an
actual asteroid.
How many asteroids have had enough industry on them to install a guidance system, an engine capable of moving them and enough reaction mass to shift them into a collision with eart?
How many asteroids have had enough spaceships to carry that and form a fighter escort go there?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If he's a long way from that asteroid, it stops being a problem.
So if he's a long way from the asteroid it's going to somehow
magically not create a vast crater when it hits and destroy the
ecosystem?
If he's not with it, it doesn't hit. It gets deflected.
By what, your swinging cock?
Considering you're bringing in the ability to move an asteroid, carry reaction mass to move it into earth orbit, life support for long enough to make the change and have people able to live elsewhere after they've wiped out earth
the idea that some other force could reach the asteroid, say, once it's covered 3/4 of the distance and be able to disrupt the engines seems like far less of a stretch than everything you're pulling out of your fundamental orifice
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
It isn't hard to deflect an impactor with plenty of warning.
So when has that actually been done? You're saying something is
"easy" that no government on Earth today can do.
Nobody has changed any asteroid orbits _at all_ yet, to hit Earth or miss it. But if SpaceX can deflect a rock toward Earth, somebody else can use the tech to knock it away, and the latter is easier as a matter of physics.
What tech? Who else has the tech?
Seeing as for this to be something approaching sensible Space-X would need some sort of permanent and self-sustaining colony off of earth then other companies/countries are extremely unlikely to be far enough behind that they can't intercept.
Post by J. Clarke
You are still not getting it. SpaceX is doing on a shoestring what
goverments in the collective spend vast amounts failing to do.
governments have been focused on probes to other planets rather than launch vehicles for a long time.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
It's actually harder to make it hit than it is to stop it from hitting. For the latter, all you have to do is deflect it _very_ slightly, in any particular direction, or speed it up or slow it down in its orbit _very_ slightly. Unless it's already very close, that'll convert a hit into a near miss (or a wide miss with a little more warning), and a near miss is as good as a light-year.
But how are you going to do that when all you have is little ICBMs and
the enemy has things the size of the ISS in orbit with Saturn-V class
delta-v and payload.
We're already positing that the tech exists to deflect asteroids. If SpaceX has, so do other space corporations and all the major governments. If they don't have it, neither does SpaceX.
Which other space corporations? There aren't any others.
You seem to think that technology transfer is instantaneous and
automatic. If it was then everybody would be flying reusable boosters
now today, when in fact only one other outfit is trying and they have
yet to actually fly anything except a small scale suborbital test
article.
who needs a reusable booster for this?
How soon do you think Space-X could build a sustainable living space off of earth?
Or move enough resources to move an asteroid?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
No, if you want your asteroid to impact a space-capable world,
We are talking about a space-capable company and a world that didn't
take space seriously until the company had already seized the high
ground.
Fantasy-thinking. There's no believable scenario where that happens.
Reality thinking. No government is actually taking space seriously.
The Chinese are going for national prestige. So are the Indians. The
Russians are content to keep flying their '60s boosters as long as
somebody is willing to pay for them. The US government sees it as a
jobs program.
Space-X is a long way off being able to do what you're suggesting
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
that rock is either going to have to come on very fast, or be well protected as it makes its approach.
Or be well stealthed.
":lol:" is an admission that you don't actually have an argument. We
have trouble detecting rocks that nobody is actually trying to hide.
Why do you think that we would do any better if it was covered in
absorbent coatings?
How do you think they're moving it?
What propulsion system can move it without massive emissions?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
The more warning time, the easier the defender's job. All the defender has to do, on a scale of hundreds of millions of miles, is defect the rock by a few thousand miles in any direction, maybe even less depending on the exact angle of approach. It's just not that hard, if you've got serious space flight.
With what? The government's only "serious space flight" they rent
from the company.
Or use other companies
Which companies would those be? In the real world there is SpaceX and
there are the also-rans.
Yeah, and everybody Space-X has building things would go along with a plan to wipe out life on earth...
and space-X could build a self-sustaining off-world colony, fleet of escort fighters, reaction mass to move an asteroid into earth collision...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
or their own facilities,
What facilities would those be? STS which costs a billion dollars a
shot and can barely struggle to the Moon with an Apollo?
Post by Johnny1A
or confiscate SpaceX's,
Yeah, they're going to confiscate equipment that is not even on the
planet.
How far in the future do do you think they can move everything off earth?
In that period do you think other companies and governments might have advanced a fair way?
Think how much money people could wave under the noses of some of their top designers...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
not that they would have to do it. If SpaceX is out there, so are the governments, pretty much automatically.
Sez you. How do the governments get there, and why do the governments
get there? You seem to think that governments _care_ what happens in
space. If they _did_ then they would be doing something other than
tiny little programs to send a few robots out and a jobs program that
is never going to fly anything.
There's a huge amount of time needed for Space-X to be able to build a self-sustained living space off of earth
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Now, if you can somehow keep the rock totally hidden from the defenders until just before impact, that's another matter, but that gets into 'stealth in space' issues.
Which aren't that difficult.
You admit failure again.
Post by Johnny1A
Which are effectively _impossible_ within known physics.
What physics is this?
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#nostealth
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
I think I can safely say you've lost the debate. I accept your concession of defeat.
I think I can safely say that you are clueless. Tell us by what means
you believe that asteroids are detected and tracked and why it is
impossible to defeat that technology. Paint something black and an
optical telescope can't see it. And that is how asteroids are
detected and tracked, with optical telescopes.
Asteroids aren't being driven by reaction mass...
Dimensional Traveler
2019-08-03 17:03:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:55:27 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Interesting thought, set them up on Moon-skimming trajectories so that
people like you who can't get beyond 50 year old science fiction will
waste a lot of time looking for something on the Moon to destroy.
Earth is going to know _exactly_ where the launch facilities are, regardless of the trajectory, unless the people on Earth are all total idiots. That's common in fiction but much rarer in reality.
How are they going to know? We can't image the Apollo landing sites
with the best telescopes in the world.
Because the construction project itself with be radio and heat 'noisy', and the movement of people and machines will be tracked by the government that controls SpaceX, and others as well.
So it's noisy. The government doesn't know what they're doing, just
that they're doing something. And since they're known to be out there
mining . . .
As for the movement of people and machines being tracked by the
government, tracked with _what_, the sensor array from the Starship
Enterprise?
We have enough trouble tracking large objects. Tracking spaceships in
deep space that don't want to be tracked is way, way beyond us.
You appear to be unaware that the US tracks everything in Earth orbit,
down to the size of a 1" bolt.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Setting up the launch infrastructure in secret would be borderline impossible with foreseeable tech. You might could hide it once it existed, but the installation process would be very noticeable.
To who?
To anyone watching the Moon with even modest capable, current-day-technology sensor gear. It would be _obvious_.
OK, with modest capable current day technology sensor gear, show me
the Apollo landing sites. I'm sorry, but you have a very very
exaggerated opinion of what is capable with current technology.
It has been done with a lunar orbiter. You can also get laser bounce
back from reflectors left at many landing sites as part of the science
package they carried.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Deflecting asteroids is scarier, and could involve rocks big enough to do _big_ damage...but it also takes a long _time_.
So?
So your target has lots of time to see it coming and stop you.
Stop you how? And how are they going to see it coming? Coat asteroid
with black radar absorbant. Now what? Hint--we don't detect
asteroids with radar now--it's telescopes and optics and we're still
missing some that come close.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If you don't happen to have a big asteroid in the right orbit for an easy deflection, you have to move one.
So?
Time and expense. Time is mission critical,
Critical to what mission? The mission of helping you with your
argument?
Hitting Earth with an NEA impactor. It's _hard_ to do, and easy to stop.
So you claim. Funny how hard it is to deflect an asteroid when you
want it to be hard and easy when you want it to be easy. Why is time
so mission critical? Is the government going to equip Earth with a
massive Bergenholm and dodge or something? As for deflection being
easy, what are you going to deflect it _with_?
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
How does this make the attacker vulnerable to being wiped out? You've
said it takes a long time, but haven't put two and two together--the
attacker is going to be a long way away from that asteroid, so how do
you find him?
If he's not with the asteroid, there's no urgent _need_ to get him, because his asteroid is harmless.
Right, sure it is. It's only harmless if it misses and it's not going
to miss unless you do something about it. And you don't have the
means to do anything about it. If you think you do, describe that
means. Also describe the means by which it is going to get past the
very very capable spacecraft that try to stop it.
Post by Johnny1A
Of course in practice, the kind of extensive space infrastructure necessary for this sort of work would be quite obvious.
Yes, it would, but it would not be specific to dropping asteroids on
DC. So what of it? Or are you referring to infrastructure on the
asteroid? If so, please show me a photo taken from Earth or the
Hubble or the Webb or any other instrument accessible to the
government of details on the same scale as this infrastructure on an
actual asteroid.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If he's a long way from that asteroid, it stops being a problem.
So if he's a long way from the asteroid it's going to somehow
magically not create a vast crater when it hits and destroy the
ecosystem?
If he's not with it, it doesn't hit. It gets deflected.
By what, your swinging cock?
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
It isn't hard to deflect an impactor with plenty of warning.
So when has that actually been done? You're saying something is
"easy" that no government on Earth today can do.
Nobody has changed any asteroid orbits _at all_ yet, to hit Earth or miss it. But if SpaceX can deflect a rock toward Earth, somebody else can use the tech to knock it away, and the latter is easier as a matter of physics.
What tech? Who else has the tech?
You are still not getting it. SpaceX is doing on a shoestring what
goverments in the collective spend vast amounts failing to do.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
It's actually harder to make it hit than it is to stop it from hitting. For the latter, all you have to do is deflect it _very_ slightly, in any particular direction, or speed it up or slow it down in its orbit _very_ slightly. Unless it's already very close, that'll convert a hit into a near miss (or a wide miss with a little more warning), and a near miss is as good as a light-year.
But how are you going to do that when all you have is little ICBMs and
the enemy has things the size of the ISS in orbit with Saturn-V class
delta-v and payload.
We're already positing that the tech exists to deflect asteroids. If SpaceX has, so do other space corporations and all the major governments. If they don't have it, neither does SpaceX.
Which other space corporations? There aren't any others.
You seem to think that technology transfer is instantaneous and
automatic. If it was then everybody would be flying reusable boosters
now today, when in fact only one other outfit is trying and they have
yet to actually fly anything except a small scale suborbital test
article.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
No, if you want your asteroid to impact a space-capable world,
We are talking about a space-capable company and a world that didn't
take space seriously until the company had already seized the high
ground.
Fantasy-thinking. There's no believable scenario where that happens.
Reality thinking. No government is actually taking space seriously.
The Chinese are going for national prestige. So are the Indians. The
Russians are content to keep flying their '60s boosters as long as
somebody is willing to pay for them. The US government sees it as a
jobs program.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
that rock is either going to have to come on very fast, or be well protected as it makes its approach.
Or be well stealthed.
":lol:" is an admission that you don't actually have an argument. We
have trouble detecting rocks that nobody is actually trying to hide.
Why do you think that we would do any better if it was covered in
absorbent coatings?
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
The more warning time, the easier the defender's job. All the defender has to do, on a scale of hundreds of millions of miles, is defect the rock by a few thousand miles in any direction, maybe even less depending on the exact angle of approach. It's just not that hard, if you've got serious space flight.
With what? The government's only "serious space flight" they rent
from the company.
Or use other companies
Which companies would those be? In the real world there is SpaceX and
there are the also-rans.
Post by Johnny1A
or their own facilities,
What facilities would those be? STS which costs a billion dollars a
shot and can barely struggle to the Moon with an Apollo?
Post by Johnny1A
or confiscate SpaceX's,
Yeah, they're going to confiscate equipment that is not even on the
planet.
Post by Johnny1A
not that they would have to do it. If SpaceX is out there, so are the governments, pretty much automatically.
Sez you. How do the governments get there, and why do the governments
get there? You seem to think that governments _care_ what happens in
space. If they _did_ then they would be doing something other than
tiny little programs to send a few robots out and a jobs program that
is never going to fly anything.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Now, if you can somehow keep the rock totally hidden from the defenders until just before impact, that's another matter, but that gets into 'stealth in space' issues.
Which aren't that difficult.
You admit failure again.
Post by Johnny1A
Which are effectively _impossible_ within known physics.
What physics is this?
Post by Johnny1A
I think I can safely say you've lost the debate. I accept your concession of defeat.
I think I can safely say that you are clueless. Tell us by what means
you believe that asteroids are detected and tracked and why it is
impossible to defeat that technology. Paint something black and an
optical telescope can't see it. And that is how asteroids are
detected and tracked, with optical telescopes.
Most asteroids already _are_ black. You need to learn a bit more, like
how many objects really are found and tracked.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
J. Clarke
2019-08-03 18:04:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 10:03:00 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:55:27 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Interesting thought, set them up on Moon-skimming trajectories so that
people like you who can't get beyond 50 year old science fiction will
waste a lot of time looking for something on the Moon to destroy.
Earth is going to know _exactly_ where the launch facilities are, regardless of the trajectory, unless the people on Earth are all total idiots. That's common in fiction but much rarer in reality.
How are they going to know? We can't image the Apollo landing sites
with the best telescopes in the world.
Because the construction project itself with be radio and heat 'noisy', and the movement of people and machines will be tracked by the government that controls SpaceX, and others as well.
So it's noisy. The government doesn't know what they're doing, just
that they're doing something. And since they're known to be out there
mining . . .
As for the movement of people and machines being tracked by the
government, tracked with _what_, the sensor array from the Starship
Enterprise?
We have enough trouble tracking large objects. Tracking spaceships in
deep space that don't want to be tracked is way, way beyond us.
You appear to be unaware that the US tracks everything in Earth orbit,
down to the size of a 1" bolt.
You appear to be unaware that we are not talking about objects in
Earth orbit. The technology that can track a 1" bolt at 300 miles is
much less effective at tracking things that are located millions of
miles away.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Setting up the launch infrastructure in secret would be borderline impossible with foreseeable tech. You might could hide it once it existed, but the installation process would be very noticeable.
To who?
To anyone watching the Moon with even modest capable, current-day-technology sensor gear. It would be _obvious_.
OK, with modest capable current day technology sensor gear, show me
the Apollo landing sites. I'm sorry, but you have a very very
exaggerated opinion of what is capable with current technology.
It has been done with a lunar orbiter.
So what? We are talking about identifying infrastructure on asteroids
for the purpose of determining whether those asteroids are being
weaponized. Are you going to put an orbiter on every asteroid in the
Solar System?
Post by Dimensional Traveler
You can also get laser bounce
back from reflectors left at many landing sites as part of the science
package they carried.
So someone who is trying to engage in clandestine activities is going
to conveniently place radar reflectors?
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Deflecting asteroids is scarier, and could involve rocks big enough to do _big_ damage...but it also takes a long _time_.
So?
So your target has lots of time to see it coming and stop you.
Stop you how? And how are they going to see it coming? Coat asteroid
with black radar absorbant. Now what? Hint--we don't detect
asteroids with radar now--it's telescopes and optics and we're still
missing some that come close.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If you don't happen to have a big asteroid in the right orbit for an easy deflection, you have to move one.
So?
Time and expense. Time is mission critical,
Critical to what mission? The mission of helping you with your
argument?
Hitting Earth with an NEA impactor. It's _hard_ to do, and easy to stop.
So you claim. Funny how hard it is to deflect an asteroid when you
want it to be hard and easy when you want it to be easy. Why is time
so mission critical? Is the government going to equip Earth with a
massive Bergenholm and dodge or something? As for deflection being
easy, what are you going to deflect it _with_?
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
How does this make the attacker vulnerable to being wiped out? You've
said it takes a long time, but haven't put two and two together--the
attacker is going to be a long way away from that asteroid, so how do
you find him?
If he's not with the asteroid, there's no urgent _need_ to get him, because his asteroid is harmless.
Right, sure it is. It's only harmless if it misses and it's not going
to miss unless you do something about it. And you don't have the
means to do anything about it. If you think you do, describe that
means. Also describe the means by which it is going to get past the
very very capable spacecraft that try to stop it.
Post by Johnny1A
Of course in practice, the kind of extensive space infrastructure necessary for this sort of work would be quite obvious.
Yes, it would, but it would not be specific to dropping asteroids on
DC. So what of it? Or are you referring to infrastructure on the
asteroid? If so, please show me a photo taken from Earth or the
Hubble or the Webb or any other instrument accessible to the
government of details on the same scale as this infrastructure on an
actual asteroid.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
If he's a long way from that asteroid, it stops being a problem.
So if he's a long way from the asteroid it's going to somehow
magically not create a vast crater when it hits and destroy the
ecosystem?
If he's not with it, it doesn't hit. It gets deflected.
By what, your swinging cock?
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
It isn't hard to deflect an impactor with plenty of warning.
So when has that actually been done? You're saying something is
"easy" that no government on Earth today can do.
Nobody has changed any asteroid orbits _at all_ yet, to hit Earth or miss it. But if SpaceX can deflect a rock toward Earth, somebody else can use the tech to knock it away, and the latter is easier as a matter of physics.
What tech? Who else has the tech?
You are still not getting it. SpaceX is doing on a shoestring what
goverments in the collective spend vast amounts failing to do.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
It's actually harder to make it hit than it is to stop it from hitting. For the latter, all you have to do is deflect it _very_ slightly, in any particular direction, or speed it up or slow it down in its orbit _very_ slightly. Unless it's already very close, that'll convert a hit into a near miss (or a wide miss with a little more warning), and a near miss is as good as a light-year.
But how are you going to do that when all you have is little ICBMs and
the enemy has things the size of the ISS in orbit with Saturn-V class
delta-v and payload.
We're already positing that the tech exists to deflect asteroids. If SpaceX has, so do other space corporations and all the major governments. If they don't have it, neither does SpaceX.
Which other space corporations? There aren't any others.
You seem to think that technology transfer is instantaneous and
automatic. If it was then everybody would be flying reusable boosters
now today, when in fact only one other outfit is trying and they have
yet to actually fly anything except a small scale suborbital test
article.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
No, if you want your asteroid to impact a space-capable world,
We are talking about a space-capable company and a world that didn't
take space seriously until the company had already seized the high
ground.
Fantasy-thinking. There's no believable scenario where that happens.
Reality thinking. No government is actually taking space seriously.
The Chinese are going for national prestige. So are the Indians. The
Russians are content to keep flying their '60s boosters as long as
somebody is willing to pay for them. The US government sees it as a
jobs program.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
that rock is either going to have to come on very fast, or be well protected as it makes its approach.
Or be well stealthed.
":lol:" is an admission that you don't actually have an argument. We
have trouble detecting rocks that nobody is actually trying to hide.
Why do you think that we would do any better if it was covered in
absorbent coatings?
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
The more warning time, the easier the defender's job. All the defender has to do, on a scale of hundreds of millions of miles, is defect the rock by a few thousand miles in any direction, maybe even less depending on the exact angle of approach. It's just not that hard, if you've got serious space flight.
With what? The government's only "serious space flight" they rent
from the company.
Or use other companies
Which companies would those be? In the real world there is SpaceX and
there are the also-rans.
Post by Johnny1A
or their own facilities,
What facilities would those be? STS which costs a billion dollars a
shot and can barely struggle to the Moon with an Apollo?
Post by Johnny1A
or confiscate SpaceX's,
Yeah, they're going to confiscate equipment that is not even on the
planet.
Post by Johnny1A
not that they would have to do it. If SpaceX is out there, so are the governments, pretty much automatically.
Sez you. How do the governments get there, and why do the governments
get there? You seem to think that governments _care_ what happens in
space. If they _did_ then they would be doing something other than
tiny little programs to send a few robots out and a jobs program that
is never going to fly anything.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Now, if you can somehow keep the rock totally hidden from the defenders until just before impact, that's another matter, but that gets into 'stealth in space' issues.
Which aren't that difficult.
You admit failure again.
Post by Johnny1A
Which are effectively _impossible_ within known physics.
What physics is this?
Post by Johnny1A
I think I can safely say you've lost the debate. I accept your concession of defeat.
I think I can safely say that you are clueless. Tell us by what means
you believe that asteroids are detected and tracked and why it is
impossible to defeat that technology. Paint something black and an
optical telescope can't see it. And that is how asteroids are
detected and tracked, with optical telescopes.
Most asteroids already _are_ black. You need to learn a bit more, like
how many objects really are found and tracked.
I know how many objects are found and tracked, laddie. As for already
being black, check again. Average reflectance of asteroids is 10
percent. That isn't black. A rather ordinary black coating can get
that down to a tenth of a percent or less. If you want to work at it
you can go lower.
Dimensional Traveler
2019-08-03 19:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 10:03:00 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:55:27 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
As for the movement of people and machines being tracked by the
government, tracked with _what_, the sensor array from the Starship
Enterprise?
We have enough trouble tracking large objects. Tracking spaceships in
deep space that don't want to be tracked is way, way beyond us.
You appear to be unaware that the US tracks everything in Earth orbit,
down to the size of a 1" bolt.
You appear to be unaware that we are not talking about objects in
Earth orbit. The technology that can track a 1" bolt at 300 miles is
much less effective at tracking things that are located millions of
miles away.
Just pointing out that your "We have enough trouble tracking large
objects." is not entirely accurate.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Setting up the launch infrastructure in secret would be borderline impossible with foreseeable tech. You might could hide it once it existed, but the installation process would be very noticeable.
To who?
To anyone watching the Moon with even modest capable, current-day-technology sensor gear. It would be _obvious_.
OK, with modest capable current day technology sensor gear, show me
the Apollo landing sites. I'm sorry, but you have a very very
exaggerated opinion of what is capable with current technology.
It has been done with a lunar orbiter.
So what? We are talking about identifying infrastructure on asteroids
for the purpose of determining whether those asteroids are being
weaponized. Are you going to put an orbiter on every asteroid in the
Solar System?
Post by Dimensional Traveler
You can also get laser bounce
back from reflectors left at many landing sites as part of the science
package they carried.
So someone who is trying to engage in clandestine activities is going
to conveniently place radar reflectors?
Just pointing out that your "we can't see the Apollo landing sites" is a
red herring that has nothing at all to do with tracking celestial bodies.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
I think I can safely say that you are clueless. Tell us by what means
you believe that asteroids are detected and tracked and why it is
impossible to defeat that technology. Paint something black and an
optical telescope can't see it. And that is how asteroids are
detected and tracked, with optical telescopes.
Most asteroids already _are_ black. You need to learn a bit more, like
how many objects really are found and tracked.
I know how many objects are found and tracked, laddie. As for already
being black, check again. Average reflectance of asteroids is 10
percent. That isn't black. A rather ordinary black coating can get
that down to a tenth of a percent or less. If you want to work at it
you can go lower.
And such coatings are difficult and expensive to make even in relatively
small quantities. What you are suggesting would require mass
manufacturing in the multi-ton range.

Your entire argument boils down to "SpaceX is technological generations
ahead of everyone else and we have no chance of catching up!!!" Which
is male bovine digestive end product.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
J. Clarke
2019-08-03 19:49:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:31:52 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<***@sonic.net> wrote:

I could counter your argument line by line but you don't even have the
courtesy to read the whole discussion before you comment, so I won't
waste my time. If you would care to actually address the points under
discussion instead of throwing out irrelevancies, then perhaps we can
talk.

<pat pat> what a smart little boy you are.
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-22 06:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer
space.  So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or
asteroids, we need a global effort.  If we can have an
international space station, why can't we have a global base on or
near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to
contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future.  SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled?  Not so much.  Space is too big to control, for one
thing.  Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific
people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ?  For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
If they are able to move their entire workforce, manufacturing
capability and launch capability to Mars, THEN they can ignore Earth
governments.  Until then, yes, they listen to Earth governments.
As for an EIR, only if they plan on landing on and building a base
somewhere in US territory.
(Seriously, think things through a little bit will you?)
I would be careful about arguing with someone who controls the high ground.

Lynn
Johnny1A
2019-07-22 20:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future. SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled? Not so much. Space is too big to control, for one thing. Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ? For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
Lynn
Assuming they land on Mars in a few years, you bet they'll listen to whatever national government is in charge of their organization. If they're registered in and based in the USA, at the end of the day the US Government has the last word.
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-22 21:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future. SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled? Not so much. Space is too big to control, for one thing. Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ? For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
Lynn
Assuming they land on Mars in a few years, you bet they'll listen to whatever national government is in charge of their organization. If they're registered in and based in the USA, at the end of the day the US Government has the last word.
What is to keep SpaceX from moving their Earthen organization to The
Bahamas ? Russia ? Israel ?

Lynn
Sjouke Burry
2019-07-22 21:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future. SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled? Not so much. Space is too big to control, for one thing. Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ? For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
Lynn
Assuming they land on Mars in a few years, you bet they'll listen to whatever national government is in charge of their organization. If they're registered in and based in the USA, at the end of the day the US Government has the last word.
What is to keep SpaceX from moving their Earthen organization to The
Bahamas ? Russia ? Israel ?
Lynn
Money.
Quadibloc
2019-07-23 01:14:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
What is to keep SpaceX from moving their Earthen organization to The
Bahamas ? Russia ? Israel ?
In the case of the Bahamas, at least, certain international treaties would be
violated by exporting guided missile technology to the Bahamas.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-07-23 09:06:41 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:14:29 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
What is to keep SpaceX from moving their Earthen organization to The
Bahamas ? Russia ? Israel ?
In the case of the Bahamas, at least, certain international treaties would be
violated by exporting guided missile technology to the Bahamas.
Who said anything about guided missiles?
Johnny1A
2019-07-29 05:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future. SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled? Not so much. Space is too big to control, for one thing. Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ? For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
Lynn
Assuming they land on Mars in a few years, you bet they'll listen to whatever national government is in charge of their organization. If they're registered in and based in the USA, at the end of the day the US Government has the last word.
What is to keep SpaceX from moving their Earthen organization to The
Bahamas ? Russia ? Israel ?
Lynn
Gaining them what? Instead of being subject to Washington, they are then subject to Moscow or Jerusalem. They'd be trading off one national government for another. They _might_ be able to find an advantageous state sponsor who wouldn't bother them much...but they'd still be subject to a state.

Furthermore, once space activity starts getting economically and politically important, the national governments are going to reach out into it with military power, just as they do the open ocean, and their resources will dwarf SpaceX or any other private organization for the foreseeable future.

So even if they set up an HQ on the Moon or Mars (which is impractical for a long time yet), the national governments will still have the last word over them, at the point of a gun if necessary.

One of the least realistic fantasies in SF over the last few decades is the idea of space as libertarian fantasyland. The basic rules of human life will apply there as they do everywhere.
J. Clarke
2019-07-30 02:47:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future. SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled? Not so much. Space is too big to control, for one thing. Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ? For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
Lynn
Assuming they land on Mars in a few years, you bet they'll listen to whatever national government is in charge of their organization. If they're registered in and based in the USA, at the end of the day the US Government has the last word.
What is to keep SpaceX from moving their Earthen organization to The
Bahamas ? Russia ? Israel ?
Lynn
Gaining them what?
They are no longer subject to American law.
Post by Johnny1A
Instead of being subject to Washington, they are then subject to Moscow
When did the Bahams become part of Russia?
Post by Johnny1A
or Jerusalem. They'd be trading off one national government for another. They _might_ be able to find an advantageous state sponsor who wouldn't bother them much...but they'd still be subject to a state.
Until they took over the state.
Post by Johnny1A
Furthermore, once space activity starts getting economically and politically important, the national governments are going to reach out into it with military power, just as they do the open ocean, and their resources will dwarf SpaceX or any other private organization for the foreseeable future.
You don't really seem to grasp what's going on. No government on
Earth has "military power" in space or any means to achieve it. SpaceX
meanwhile is going to be able to launch an ISS every day if they want
to, which means that potentially they can put enough weapons in space
to destroy anything that a national government tries to put up and
since the national governments are so far behind they may never
actually achieve parity.
Post by Johnny1A
So even if they set up an HQ on the Moon or Mars (which is impractical for a long time yet), the national governments will still have the last word over them, at the point of a gun if necessary.
Hey, Mr. Musk, if you don't do what I tell you to I will shoot you.

Hey, Mr. Heap Big Soldier, if you shoot me I won't be able to give my
people the order that will cause the ten 500 mile diameter rocks that
are heading for your capital to be deflected.
Post by Johnny1A
One of the least realistic fantasies in SF over the last few decades is the idea of space as libertarian fantasyland. The basic rules of human life will apply there as they do everywhere.
Peter Trei
2019-07-31 00:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future. SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled? Not so much. Space is too big to control, for one thing. Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ? For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
Lynn
Assuming they land on Mars in a few years, you bet they'll listen to whatever national government is in charge of their organization. If they're registered in and based in the USA, at the end of the day the US Government has the last word.
What is to keep SpaceX from moving their Earthen organization to The
Bahamas ? Russia ? Israel ?
Lynn
Gaining them what?
They are no longer subject to American law.
Post by Johnny1A
Instead of being subject to Washington, they are then subject to Moscow
When did the Bahams become part of Russia?
Post by Johnny1A
or Jerusalem. They'd be trading off one national government for another. They _might_ be able to find an advantageous state sponsor who wouldn't bother them much...but they'd still be subject to a state.
Until they took over the state.
Post by Johnny1A
Furthermore, once space activity starts getting economically and politically important, the national governments are going to reach out into it with military power, just as they do the open ocean, and their resources will dwarf SpaceX or any other private organization for the foreseeable future.
You don't really seem to grasp what's going on. No government on
Earth has "military power" in space or any means to achieve it. SpaceX
meanwhile is going to be able to launch an ISS every day if they want
to, which means that potentially they can put enough weapons in space
to destroy anything that a national government tries to put up and
since the national governments are so far behind they may never
actually achieve parity.
Post by Johnny1A
So even if they set up an HQ on the Moon or Mars (which is impractical for a long time yet), the national governments will still have the last word over them, at the point of a gun if necessary.
Hey, Mr. Musk, if you don't do what I tell you to I will shoot you.
Hey, Mr. Heap Big Soldier, if you shoot me I won't be able to give my
people the order that will cause the ten 500 mile diameter rocks that
are heading for your capital to be deflected.
For craps sake, get the numbers right. Read something. Don't speak nonsense.

10 500 mile objects? Name them. Ceres, then what? Calculate the energy to divert
them. Its huuuge. One 500 mile rock, even if it could be moved, is a planet-killer, vastly larger than Chicxulub, or even Vredefort.

For a city-killer, you're talking more about a couple hundred meters diameter.

Even that is impractical to divert at the moment.

Also, the SpaceX Super Heavy BFR booster can get about 50 tons to LEO. The ISS currently weights about 420 tons. You cant launch the ISS in one BFR flight. Stop talking nonsense.

pt
Johnny1A
2019-08-01 04:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
or Jerusalem. They'd be trading off one national government for another. They _might_ be able to find an advantageous state sponsor who wouldn't bother them much...but they'd still be subject to a state.
Until they took over the state.
If they have the power to take over a major state, they don't need to move. If they're weak enough that they need to move, they can't take over a major state.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Furthermore, once space activity starts getting economically and politically important, the national governments are going to reach out into it with military power, just as they do the open ocean, and their resources will dwarf SpaceX or any other private organization for the foreseeable future.
You don't really seem to grasp what's going on. No government on
Earth has "military power" in space or any means to achieve it.
Than SpaceX can't either.


SpaceX
Post by J. Clarke
meanwhile is going to be able to launch an ISS every day if they want
to, which means that potentially they can put enough weapons in space
to destroy anything that a national government tries to put up and
since the national governments are so far behind they may never
actually achieve parity.
Yeah, but reality doesn't work like that. The national governments _won't_ be helplessly far behind. SpaceX won't have the sort of power you're talking about until they've been active in space for _decades_, at least. The chances of them being left alone to build up power while everyone else sits around and does nothing approximates zero.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
So even if they set up an HQ on the Moon or Mars (which is impractical for a long time yet), the national governments will still have the last word over them, at the point of a gun if necessary.
Hey, Mr. Musk, if you don't do what I tell you to I will shoot you.
Hey, Mr. Heap Big Soldier, if you shoot me I won't be able to give my
people the order that will cause the ten 500 mile diameter rocks that
are heading for your capital to be deflected.
At which point one of Mr. Musks own security guys shoots him because he's insane and out of touch with reality and about to get them all killed.

_500 miles_?! Get serious. That's _Ceres_. Nobody's moving anything that big any time in the foreseeable future.

For the foreseeable future, asteroid bombardment means NEAs. We're not talking planet killers, we're talking Dino Killers. The government who sent the soldiers has _years_ to stop the rock, and it's not hard to stop the rock, unless, again, for some peculiar reason everybody sat back and did nothing while our Libertarian Superman spent many years building up massive military infrastructure in space, fortified his selected rock, made sure his own organization was secure from reprisal and solidly supplied, etc.

Not gonna happen.

It would be far, _far_ easier and more practical for our mega-rich megalomaniac to tell the soldier that his agents have planted small nukes in various cities, which will detonate if not regularly stopped. That's not entirely probable, but it's much, _much_ more likely that Mega-Musk moving Ceres.
Gene Wirchenko
2019-08-01 20:32:19 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
Post by Johnny1A
It would be far, _far_ easier and more practical for our mega-rich
megalomaniac to tell the soldier that his agents have planted small
nukes in various cities, which will detonate if not regularly stopped.
That's not entirely probable, but it's much, _much_ more likely that
Mega-Musk moving Ceres.

Since science marches on, why stick with nukes?

Plant anti-matter bombs. Transport would be an issue, but
defusing would be <understatement>difficult</>.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Johnny1A
2019-08-03 03:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
[snip]
Post by Johnny1A
It would be far, _far_ easier and more practical for our mega-rich
megalomaniac to tell the soldier that his agents have planted small
nukes in various cities, which will detonate if not regularly stopped.
That's not entirely probable, but it's much, _much_ more likely that
Mega-Musk moving Ceres.
Since science marches on, why stick with nukes?
Plant anti-matter bombs. Transport would be an issue, but
defusing would be <understatement>difficult</>.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
That's possible as a matte of physics, but the very difficulty of disarmament, and the expense of making antimatter, argue against it. Remember, you _want_ to be able to disarm your weapon yourself if you plan to accept a surrender.

Storage of antimatter weaponry is an issue, too. It's not that hard to design a nuclear bomb (fission or fusion) that fails fairly safe, not detonating easily by accident. Antimatter bombs, though, in a terrene environment, default to detonation if _anything_ goes wrong with containment.
Gene Wirchenko
2019-08-07 05:30:51 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:58:30 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
[snip]
Post by Johnny1A
It would be far, _far_ easier and more practical for our mega-rich
megalomaniac to tell the soldier that his agents have planted small
nukes in various cities, which will detonate if not regularly stopped.
That's not entirely probable, but it's much, _much_ more likely that
Mega-Musk moving Ceres.
Since science marches on, why stick with nukes?
Plant anti-matter bombs. Transport would be an issue, but
defusing would be <understatement>difficult</>.
That's possible as a matte of physics, but the very difficulty of
disarmament, and the expense of making antimatter, argue against it.
Remember, you _want_ to be able to disarm your weapon yourself if you
plan to accept a surrender.

If science is sufficiently advanced, it could be a reactor for
energy production. Multiply-redundant safety protections, etc. To
set off the bomb, turn them all off.
Post by Johnny1A
Storage of antimatter weaponry is an issue, too. It's not that hard
to design a nuclear bomb (fission or fusion) that fails fairly safe,
not detonating easily by accident. Antimatter bombs, though, in a
terrene environment, default to detonation if _anything_ goes wrong
with containment.

Of course. They would only be reliable bombs with appropriately
good containment.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

J. Clarke
2019-08-01 23:46:45 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
or Jerusalem. They'd be trading off one national government for another. They _might_ be able to find an advantageous state sponsor who wouldn't bother them much...but they'd still be subject to a state.
Until they took over the state.
If they have the power to take over a major state, they don't need to move. If they're weak enough that they need to move, they can't take over a major state.
Doesn't have to be a "major state".
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Furthermore, once space activity starts getting economically and politically important, the national governments are going to reach out into it with military power, just as they do the open ocean, and their resources will dwarf SpaceX or any other private organization for the foreseeable future.
You don't really seem to grasp what's going on. No government on
Earth has "military power" in space or any means to achieve it.
Than SpaceX can't either.
And yet they're in the process of doing it.
Post by Johnny1A
SpaceX
Post by J. Clarke
meanwhile is going to be able to launch an ISS every day if they want
to, which means that potentially they can put enough weapons in space
to destroy anything that a national government tries to put up and
since the national governments are so far behind they may never
actually achieve parity.
Yeah, but reality doesn't work like that. The national governments _won't_ be helplessly far behind. SpaceX won't have the sort of power you're talking about until they've been active in space for _decades_, at least. The chances of them being left alone to build up power while everyone else sits around and does nothing approximates zero.
Decades? It took decades for governments, plural, to launch what
SpaceX is going to be able to put up in one launch. Meanwhile,
"governments" are just sitting around with their fingers up their
butts.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
So even if they set up an HQ on the Moon or Mars (which is impractical for a long time yet), the national governments will still have the last word over them, at the point of a gun if necessary.
Hey, Mr. Musk, if you don't do what I tell you to I will shoot you.
Hey, Mr. Heap Big Soldier, if you shoot me I won't be able to give my
people the order that will cause the ten 500 mile diameter rocks that
are heading for your capital to be deflected.
At which point one of Mr. Musks own security guys shoots him because he's insane and out of touch with reality and about to get them all killed.
And so the world ends.
Post by Johnny1A
_500 miles_?! Get serious. That's _Ceres_. Nobody's moving anything that big any time in the foreseeable future.
Would you believe 50? 5 is nasty enough.
Post by Johnny1A
For the foreseeable future, asteroid bombardment means NEAs.
Of which there are several in the dinosaur-killer category.
Post by Johnny1A
We're not talking planet killers, we're talking Dino Killers.
You think humanity could survive one of those? Let alone a dozen?
Post by Johnny1A
The government who sent the soldiers has _years_ to stop the rock, and it's not hard to stop the rock, unless, again, for some peculiar reason everybody sat back and did nothing while our Libertarian Superman spent many years building up massive military infrastructure in space, fortified his selected rock, made sure his own organization was secure from reprisal and solidly supplied, etc.
No superman and who said anything about Libertarian? Just a very
large disparity in technology which governments plural are not going
to see as a threat until it actually threatens them.
Post by Johnny1A
Not gonna happen.
It would be far, _far_ easier and more practical for our mega-rich megalomaniac to tell the soldier that his agents have planted small nukes in various cities, which will detonate if not regularly stopped. That's not entirely probable, but it's much, _much_ more likely that Mega-Musk moving Ceres.
But that just kills a few cities, reduces population, helps with
global warming, and is not really all that much of a threat compared
to a few immense asteroids.
Dimensional Traveler
2019-08-02 02:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
or Jerusalem. They'd be trading off one national government for another. They _might_ be able to find an advantageous state sponsor who wouldn't bother them much...but they'd still be subject to a state.
Until they took over the state.
If they have the power to take over a major state, they don't need to move. If they're weak enough that they need to move, they can't take over a major state.
Doesn't have to be a "major state".
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Furthermore, once space activity starts getting economically and politically important, the national governments are going to reach out into it with military power, just as they do the open ocean, and their resources will dwarf SpaceX or any other private organization for the foreseeable future.
You don't really seem to grasp what's going on. No government on
Earth has "military power" in space or any means to achieve it.
Than SpaceX can't either.
And yet they're in the process of doing it.
Post by Johnny1A
SpaceX
Post by J. Clarke
meanwhile is going to be able to launch an ISS every day if they want
to, which means that potentially they can put enough weapons in space
to destroy anything that a national government tries to put up and
since the national governments are so far behind they may never
actually achieve parity.
Yeah, but reality doesn't work like that. The national governments _won't_ be helplessly far behind. SpaceX won't have the sort of power you're talking about until they've been active in space for _decades_, at least. The chances of them being left alone to build up power while everyone else sits around and does nothing approximates zero.
Decades? It took decades for governments, plural, to launch what
SpaceX is going to be able to put up in one launch. Meanwhile,
"governments" are just sitting around with their fingers up their
butts.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
So even if they set up an HQ on the Moon or Mars (which is impractical for a long time yet), the national governments will still have the last word over them, at the point of a gun if necessary.
Hey, Mr. Musk, if you don't do what I tell you to I will shoot you.
Hey, Mr. Heap Big Soldier, if you shoot me I won't be able to give my
people the order that will cause the ten 500 mile diameter rocks that
are heading for your capital to be deflected.
At which point one of Mr. Musks own security guys shoots him because he's insane and out of touch with reality and about to get them all killed.
And so the world ends.
Post by Johnny1A
_500 miles_?! Get serious. That's _Ceres_. Nobody's moving anything that big any time in the foreseeable future.
Would you believe 50? 5 is nasty enough.
Post by Johnny1A
For the foreseeable future, asteroid bombardment means NEAs.
Of which there are several in the dinosaur-killer category.
Post by Johnny1A
We're not talking planet killers, we're talking Dino Killers.
You think humanity could survive one of those? Let alone a dozen?
Post by Johnny1A
The government who sent the soldiers has _years_ to stop the rock, and it's not hard to stop the rock, unless, again, for some peculiar reason everybody sat back and did nothing while our Libertarian Superman spent many years building up massive military infrastructure in space, fortified his selected rock, made sure his own organization was secure from reprisal and solidly supplied, etc.
No superman and who said anything about Libertarian? Just a very
large disparity in technology which governments plural are not going
to see as a threat until it actually threatens them.
You do realize that the US Government has access to all the patents
filed with the US Patent Office?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
J. Clarke
2019-08-02 10:17:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 19:21:59 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
or Jerusalem. They'd be trading off one national government for another. They _might_ be able to find an advantageous state sponsor who wouldn't bother them much...but they'd still be subject to a state.
Until they took over the state.
If they have the power to take over a major state, they don't need to move. If they're weak enough that they need to move, they can't take over a major state.
Doesn't have to be a "major state".
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Furthermore, once space activity starts getting economically and politically important, the national governments are going to reach out into it with military power, just as they do the open ocean, and their resources will dwarf SpaceX or any other private organization for the foreseeable future.
You don't really seem to grasp what's going on. No government on
Earth has "military power" in space or any means to achieve it.
Than SpaceX can't either.
And yet they're in the process of doing it.
Post by Johnny1A
SpaceX
Post by J. Clarke
meanwhile is going to be able to launch an ISS every day if they want
to, which means that potentially they can put enough weapons in space
to destroy anything that a national government tries to put up and
since the national governments are so far behind they may never
actually achieve parity.
Yeah, but reality doesn't work like that. The national governments _won't_ be helplessly far behind. SpaceX won't have the sort of power you're talking about until they've been active in space for _decades_, at least. The chances of them being left alone to build up power while everyone else sits around and does nothing approximates zero.
Decades? It took decades for governments, plural, to launch what
SpaceX is going to be able to put up in one launch. Meanwhile,
"governments" are just sitting around with their fingers up their
butts.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
So even if they set up an HQ on the Moon or Mars (which is impractical for a long time yet), the national governments will still have the last word over them, at the point of a gun if necessary.
Hey, Mr. Musk, if you don't do what I tell you to I will shoot you.
Hey, Mr. Heap Big Soldier, if you shoot me I won't be able to give my
people the order that will cause the ten 500 mile diameter rocks that
are heading for your capital to be deflected.
At which point one of Mr. Musks own security guys shoots him because he's insane and out of touch with reality and about to get them all killed.
And so the world ends.
Post by Johnny1A
_500 miles_?! Get serious. That's _Ceres_. Nobody's moving anything that big any time in the foreseeable future.
Would you believe 50? 5 is nasty enough.
Post by Johnny1A
For the foreseeable future, asteroid bombardment means NEAs.
Of which there are several in the dinosaur-killer category.
Post by Johnny1A
We're not talking planet killers, we're talking Dino Killers.
You think humanity could survive one of those? Let alone a dozen?
Post by Johnny1A
The government who sent the soldiers has _years_ to stop the rock, and it's not hard to stop the rock, unless, again, for some peculiar reason everybody sat back and did nothing while our Libertarian Superman spent many years building up massive military infrastructure in space, fortified his selected rock, made sure his own organization was secure from reprisal and solidly supplied, etc.
No superman and who said anything about Libertarian? Just a very
large disparity in technology which governments plural are not going
to see as a threat until it actually threatens them.
You do realize that the US Government has access to all the patents
filed with the US Patent Office?
One course at Georgia Tech involved creating a preliminary design for
the ASARCO copper smelter from the patents. We learned a lot about
smelters, copper, and patents in that course. Having the patent
doesn't give you the technology, you still have to do a lot of grunt
work.

So why doesn't NASA have a reusable booster?
Johnny1A
2019-08-03 03:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 19:21:59 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
or Jerusalem. They'd be trading off one national government for another. They _might_ be able to find an advantageous state sponsor who wouldn't bother them much...but they'd still be subject to a state.
Until they took over the state.
If they have the power to take over a major state, they don't need to move. If they're weak enough that they need to move, they can't take over a major state.
Doesn't have to be a "major state".
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Furthermore, once space activity starts getting economically and politically important, the national governments are going to reach out into it with military power, just as they do the open ocean, and their resources will dwarf SpaceX or any other private organization for the foreseeable future.
You don't really seem to grasp what's going on. No government on
Earth has "military power" in space or any means to achieve it.
Than SpaceX can't either.
And yet they're in the process of doing it.
Post by Johnny1A
SpaceX
Post by J. Clarke
meanwhile is going to be able to launch an ISS every day if they want
to, which means that potentially they can put enough weapons in space
to destroy anything that a national government tries to put up and
since the national governments are so far behind they may never
actually achieve parity.
Yeah, but reality doesn't work like that. The national governments _won't_ be helplessly far behind. SpaceX won't have the sort of power you're talking about until they've been active in space for _decades_, at least. The chances of them being left alone to build up power while everyone else sits around and does nothing approximates zero.
Decades? It took decades for governments, plural, to launch what
SpaceX is going to be able to put up in one launch. Meanwhile,
"governments" are just sitting around with their fingers up their
butts.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
So even if they set up an HQ on the Moon or Mars (which is impractical for a long time yet), the national governments will still have the last word over them, at the point of a gun if necessary.
Hey, Mr. Musk, if you don't do what I tell you to I will shoot you.
Hey, Mr. Heap Big Soldier, if you shoot me I won't be able to give my
people the order that will cause the ten 500 mile diameter rocks that
are heading for your capital to be deflected.
At which point one of Mr. Musks own security guys shoots him because he's insane and out of touch with reality and about to get them all killed.
And so the world ends.
Post by Johnny1A
_500 miles_?! Get serious. That's _Ceres_. Nobody's moving anything that big any time in the foreseeable future.
Would you believe 50? 5 is nasty enough.
Post by Johnny1A
For the foreseeable future, asteroid bombardment means NEAs.
Of which there are several in the dinosaur-killer category.
Post by Johnny1A
We're not talking planet killers, we're talking Dino Killers.
You think humanity could survive one of those? Let alone a dozen?
Post by Johnny1A
The government who sent the soldiers has _years_ to stop the rock, and it's not hard to stop the rock, unless, again, for some peculiar reason everybody sat back and did nothing while our Libertarian Superman spent many years building up massive military infrastructure in space, fortified his selected rock, made sure his own organization was secure from reprisal and solidly supplied, etc.
No superman and who said anything about Libertarian? Just a very
large disparity in technology which governments plural are not going
to see as a threat until it actually threatens them.
You do realize that the US Government has access to all the patents
filed with the US Patent Office?
One course at Georgia Tech involved creating a preliminary design for
the ASARCO copper smelter from the patents. We learned a lot about
smelters, copper, and patents in that course. Having the patent
doesn't give you the technology, you still have to do a lot of grunt
work.
So why doesn't NASA have a reusable booster?
Partly because it's _really_ hard, and partly because of political considerations, which would not apply in the scenario of Megamusk and his empty power fantasy.
J. Clarke
2019-08-03 05:55:59 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:59:55 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 19:21:59 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
or Jerusalem. They'd be trading off one national government for another. They _might_ be able to find an advantageous state sponsor who wouldn't bother them much...but they'd still be subject to a state.
Until they took over the state.
If they have the power to take over a major state, they don't need to move. If they're weak enough that they need to move, they can't take over a major state.
Doesn't have to be a "major state".
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Furthermore, once space activity starts getting economically and politically important, the national governments are going to reach out into it with military power, just as they do the open ocean, and their resources will dwarf SpaceX or any other private organization for the foreseeable future.
You don't really seem to grasp what's going on. No government on
Earth has "military power" in space or any means to achieve it.
Than SpaceX can't either.
And yet they're in the process of doing it.
Post by Johnny1A
SpaceX
Post by J. Clarke
meanwhile is going to be able to launch an ISS every day if they want
to, which means that potentially they can put enough weapons in space
to destroy anything that a national government tries to put up and
since the national governments are so far behind they may never
actually achieve parity.
Yeah, but reality doesn't work like that. The national governments _won't_ be helplessly far behind. SpaceX won't have the sort of power you're talking about until they've been active in space for _decades_, at least. The chances of them being left alone to build up power while everyone else sits around and does nothing approximates zero.
Decades? It took decades for governments, plural, to launch what
SpaceX is going to be able to put up in one launch. Meanwhile,
"governments" are just sitting around with their fingers up their
butts.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
So even if they set up an HQ on the Moon or Mars (which is impractical for a long time yet), the national governments will still have the last word over them, at the point of a gun if necessary.
Hey, Mr. Musk, if you don't do what I tell you to I will shoot you.
Hey, Mr. Heap Big Soldier, if you shoot me I won't be able to give my
people the order that will cause the ten 500 mile diameter rocks that
are heading for your capital to be deflected.
At which point one of Mr. Musks own security guys shoots him because he's insane and out of touch with reality and about to get them all killed.
And so the world ends.
Post by Johnny1A
_500 miles_?! Get serious. That's _Ceres_. Nobody's moving anything that big any time in the foreseeable future.
Would you believe 50? 5 is nasty enough.
Post by Johnny1A
For the foreseeable future, asteroid bombardment means NEAs.
Of which there are several in the dinosaur-killer category.
Post by Johnny1A
We're not talking planet killers, we're talking Dino Killers.
You think humanity could survive one of those? Let alone a dozen?
Post by Johnny1A
The government who sent the soldiers has _years_ to stop the rock, and it's not hard to stop the rock, unless, again, for some peculiar reason everybody sat back and did nothing while our Libertarian Superman spent many years building up massive military infrastructure in space, fortified his selected rock, made sure his own organization was secure from reprisal and solidly supplied, etc.
No superman and who said anything about Libertarian? Just a very
large disparity in technology which governments plural are not going
to see as a threat until it actually threatens them.
You do realize that the US Government has access to all the patents
filed with the US Patent Office?
One course at Georgia Tech involved creating a preliminary design for
the ASARCO copper smelter from the patents. We learned a lot about
smelters, copper, and patents in that course. Having the patent
doesn't give you the technology, you still have to do a lot of grunt
work.
So why doesn't NASA have a reusable booster?
Partly because it's _really_ hard,
So you're saying that it is not possible for the government to
replicate SpaceX technology. Because this _really_ hard thing they
have in commercial service now and are working on the second
generation.
Post by Johnny1A
and partly because of political considerations,
What political considerations are those?
Post by Johnny1A
which would not apply in the scenario of Megamusk and his empty power fantasy.
Why would they not? You have this fantasy of an omniscient government
knowing everythin that happens in space. Not gonna happen until they
get their nose rubbed in it and by then it will be too late.
J. Clarke
2019-07-23 01:17:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:35:03 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Space will be controlled by private corporations in the future. SpaceX
and Blue Origin come to mind.
Lynn
Controlled? Not so much. Space is too big to control, for one thing. Specific places and objects will be controlled by specific people, of course.
But in the near and middle term, national governments are going to have the last word.
Do you honestly think that SpaceX is going to listen any Earth
government telling them what do to when they land on Mars in 3 to 4
years ? For instance, will SpaceX file an Environmental Impact Report
with ???
Lynn
Assuming they land on Mars in a few years, you bet they'll listen to whatever national government is in charge of their organization. If they're registered in and based in the USA, at the end of the day the US Government has the last word.
Until the drop a rock on DC.
Johnny1A
2019-07-21 05:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
The history of the ISS does not present a terribly convincing argument for the benefits of international efforts. A serious national effort would probably have been more effective and efficient.

Any international effort immediately runs headlong into issues of who is in charge of what, who benefits from whatever benefits accrue, who has the last word over it, etc. It sounds good on paper, admittedly, at least to people who are naïve about the actual history of idealistic international projects.
James Nicoll
2019-07-21 14:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
The history of the ISS does not present a terribly convincing argument
for the benefits of international efforts. A serious national effort
would probably have been more effective and efficient.
Yeah, I remember the blinding efficiency of the US space station Fred.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Robert Carnegie
2019-07-21 19:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
The history of the ISS does not present a terribly convincing argument for the benefits of international efforts. A serious national effort would probably have been more effective and efficient.
Any international effort immediately runs headlong into issues of who is in charge of what, who benefits from whatever benefits accrue, who has the last word over it, etc. It sounds good on paper, admittedly, at least to people who are naïve about the actual history of idealistic international projects.
What do you actually want a space station to be doing?

This?
<https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KillSat>
m***@sky.com
2019-07-22 18:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Theory suggests that attempts at international collaboration towards a shared goal will suffer greatly from free-riders, especially in the likely case where only one or two nations are really capable of significant effort. Even when united against Nazi Germany there were significant differences between the USSR and the other allies, and within national resistance movements. I would be hard put to it to come up with a significant example of international co-operation. My suspicion is that establishing international rules about the exploitation of space, and especially about the division of the spoils, would deter people from putting any effort into it if much of the reward would end up going to those who did not work towards it. Can anybody come up with historical (or even Science Fictional) examples that would serve as precedents for successful international collaboration to exploit space?
Quadibloc
2019-07-23 01:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Theory suggests that attempts at international collaboration towards a shared
goal will suffer greatly from free-riders, especially in the likely case where
only one or two nations are really capable of significant effort.
That's certainly true in the case of mining magnesium nodules on Earth.

John Savard
Michael F. Stemper
2019-07-23 14:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Treaties were signed long ago to share the territory of outer space. So, instead of national efforts to mine the moon or asteroids, we need a global effort. If we can have an international space station, why can't we have a global base on or near the moon. And this time welcome all nations who are willing to contribute, including China.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Space is our destiny"
Theory suggests that attempts at international collaboration towards a shared goal will suffer greatly from free-riders, especially in the likely case where only one or two nations are really capable of significant effort.
This seems appropriate:
<http://www.columbia.edu/~sss31/rainbow/whose.job.html>
--
Michael F. Stemper
There's no "me" in "team". There's no "us" in "team", either.
Kevrob
2019-07-23 16:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Michael F. Stemper
There's no "me" in "team".
"You can't spell `team' without M and E!" *

There's no "us" in "team", either.

But you can make 'meat" out of it, which
is the way some coaches treat the players. :)


* http://talking-snl.blogspot.com/2018/03/final-space-chapter-five-review.html

Kevin R
Thomas Koenig
2019-07-23 17:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Michael F. Stemper
There's no "me" in "team".
But you can make 'meat" out of it, which
is the way some coaches treat the players. :)
In German, the word "team" is widely understood to be an acronym
for "Toll, ein anderer macht's" (Great, someone else will do it).
Loading...