Community > Forum > The Spaceflight Cafe > Space Exploration Timetable?

Space Exploration Timetable?

Posted by: Texan - Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:16 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 116 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Space Exploration Timetable? 
Author Message
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Indianapolis
Post    Posted on: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:07 pm
Sigurd wrote:
Texan wrote:
I think that will be before 2060

From the moment a woman and a man.. are on the moon or mars.. without the posibility to return directly to earth.. this will hapen.. so yes before 2060 would be possible. (in my opinion)

Humm.. can we call people outside our earth.. aliens ?(outsiders) :lol: ( :shock: I've seen aliens......... in the International Space Station 8) )
HUmm, "abducted by aliens".. will become possible :p

They will be citizens of the planet Earth then and should be entitled to citizenship in any country they desire.

_________________
www.theshiversmusic.com


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 03, 2004 11:41 am
Hello, Sigurd,

sorry but I didn't notice your question before roygrif quoted it.

The correct criterion for being an alien or not cannot be the planet someone was born on - the correct criterion only could be whom he is stemming from genetically and on what planet has born that kind of being. Because of this a man born on another planet or on the moon never will be an alien on earth. Even if there are genetic mutations due to the planet his parents were living on this being won't be an alien but only a new species stemming from earth but only formed by genetic mutations, I think.

Hello, roygrif,

your answer seems to be of jurisprudential and political nature. If people settle on moon we have to ask what laws are to be considered valid there. If all the people settling in one village or colony on the moon are US citizens american law may be valid. But if these people are from different countries people like Texan only might know the answer. But the question perhaps is as difficult and tricky that the governments, the politicians, the diplomats would have to discuss it (but not the UN if there people of only a couple of different countries).

But when the colony is growing and the inhabitants are counting by millions they may decide to be a country of their own with parliament, government, laws etc. hat will work only if they have the ressources to survive at a level of connections to earth below that provided by being a part of another country. If it works really and they decide to do so they are citizens of that country and have to be considered like the US are considering citizens of Germany for example: foreigners.

This is a question of interplanetary politics and it is including the theoretical possibility of war between a country on mars and another country on earth... No idea hwat such a war might go on and look like.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Indianapolis
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 03, 2004 4:25 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
Hello, Sigurd,

sorry but I didn't notice your question before roygrif quoted it.

The correct criterion for being an alien or not cannot be the planet someone was born on - the correct criterion only could be whom he is stemming from genetically and on what planet has born that kind of being. Because of this a man born on another planet or on the moon never will be an alien on earth. Even if there are genetic mutations due to the planet his parents were living on this being won't be an alien but only a new species stemming from earth but only formed by genetic mutations, I think.

Hello, roygrif,

your answer seems to be of jurisprudential and political nature. If people settle on moon we have to ask what laws are to be considered valid there. If all the people settling in one village or colony on the moon are US citizens american law may be valid. But if these people are from different countries people like Texan only might know the answer. But the question perhaps is as difficult and tricky that the governments, the politicians, the diplomats would have to discuss it (but not the UN if there people of only a couple of different countries).

But when the colony is growing and the inhabitants are counting by millions they may decide to be a country of their own with parliament, government, laws etc. hat will work only if they have the ressources to survive at a level of connections to earth below that provided by being a part of another country. If it works really and they decide to do so they are citizens of that country and have to be considered like the US are considering citizens of Germany for example: foreigners.

This is a question of interplanetary politics and it is including the theoretical possibility of war between a country on mars and another country on earth... No idea hwat such a war might go on and look like.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Hello Ekkehard,

To be frank, I think the whole division of our planets into countries is an outdated notion. A human should be allowed to select the country he/she desires to reside in. As long as they pay taxes to that country, that is.

_________________
www.theshiversmusic.com


Back to top
Profile
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 2:10 am
Posts: 12
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Post    Posted on: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:22 am
Relating to the original topic in the first page....

I wonder what will become of my approx ~2,700 acres of lunar property that I purchased as a fun joke in 2001 :) but could I be sitting on a surprise for year 2050 if it all proves legitimate at the end?

Oh, and the earlier Mars prediction -- My guess is year 2048. (I hope much sooner, though)

_________________
Thanks,
Mark Rejhon
http://www.marky.com


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Wed Aug 04, 2004 11:09 am
Hello, roygrif,

you're totally right.

But dividing the earth into countries is required by organizational problems - it's not a division but a decentralization. The European Union for example has removed totally man or all checks and controles of persons at the boarders within the EU by the Schengen Treaty. But the EU remains divided into countries because of decentralized administration. People living within the EU can live at that place within the EU they want.

The creation of the EU is to a certain degree suspected to create a mighty central administration too and this possible central administration is suspected to prove to be far too illiberal.

Division of the planet into countries in the sense of decentralization is providing freedom and democracy. That's not simply plain theory but historical experience over centuries and may partly be explained by Economics.

So "division" of our planet is required - division of other planets in a far future too if millions von people will be living there that time.



Hello, Mark Rejhon,

there will be no problem concerning your lunar property I think - no problem following from the things I said. The reasons:

1. There are no people living at the moon today.
2. On earth there is foreign ownership of houses etc.
3. When in the near past new countries have rised such jurisprudential questions have been handled carefully.

All this will work concerning the moon too.



That all is are quite interesting thing.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:29 pm
Posts: 40
Post    Posted on: Thu Aug 05, 2004 5:29 am
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
Hello, Mark Rejhon,
there will be no problem concerning your lunar property I think - no problem following from the things I said. The reasons:

...

All this will work concerning the moon too.


None of that applies in space. See The UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967 which is ratified by almost every nation on earth. It says that no nation is allowed to own any planet or body outside of the earth, with no exceptions. The guy who Mark purchased his property from is a con-man who claims that he owns the entire solar system simply because there is no explicit treaty prohibiting him. By his logic he owns the entire universe outside of Earth. Of course he's smart enough just to pull this stunt for the moon so this doesn't look as insane as it is. It's hilarious and sad that this guy has swindled so many people out of their money.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:43 am
Hello, Furious Broccoli,

you're right. But ownership of a "planet or body outside the earth" is different from ownership of something brought there from earth and it's different from ownership of things made of soil, stones etc. found on the other planet.

There's another special difference too - ownership of a planet not to be allowed doesn't mean that it is not allowed to live there, to settle there or to use it.

What Mark has purchased might be or will be the privilege to live at his place on the moon, to settle at that place exactly and not at another place on moon and to make use of this special place.

It's all a question of Property Rights - in the sense of Economics as well as in the sense of law.

So if many people will have purchased what Mark has purchased and what really isn't forbidden to purchase by the Treaty they one day might decide to be a country like the US, the UK, France etc. This will be a country on the moon or a planet with its own laws, government, parliament, army etc. - a country having nothing to do with any country on earth. So the treaty won't be broken because the planet or the moon won't be owned by an earthian nation.

I have read that these questions are considered open - no solution is known (I don't know wether I still have the article). But they are not relevant yet - the Treaty might be modified if they bécome urgent. Think of the plans to create permanent stations at the moon at least by China and the US and the plan to create later a permanent station at the Mars too.

I don't remember this moment wether you are lawyer or so but it would be interesting what Texan may say from the point of laws and treaties.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:44 pm
Mark Rejhon wrote:
Relating to the original topic in the first page....

I wonder what will become of my approx ~2,700 acres of lunar property that I purchased as a fun joke in 2001 :) but could I be sitting on a surprise for year 2050 if it all proves legitimate at the end?

Oh, and the earlier Mars prediction -- My guess is year 2048. (I hope much sooner, though)


I would seriously doubt that your 2,700 acres will ever be worth more than novelty value.

I did read an interesting opinion piece recently that stated that one of the reasons why many South American economies lack the stability and growth potential is due largely in part to the lack of private property rights. Without those rights people who do not and can not own their own homes/property can't take out small business loans against that property and supposedly that hampers a lot of the economies there. To be honest I've no idea which countries in particular the guy was talking about but it certainly seemed to be an interesting concept.

I really think that all the politicians will simply continue to basically ignore this issue until the time when people actually start moving out to these places and start claiming them. I think it's going to be a real nuisance to the US since there's a good chance that many of the early colonists will be US citizens and the US will not be able to collect any taxes on those colonies without claiming sovereignty over those colonies. Now that I'm sure will annoy politicians.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Aug 05, 2004 1:56 pm
Hello, TJ,

you're right - it's a question of property rights.

And the Treaty Furious Broccoli is arguing by will be valid but only as far as it doesn't hurt a constitution. If a constitution is protecting property the government of the country having that constitution cannot and will not take away property from its citizens these have in foreign countries.

So - is the moon a foreign country? Very difficult question I think - because the Treaty is to be interpreted.

That parts of the Treaty concerning ownership of acres on the moon might be valid in some countries but in others they may be invalid -bacuse of the constitutions.

And is ownership of acres on the moon ownership of the moon itself or comparable to? A difficulte question too.

There might be some jurisprudential chaos and logical contradictions...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
User avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:09 pm
Posts: 37
Location: Belgium (Europe)
Post    Posted on: Thu Aug 05, 2004 4:30 pm
No one can tell for sure what future evolution will look like.
Back in the Apollo era, people were speculating that the first permanent moonbase would be less than 5 or 10 years away ... and then NASA4s budget was cut and we never went to the moon again after Apollo 17.

A 100 years ago, some prizes and a few enthousiast launched the aviation business. No-one could predict early 1900's the 747 or the A380 or a White knight + SpaceShipOne.

On short term, I don't think there will be many space-tourist willing to pay several tenthousands of $ for just a space-hop in a SS1 or alike. But if prices drop drastically ...
An "SS2" or "SS3" going to orbit is already a completely different thing. Such a spacecraft would also be able to launch and maybe retrieve (small) satelites. That would mean business and consequently an acceleration of technologic developments !


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:29 pm
Posts: 40
Post    Posted on: Fri Aug 06, 2004 4:26 am
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
you're right. But ownership of a "planet or body outside the earth" is different from ownership of something brought there from earth and it's different from ownership of things made of soil, stones etc. found on the other planet


Eh? Bought off who? Who has the right to sell people planets in this universe. Nobody, that's just silly.

"but only as far as it doesn't hurt a constitution"

This is wrong. The UN treaty overrides any national laws or policy, that's the point of the UN, it's international backed by the threat of sanctions, military action, etc. There'd be no point in countries signing it if they didn't have to comply, or if they didn't want to comply! This treaty is no minor thing, it has the full backing of the US, Russia, China, and Europe.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Aug 06, 2004 7:31 am
Governments are bound to the constitutions of their countries. These constitutions are declaring partly what the goervmants mustn't do and in concrete they partly declare that the government mustn't agree to special parts of treaties.

There's a concrete example - when the Federal Government of Germany under chancellor Helmut Kohl closed the Masstricht II Treaties forming the EU and especially the Euro as new currency some representatives went to the Federal Constitutional Court ("Bundesverfassungsgericht"). While the Court was working and thinking on the case the Federal Parliament ("Deutscher Bundestag") ratified the Maastricht II Treaties but the Federal President was urgently advised not to sign the act ratifying the Treaties. Then the Federal Constitutional Court decided that the government didn't hurt the constitution BUT mustn't found a new european country like the USA or so without electional agreement of the citizens - it has to do a plebiscite. Otherwise the constitution ("Grundgesetz") were hurt and the new country won't be valid in Germany.

The UN Treaty cannot override any constitution by itself - it only can be made part of a country's laws but this only if the law making it this part doesn't hurt the country's constitution.

Concerning the ownership of planets and moons and other bodies in space it has to be taken into account the sense of the UN. First the UN have political purposes and second especially the UN originally are founded to prevent wars and conquests - especially conquests of a country's territory by another country.

If this sense is taken into account the treaty means that no country mustn't extend its territory by claiming ownership of a planet etc.. To do so might give that country military advantages over other countries and make the other planet subject to abuse the way.

Claiming ownership of a planet by a country means that the country claims a PUBLIC property right at that planet. This might be that what is really subject to the UN Treaty and this seems to be allowed by the constitutions of the signing countries. But then the Treaty doesn't have anything to do with PRIVATE property rights concerning very small parts of a planet.

The UN Treaty is only an agreement between governments representing their countries - nothing more.

But the best might be, if Texan and other lawyers etc. would explain it from the sight of constitutions and laws.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:29 pm
Posts: 40
Post    Posted on: Fri Aug 06, 2004 8:27 pm
"But then the Treaty doesn't have anything to do with PRIVATE property rights concerning very small parts of a planet"

There is no law giving individuals the right to own planets. Absence of a law against ownership is not entitlement to such ownership.

Let's say you interpret the law as not *prohibiting* land ownership, and we assume there is *not* a new UN resolution put in place in the future preventing private ownership. We are then left with a law-less scenario. You can only appropriate land so far as you can defend it. Wild West laws apply here, if you can setup a base and keep people out, then it's yours.

However, as far as this nutter selling moon goes, he can't legally stop me from claiming his land as my own, since there is no court of jurisdiction. Therefore buying land has absolutely no worth because there's no law to enforce such owernship.


Back to top
Profile
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 2:10 am
Posts: 12
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Post    Posted on: Fri Aug 06, 2004 9:09 pm
Possible 21st-century-timeframe scenario:

- XPrize leads to other space prizes (XPrize II, etc) for improved goals; NASA also holds smaller side contests
- XXth richest man in the world sets a $100M prize for a private orbital space vehicle
- Over saturation of market for private space vehicles leads to temporary stagnation of private space program
- NASA lands on the moon in a renewed moon space program, apparently in a spot suspiciously in an area mostly owned by USA people that are members of the current ruling party. (Apparently NASA contacted Lunar Embassy just for fun, just to avoid landing in property so-called "owned" by controversial people) People ask questions, but are ignored. NASA denies contacting Lunar Embassy. Lunar Embassy promotes this like crazy that this implies de facto acceptance. People shrug their arms, a fact of left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
- Meanwhile, Space elevator tests started, with mixed success (Murphy's Law) using nanotube ribbon hung from mammoth stratosphere balloons.
- Privatization of space exploration follows successful sub-$100M private orbital space program; small private inflatable space station tests follow
- Meanwhile, China lands on the Moon at a fraction of the price of a Space Shuttle program
- Improved and cheaper composites make an amazing comeback to the space program, after the failure of X-33, making SSTO possible again for cheap
- Mars gets visited by NASA, while private space entrepreneurs find a way to go to the moon for cheap
- First private manned moon lander developed, assembled in orbit by cheap private cargo vehcles and private manned launchers.
- Meanwhile, construction on actual space elevator is finally started, resolving most of past elevator test problems, but runs into several setbacks due to Murphy's Law and unforseen problems. Construction is delayed for a few years.
- A few hundred people partner with Lunar Embassy contributing a few million dollars, for the first private moon visitor to help stake their moon territory by staking a few flags in some of the territories, massive publicity ensues
- United Nations covers this for the first time, USA, and many world governments in debates and arguments about legality of Lunar Embassy.
- The first Lunar Embassy claims lawsuit is also launched by a major moon-property "owner", setting the ball in motion for a controversial legal precedent.

This may take 100 years, this may take 30 years. But you can see where this could be going. After all, Lunar Embassy has been nearly uncontested for over 20 years.

As it stands now, it's a novelty, a gimmick, but one wonders... It's a longshot, like a lottery, but it seems like the odds are no longer zero like many people thought it was. People are talking, scratching their heads. Even a USA party (...the Republicians, what else....) gave an award to them, which means one of the two parties of the USA government hints to to be willing to, possibly, back Lunar Embassy in the future.

At the moment, it's a gimmick. Who knows?

_________________
Thanks,
Mark Rejhon
http://www.marky.com


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:29 pm
Posts: 40
Post    Posted on: Sun Aug 08, 2004 4:51 pm
It is perhaps the most stupid thing I've ever heard, that some retired actor has the right to sell to us our solar system simply because he sets up a shop first. That flies in the face of every bit of democracy that exists in this world, and you're already living on the Moon if you think any nation on this Earth is or even could endorse him.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use