From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Jul 14 2002 - 12:28:04 MDT
Adrian Tymes wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>> I think the motivation will occur when China proves it is serious
>> about building a base on the moon. We are not so asleep that we will
>> allow the "high ground" to slip out of our grasp. Of course first we
>> will perform the sickening maneuver of attempting to forbid anyone
>> from acheiving such bases forever. It has already begun.
>
> So long as China does not actively attack US interests - which it has
> done a good job of so far (despite its constant threats against Taiwan)
> - there is no pretext to attack Chinese assets in space. Without such a
Who said anything about "attack"? Not I. We will compete to
acquire equal or better space resources when goaded by China or
another country or organization into doing so. There is no
reason to attack.
> pretext, and with the current set of international treaties, the US
> government knows that to attack in that manner is to risk counterattack
> by nothing less than the entire rest of the world - Europe and Canada
> included - for the crime of being the ultimate rogue nation. We are not
> (yet) such a superpower that the entire rest of the world, banded
> together, could not take us down...though it would be messy.
I doubt they could do so. However, there is no reason to find
out and I was not suggesting any sort of war in space. Also,
several groups are attempting to prohibit the commercial and/or
military exploitation of space. I believe they are a far
greater danger. If this goes through then you will see attacks,
legal and even military on space and ground based assets of
those attempting to explore and exploit space. That would be
horrible indeed.
>>
>> I don't want a ticket to the moon. I want a ticket to exploiting
>> space resources in a way that is as quickly as possible highly
>> profitable and capable of sustainable growth. Just going to the moon
>> doesn't look to me like the best way to do that right now.
>
>
>
> That was an example. The nearest of the near Earth asteroids you speak
> of are approximately similar delta-v to reach...and the Moon is always
> there; you don't have to wait for its approach then launch at just the
> right time. Besides, there are a number of ways one could exploit lunar
> resources for profit (many involving building structures, using lunar
> material, that would sit on the Moon while in use).
>
Similar delta-V at some points yes but less gravity well at the
destination and better selection of metals, organics and
volatiles arguably more easily exploitable. There is no reason
to put all our space eggs in one or the other basket of course.
>>> Again, motivation. For all the rhetoric, there is far less perceived
>>> danger of war with China among the voting public than there was with the
>>> USSR. Sure, China makes all kinds of bolsterous public threats - but
>>
>>
>> That isn't the point is it? If there is massive wealth to be had,
>> much less large strategic advantages, the US and Europe cannot be
>> caught napping while China gets first dibs. As long as no country or
>> organization is making a credible bid on space we have little pressure
>> to ante up.
> Ah, ah. Note I was very careful to distinguish the US *government* in
> the above. The US is far from a single, monolithic entity, and Europe
> likewise. The massive wealth will go to the exploiters; if the US
> government does not itself exploit, but leaves that to the private
> sector, then the benefit is not that different than if the private
> sector of a different, but allied, country did so - but that other
> country's government covered the costs.
>
The distinction between government and private is not imo
crucial here. Stretegically, the US will not be left behind if
space is seen as seriously profitable and strategic. It will
seek to catch up with and surpass any serious space contender.
That includes US and multinational commertcial interests also.
It is not the job of the US government to exploit space
resources, at least not for other than military uses. I don't
at this time believe it is necessary that any government cover
the cost. It can be done that way but it has proven problematic.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:26 MST