Quote:
Originally Posted by djellison
Did we need a whole new thread for Warren's tirade against the OST and NASA in general?
|
Hey! I've got nothing against NASA; it's not their fault that they aren't properly funded.
As for the OST, the other thread was about whether the OST has historically been a drag on space exploration, and whether it might continue to be in the future.
In this thread, I was hoping to solicit comments more on the legalese aspects of the Outer Space Treaty, and on Alan Wasser's and the Space Settlement Institute's plan, in particular, to get around the OST by having the United States recognize Alaska-sized chunks surrounding a privately financed, permanently manned lunar station. While I admire Mr. Wasser's scholarship with regard to the Johnson administration's reasons behind backing the OST, I think maybe he's overreaching a bit with his private property rights recognition plan, and that a better strategy would be to amend the OST, withdraw from the OST, or redraft a new Moon Treaty that would accomplish his essential goals.
I'm working on a "Grand Compromise"--a proposal for a new treaty that will form a chapter of my neverending thesis--that will provide incentives for lunar settlement, allow for claims of national sovereignty over portions of the Moon, yet keep the Moon from being entirely claimed by one nation-state, instilling healthy competition, while reducing the chances for arms races and armed conflict, yet keep the UN relevant that I'm not quite ready to unveil at the moment. So I'm just fishing for some more ideas for now.
Besides, there's nothing else going on in the Space Exploration section. Just trying to help out and get something going. Sorry if it's boring.