Now I see why you like the OST so much; because it certainly is very pro-everybody; leaving those who would scrap the OST in the uncomfortable position of being anti-humankind, beyond the pale, hardly worth responding to.

But I ask again: Why should "the betterment of humankind" be even a goal of space exploration, let alone the primary goal of space exploration? I suppose a case could be made that "the betterment of humankind" should be a consideration of government sponsored efforts. But the very idea that the betterment of humankind should be a goal of private efforts is incoherent. It it the job of private companies to make a profit--if humankind benefits as a result, so much the better--but that is a side effect, and not the primary purpose of the company. Even so-called nonprofit NGO's soon go broke and disappear if they can't take in at least as much money as they spend.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin

That's a compelling argument, and one I wholeheartedly agree with as far as it goes, but to take the flipside of that: a private entity that takes more from the rest of us than it gives back, and causes more damage than good, is a threat to humanity as a whole, and should not be tolerated, although i suspect many are. So a private space company must be seen to benifit humanity at least as much as it is detrimental to it, or it will come under threat from the rest of humanity. A part of capitalist teachings is that market forces can and should be a benifit to humanity, by driving progress. The 'betterment of humankind' should be a goal of a private space industry, even though it shouldn't be the goal.

__________________
For me it's enough for the garden to be beautifull; why do so many want to see fairies at the bottom?

Ok, a few more words on this 'discussion'.

Jetlack and Warren have already preconceived views on what the OST should be like. They don´t want to discuss. They want inconditional adhesion to their views. It´s clear by the way they mangle the meaning of the posts here, besides the rather childish "us versus them" approach.

There can be none who´s more pro-American than I [a Brazilian citizen] am. It is disturbing how they play down the concept of 'cooperation', since the US will have to rely on Russians ships to deliver people and goods to the ISS from 2010 to an indetermined date [hopefully 2015].

And finally there´s the fact the the OST is very healthy and will enjoy a long life, as far as we can see. It can only be improved. Get over it.

__________________
"As truth is gathered, I rearrange,
Inside out, outside in - Perpetual change." - A British rock band

If you look at what I've written you'll see that I haven't said I like the Outer Space Treaty. But I have asked for clarification of your point. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but your position seems to be that the treaty is a bad thing because it stopped the United States from doing something that it didn't want to do. I conclude this because the United States didn't do it. The only thing the treaty has stopped the US from doing with reguards to space is putting atomic bombs and weapons of mass destruction in space. There is nothing in it that would have stopped the US from giving NASA seven times the budget it currently has, building space stations, moon bases, sending out probes or putting people on mars.

And since it's been brought up, I will mention that, all things being equal, I personally would prefer not to have nuclear missiles in orbit aimed at me.

I would say that in the long term, Antarctic Treaty has hindered scientific exploration of Antarctica. With no private settlements and no private economic activity in Antarctica, absolutely everything needed by scietific research outposts -- food, fuel, medicines, tools, building mateiral, furniture, machine parts, paper, dishes, even condoms, -- must be bought from large suppliers thousands of miles away, all of whom got government contracts with little or no competition, and can generally set their own prices. Compare that with situation in, for example, Alaska which has extensive mining, logging, and fishing industry, and a sizeable population unconnected with scientific research. All supplies I mentioned are being brought to Alaska (and some are manufactured there) for the benefit of this permanent population, through usual network of competing suppliers. Consequently, it is enormously cheaper to run a meteorology station in Alaska than an identical meteorology station in Antarctica. If Antarctic station runs low on six-inch screws they have to place an order for the next flight out of New Zealand with specific hardware supplier. By the time these screws arrive, they are very expensive screws indeed. If meteorology station on northern shore of Alaska runs out of six-inch screws, they take a Snowcat and drive to Barrow, or Wainwright, or some other local port, and go to a hardware store. Still expensive compared to a visit to local Home Depot, but nothing like Antarctica -- because that hardware store, and the gas station where you refuel the Snowcat exist mainly to serve the population, not the outpost, and are subject to laws of supply and demand.

Paradoxically, you can do more science in settled, or at least "exploited" places, than in "pristine" ones. And treaties like Antarctic and OST, meant to keep places pristine, ultimately hinder science by making private settlement and exploitation more difficult or outright impossible.

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

Argos,

"Jetlack and Warren have already preconceived views on what the OST should be like. They don´t want to discuss. They want inconditional adhesion to their views. It´s clear by the way they mangle the meaning of the posts here, besides the rather childish "us versus them" approach"

I think that's a bit unfair, and it's not all one-way traffic in regards to pre-conceived ideas. I don't mind admitting that i have some basic preconceived ideas about how i think the universe should be ordered, rightly or wrongly. But you do too. Your first input into this discussion about the OST was a comment about a "level playing field" which smacks of marxist ideology.

"There can be none who´s more pro-American than I [a Brazilian citizen] am. It is disturbing how they play down the concept of 'cooperation', since the US will have to rely on Russians ships to deliver people and goods to the ISS from 2010 to an indetermined date [hopefully 2015]."

I was never questioning your view of the US. However I think you devalue the co-operative spirit of the US. The US is probably the most active nation in the world in concerns to joint ventures with other nations or organisations. Most of the global orgs such as UN, IMF, WTO etc would not function if the US was not a co-operative participant.

Its also natural that the US would be nervous about the current predicament in regards to the Shuttle mothballing. Space, whether we like it or not, is a highly important strategic environment. But the fact alone that they indeed have placed themsleves in the hands of the Russian - much to the annoyance of many - proves they are co-operative.

The OST is a totally different issue and far beyond this idea of co-operation in space.

Jetlack, enough of ping-pong. Bring me evidences that the OST is hindering space exploration and then we can really discuss. All you´re doing here is displaying your ideological views. The evidence that space exploration is progressing [in spite of budget limitations in the several space programs around the world] is very clear. Give one concrete case in which the treaty has shown itself to be a hindrance.

I admit it is a hindrance to those who want to put WMD´s in space, but, just like me, I bet you don´t want it too, do you?

And please don´t call me Marxist. I gave you no reason for it, and you dont´know me deep enough to make such assertions.

__________________
"As truth is gathered, I rearrange,
Inside out, outside in - Perpetual change." - A British rock band

I do not believe OST has been a hindrance yet. I am not sure it has been much of a help -- militarily there is really very little reason to place nuclear weapons in orbit, while placing them on the Moon is downright stupid (sorry Heinlein, you were wrong) -- something that was not at all obvious in 1963. So while I am glad we do not have WMD's in space, this may have more to do with tactical usefulness (or lack thereof) than with OST. Still, I do not see any space activity that failed to materialize over last 40 years because of OST.

In the future, however, if OST prevents private development (impossible without private ownership) in space the same way Antarctic Treaty prevented private development in Antarctica, then yes, OST will become a hindrance on space exploration.

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

One area where treaties like the Outer Space Treaty and the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST - wonderful acronym) can hinder development is the attitude that we're free to take the risks and spend the money necessary to accomplish something and then everyone has a claim on profits (but no liability for any losses). It's a classic, "heads I win, tails you lose" attitude that means no one is likely to invest in these efforts because there is nothing to gain from it.

Every time I read the Outer Space Treaty, it reminds me of a portion of Aaron Copeland's Lincoln Portrait that was drawn from the Lincoln-Douglas debates:

He said: "It is the eternal struggle between two principles, right and wrong, throughout the world. It is the same spirit that says 'you toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation, and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle." [Lincoln-Douglas debates, 15 October 1858]

Jetlack and I are as open-minded as anyone. It's just that the counterarguments that you and Ronald Brak have deployed are rather "thin"--there's little explanation, and so you shouldn't be dismayed if we misconstrue what you're trying to say. You want a level playing field, but so do we. It's just that our version of a level playing field is "first come, first serve". That's the fair way to handle customers at a restaurant, isn't it? But apparently, that's not what you had in mind. Yet you claim you don't believe in socialism, either. So what do you think is the fair way to promote space exploration?

Even if the US attempted to claim the entire Moon, it wouldn't mean the end of international cooperation. As for relying on Russians for transportation to the ISS, as I've said before, they can have it. For free! They've got this space tourism thing going. Well, let's cooperate with the Russians by letting them have the ISS for the first space hotel in world history. How's that for cooperation? And then the US will build a new one from scratch, using all the knowledge we gained from the first attempt, in an orbit that's actually useful.
The Outer Space Treaty is a fact; and while I agree that it can be improved if revised drastically enough, the still-born Moon Treaty proves that the OST can be made worse. . . . As for the OST enjoying a long life, believe me, this thread is far from the first criticism of the Outer Space Treaty made by a disaffected American.

And what is your evidence that the Outer Space Treaty is "healthy"? Because I have evidence that it is not: China Criticized for Anti-Satellite Missile Test:
Causing such debris clouds is a direct violation of Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty. Yet the treaty did not prevent the Chinese, who have signed and ratified the treaty, from violating the treaty. Moreover, the United Nations has not lifted a finger to sanction China for violating the Outer Space Treaty. A treaty that is not followed and not enforced is no treaty at all.

Also, I have pointed out more than once that the Outer Space Treaty, by removing the possibility of massive land grants, such as were used to motivate the first transcontinental railroads in the US, removes a powerful incentive for private companies to build infrastructure for going to the Moon.

So before asking for yet more evidence, perhaps you could comment on the evidence that has already been presented.
Evidence has been presented on how the Outer Space Treaty has slowed space exploration. In the first post I summarized three references that showed that the OST allowed the US to cut NASA's budget to the bone in order to free up cash for the Vietnam War. Moreover, I myself created a small spreadsheet that compared the pre-OST NASA budget as a percentage of US GDP with today's NASA budget. It was also pointed out that the Soviet Union's space budget was also cut as a result of signing the OST. The US had at least three Saturn V rockets that were built for Moon missions; yet they were not used because ratifying the OST eliminated the primary reason for going to the Moon (and it wasn't science--otherwise they would have sent the last three Saturn V's at least).
[/quote]

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin

Thanks for the link, Larry. I listened to it. Very inspiring!

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin

So we should get rid of the law because someone has broken the law?

The OST is the only guarantee that space exploration will have an order. Exceptions can be dealt with. Space is a common asset for mankind and the benefits of the exploration are intangible. There´s no need for sovereignty or leadership. Think of the OST as something like the antitrust agencies. The alternative to the OST is chaos and conflict [and your own example, the anti-missile test carried out by China, indicates that]. Is it really so hard to see that?

Ilya and Larry raise interesting points. Is there a possibility that the OST could become a hindrance to certain aspects of the space exploration in the future? Yes, maybe. But nothing that can´t be solved with good will. Could it be improved to accomodate new [excuse the term] 'paradigms'? Yes. Has it constituted a hindrance to space exploration to date? No.

If relatively poor nations like China and India have done remarkable feats in space, then there must be something wrong with the way the US funds its space program, and the Treaty is not to take the blame. The field is leveled.

__________________
"As truth is gathered, I rearrange,
Inside out, outside in - Perpetual change." - A British rock band

Now you're playing games: you said "ditto what Argos said", and Argos said he's pro-OST.

No, the OST is bad because it was the brainchild of a few unelected officials who gave away America's birthright in order to achieve short-term political ends that are now ancient history.Sure it has--it removed any incentive for the US to do any of those things, as well as remove the threat that some other, possibly totalitarian state would be able to claim the Moon as their sovereign territory.

Don't you get it? Under the OST, the only reason for going to the Moon is science--mere science. And that's a hard sell--even for one tenth of one percent of the US GDP.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin

Wait, what? Unrestricted, isolationist, imperialistic exploration, exploitation, and domination of LEO is America's birthright?

"Hi there! We're America! You might not find it in our Constitution anywhere, but the fact is that ever since we first got started as a nation-state in 1776, space has belonged to us! All of it! For military uses, too! Especially for military uses! We deserve it! We've earned it! And even if we hadn't earned it, we'd be entitled to it anyway! Just because! It's our birthright! France got some decent wine country. Britain got Winston Churchill. India got Mahatma Ghandi and that really cool Elephant-headed God. Japan got the katana. Russia got, well, the Russians got Russia. And we Americans get America--the lower forty-eight, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, Low Earth Orbit, the Moon, Mars, and all the rest of it! We might even get Antarctica, too, but we'll let you squat there for a while yet. Have a nice day!"

"Law, without force, is impotent." - Pascal
Order for order's sake isn't necessarily a good thing, (e.g., __________, __________, _________, etc.)

Argos you have finally hit the nail on the head! The Outer Space Treaty ensures that the benefits of space exploration will remain intangible.

Technically, a strict reading of the OST is that it ought to apply to Earth as well as outer space. Yet I'm sure even you wouldn't want to see that. There is chaos and conflict on Earth, but at least things get done. In the purity of outer space, there is no chaos nor conflict--and nothing ever happens.

How about sovereignty over celestial bodies as a new paradigm?
How can you say that??? Not only do you not have any evidence to support that conclusion, you ignore the concrete evidence to the contrary: namely, the empty shells of three, once glorious steeds that are now merely glorified lawn ornaments.

Sir, China has the second largest economy in the world, and India has the fourth largest economy in the world--I'm tired of hearing about how poor and disadvantaged they are. To the extent that the US is waking from its slumber, it is because of the old nemesis that was supposedly laid to rest by the OST--namely, the space race--seems to be coming back to life.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin

Ilya, I agree with everything else you say. I especially appreciate your discussion of the cost of scientific research in Antarctica versus Alaska. With your permission, I'd like to use that in the chapter of my thesis that will present the Grand Compromise that should make everybody happy.

But I think the evidence is now pretty clear that the Outer Space Treaty was instrumental in ending the space race between the US and the USSR. The space race didn't end because the US won; it ended because the US offered a draw, the Outer Space Treaty, and the USSR accepted the offer of a draw. I believe that it's undeniable that if the space race had continued to its logical conclusion, space exploration would be more advanced than it is now.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin