Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Brak
Okay, you said that if the US owned the moon back in the 60s it would have provided free grants of land and there would be thriving incipient colonies on the moon now. I am saying that I don't think free grants of land would be enough to start colonies because the high cost of getting to the moon makes it cheaper to buy land on earth. This makes me think that the Outer Space Treaty probably hasn't made a difference in practical terms.
|
Your point is a non sequitur: it's cheaper to buy land in South Dakota than it is in Manhattan; yet Manhattan has a thriving real estate market.
In addition, my conclusion regarding the status of hypothetical Moon colonies was a wargaming of the highly implausible and artificial scenario
you devised where the rest of the world willingly handed over the Moon to the US "as a present". It could have turned out differently if the OST was never signed and the USSR decided to continue the space race and challenge US dominance of the Moon.
Moreover, you still ignore my point regarding the Saturn V lawn ornaments. I think the historical record is quite clear that they were contracted out during pre-OST space race; once the OST put an end to the space race, the Saturn V's were retired because the strategic goals they were intended to achieve were rendered moot by the OST.
If you have an explanation as to why the retirement of three perfectly fine Saturn V boosters as a result of the OST was not a hindrance to space exploration, I would love to hear it.