| Blogs > Kickstart |
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On September 26 2013 08:46 MarlieChurphy wrote: PS- If an alien lands in your backyard and you kill (and eat it), is it murder or hunting? in america or elsewhere? EDIT: that video is the best answer | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On September 26 2013 08:37 Kickstart wrote: You raise a good point. I think what you said is true, but I think that both investors and corporations are thinking too short term in that case. I mean, a corporation as an entity could exist forever, so the only reason that they can't focus that amount of money on space programs is because they can not make a case for there being a return in the near future. I would argue that given enough time corporations would make a ROI, the problem then becomes convincing shareholder's to invest for their future generations and not themselves. Again purely as an illustration, imagine that a company announces that they now have the capability to harvest an asteroid, that company immediately becomes a huge player in the world market and stock prices would go insane. Why? Why would stock prices go insane? Why would that company suddenly become a huge player in the world market? Just because you can get to an asteroid and mine it doesn't mean you'll make any profit, given how expensive it is to simply get there, mine it, and somehow bring the stuff back. Yeah yeah, we hear about there are asteroids loaded with X metal or Y mineral or Z *insert expensive thing*, but that alone doesn't mean shit if the cost of getting the damn thing back here is too high, too dangerous, or too inefficient. I'd bet that with enough money, the tech exists now to shoot a robot drone missile thing to an asteroid, have the rocket land on it, then somehow propel the asteroid in the general direction of Earth. I bet you could do that with enough money, time, and effort. It'd be hideously difficult, insanely expensive, and very likely not worth it, but something like that is probably not out of the realm of possibility for our species and our current level of technology. The problem is raising the level of technology to the point where it becomes feasible for private companies or, in some cases, national governments, to view space exploration as a clearly profitable venture. Until technology makes that possible, space exploration (real space exploration, not shooting something into our own orbit) is nothing more than Neil Degrasse Tyson's wet dream. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
Again though, the purpose of my post was not to argue that space exploration is profitable at the moment, to the contrary I said that it currently isn't and that is why no advances are being made. THAT is the fundamental problem. But there must be something that can be profitable, I want to try and figure out what the possibilities are - because only then will we advance. EDIT: To expand, this is why I said earlier that science and business seem to be at a disconnect as far as space exploration is concerned. If scientists want to make advances in space exploration, they need to begin focusing on objects that are close to us and figuring out ways where a profit can be made. It sounds a bit odd saying that scientists need to be figuring out how to make rich corporations richer, but essentially that is the only thing that will succeed in getting them to explore space. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
It's not "for sale", nor can you just say its yours. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
| ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
Outer space treaty 1967, forbids states from claiming sovereignty. Non government actors must seek approval from their national government, and since the national government is already precluded from owning the moon, a private corporations likely couldn't either. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
If we are going to play out that scenario then a governing body would eventually just have to claim ownership and responsibility. Say the UN. And then they would have to give or deny permission. I think even that system is dumb. But now that we have gotten into this discussion around the laws of space it seems as though the outdated and dumb laws could be a factor in the bigger problem. Perhaps corporations can't figure out a ROI from space exploration because current laws don't allow them the possibility. EDIT: What I mean to say is that if in fact the law is the factor or a major factor in the halt of space exploration, which it seems to be. Then surely that law should be changed. On September 26 2013 10:27 Elegy wrote: My guess would be that when the technology exists to make this profitable, people, states, and corporations will challenge the laws and come to some sort of new agreement. Is that not part of the problem though? Isn't the fact that the laws are/could hamper space exploration reason enough to challenge and change them now? | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
The talk of helium 3 and all that is decades in the making, and there literally is nothing else on the moon. It's useful as a launching pad and docking station for further exploration, that's it. And laws aren't irrelevant. It's a passed and ratified international treaty. My guess would be that when the technology exists to make this profitable, people, states, and corporations will challenge the laws and come to some sort of new agreement. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On September 26 2013 10:22 Kickstart wrote: Again I just think this is an outdated and irrelevant law. Besides it just being dumb to not allow anyone to build or do anything anywhere in space, it would be impossible to enforce at this point in time. If we are going to play out that scenario then a governing body would eventually just have to claim ownership and responsibility. Say the UN. And then they would have to give or deny permission. I think even that system is dumb. But now that we have gotten into this discussion around the laws of space it seems as though the outdated and dumb laws could be a factor in the bigger problem. Perhaps corporations can't figure out a ROI from space exploration because current laws don't allow them the possibility. EDIT: What I mean to say is that if in fact the law is the factor or a major factor in the halt of space exploration, which it seems to be. Then surely that law should be changed. They haven't agreed about Antarctica yet and you want them to give property rights on the moon ? lol | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
On September 26 2013 10:28 Boblion wrote: They haven't agreed about Antarctica yet and you want them to give property rights on the moon ? lol Well from what I gather, the current law and the reasoning behind it is something akin to 'If we cant have it and build on it and use it then no one can have it build on it or use it", causing the worst possible scenario to happen as far as advancement is concerned - nothing. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On September 26 2013 10:22 Kickstart wrote: Again I just think this is an outdated and irrelevant law. Besides it just being dumb to not allow anyone to build or do anything anywhere in space, it would be impossible to enforce at this point in time. If we are going to play out that scenario then a governing body would eventually just have to claim ownership and responsibility. Say the UN. And then they would have to give or deny permission. I think even that system is dumb. But now that we have gotten into this discussion around the laws of space it seems as though the outdated and dumb laws could be a factor in the bigger problem. Perhaps corporations can't figure out a ROI from space exploration because current laws don't allow them the possibility. EDIT: What I mean to say is that if in fact the law is the factor or a major factor in the halt of space exploration, which it seems to be. Then surely that law should be changed. Is that not part of the problem though? Isn't the fact that the laws are/could hamper space exploration reason enough to challenge and change them now? No, because no one fucking wants to do anything on the moon for decades because it's fucking useless for decades to come at the earliest. It gives us tides, that's it. Anything else is a pipe dream. The laws don't matter because if someone cared enough to do something on the moon, they'd already be working with their national governments and the UN to figure out how it works. | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On September 26 2013 10:34 Kickstart wrote: Well from what I gather, the current law and the reasoning behind it is something akin to 'If we cant have it and build on it and use it then no one can have it build on it or use it", causing the worst possible scenario to happen as far as advancement is concerned - nothing. It is not like that (for both space and Antarctica). You can do pretty much whatever you want/can as long as it is related to Science (except militarization/nuclearization) but you can't claim property. There is also a moratorium about commercial mining in Antarctica (gonna be fun in 2041 with the re-negociations :p). And since it is just too expensive on the moon they didn't even bother to ban it (+ there are no seals cubs to protect from evil oil tankers  ). | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
EDIT Finished that article packrat, thanks for linking it. They basically come to the same conclusion that I have - that the only profitable way to colonize space is to allow the colonizers ownership of the land they occupy and use, and that the current laws do in fact seem to be stalling space exploration. So now I guess the question is how does one go about getting the UN to pass new laws on the matter. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On September 26 2013 10:54 Kickstart wrote: From reading the article that packrat386 linked it seems that the general legal consensus is that a private company could colonize space and claim the land around that settlement. Very interesting article so far. Well there are many countries with claims on Antarctica too. Too bad they don't agree with each other | ||
|
electrondude
Germany27 Posts
Regarding space laws i like to add that im keen on the idea of not owning a object in space (including Earth) .Establish a right to use the resources as long as you do so for the benefit of human society . This needs to be easily revoked . This should also apply to the current corporations if i remember correctly this once was the case it the usa but a quick google result yielded no relevant results and its 4 am and i have to sleep at some point | ||
|
Burrfoot
United States1176 Posts
| ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On September 26 2013 10:56 Boblion wrote: Well there are many countries with claims on Antarctica too. Too bad they don't agree with each other yeah boblion, the thing that wasser and jobes would say is that you basically have to repeal the OST, and that it would be adopted by other countries if the US went first because every country that has a space program has an interest in private development. The countries that are interested in keeping space as a so called "common heritage" are those that can't get there themselves (obviously zimbabwe wants a share of the loot since they won't have to pay for the development). If you want a corrolary on earth you should look at the US refusal to sign UNCLOS because it would mean that they would have to share profits from their sea mining operations with countries that couldn't possibly make use of the resource themselves. edit: this is not to say that this is obviously the right choice. I just want to clarify jobes argument in the context of modern I-Law | ||
|
sabreace
United States27 Posts
Therefor the cost cannot be justified by corporations, unless a group of the global super rich decided to fund the recovery understanding that it would be a very long term loss, but increase the standard of living for many people around the world. This is actually why a government is in a better position to fund this specific type of exploration. There would be many difficulties in recovering the materials once an asteroid was held in Near Earth Orbit anyways, so maybe the market price wouldn't be immediately flooded, but long term investors would clearly understand what several billion tons of materials in NEO means for the future prices of those commodities (for a single ~1km diameter asteroid, which is smallish). In space, a single platinum-rich 500 meter wide asteroid contains about 174 times the yearly world output of platinum, and 1.5 times the known world-reserves of platinum group metals (ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, and platinum). This amount is enough to fill a basketball court to four times the height of the rim. By contrast, all of the platinum group metals mined to date in history would not reach waist-high on that same basketball court. From http://www.planetaryresources.com/. I think a governmental funding approach is even more important if the goal is to retrieve water from asteroids, as opposed to minerals. Simply because governments can take on serious debt for the improvement of society, while corporations generally can't. Interesting resource to kinda show what I mean: http://www.asterank.com/ | ||
|
Gowa
France133 Posts
On September 26 2013 11:53 sabreace wrote: A key note on the blog, e.g., how do we fund space exploration, is that it is extremely hard to justify getting an asteroid for its raw materials. This isn't because those raw materials aren't extremely valuable, but rather that you would be reducing the market price of whatever commodities you brought back to the planet by the very act of making those resources available. Therefor the cost cannot be justified by corporations, unless a group of the global super rich decided to fund the recovery understanding that it would be a very long term loss, but increase the standard of living for many people around the world. This is actually why a government is in a better position to fund this specific type of exploration. There would be many difficulties in recovering the materials once an asteroid was held in Near Earth Orbit anyways, so maybe the market price wouldn't be immediately flooded, but long term investors would clearly understand what several billion tons of materials in NEO means for the future prices of those commodities (for a single ~1km diameter asteroid, which is smallish). From http://www.planetaryresources.com/. I think a governmental funding approach is even more important if the goal is to retrieve water from asteroids, as opposed to minerals. Simply because governments can take on serious debt for the improvement of society, while corporations generally can't. Interesting resource to kinda show what I mean: http://www.asterank.com/ Well I understand you don't think it's possible or reasonnable for companies to go around digging asteroids. How do you explain planetary resources then? Do you think it won't work at all? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Safe House 2
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
WardiTV Invitational
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Online Event
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
