"There can be no doubt that the Outer Space Treaty removed a powerful justification for going into space and to the Moon. That justification and its importance was clearly enunciated by Lyndon Johnson himself in a report to President Kennedy dated 13 May 1963 that defends the Apollo program"

That report is amazingly prescient considering it was written in 1963. Today some 45 years later we face practically all the same issues though on a somehwat different geo-political landscape. Now its more of an ideological tussle about how to access and explore space but the fact that so little percentage of gdp is spent on space shows that government after government right across the world has failed to take it seriously -as a primordial imperative.

This is why i think we so desperately need individuals and private enterprise to drive the colonisation of the solar system. Yes the Richard Branson types. I may not like everything about the guy but i admire his vision and the fact is he is taking a huge risk because there will be plenty of failures within the first phase of private space initiatives. The best private candidates will be those who make a fortune on earth through their businesses and use parts of those profits to subsidise the initial outlay for space operations. All through history it has been individuals who made a big difference, for better or for worse. Whether they were great generals, scientific geniuses, or competitive explorers most of the rapid progress made by humans were acts of individual drive and vision.

I'm not knocking public sector orgs on earth but I dont think they can play an effective role as driver for space exploration. Let's hope these very rich business people come forward and pour their money into very risky ventures...lets really hope. Otherwise i think we are ******.

Well said, Jetlack! That's why bureaucratic hurdles like the OST need to be removed.

__________________
Fitting a three-parameter curve of uncertain form to ten points with three exceptions certainly brings one to the far edge of the known world. -- Bradley Ephron

If going to the Moon were profitable, the OST would have been broken ten times over by now.

Just like any other treaty that gets in the way of profit.

The moment going to the Moon does become profitable, the treaty will be revoked. Major aerospace corporations and other industrial concerns will lobby the government to withdraw the U.S. from the treaty, and the government will happily comply.

Never underestimate the profit motive in human affairs. Indeed, it's likely that the profit motive was in some way partly responsible for the OST in the first place.

What an irony. You did cherry picking. You will not fly to moon on calculations. You will fly to moon on hardware. So analogy to car is good, analogy to computation power is cheating on your part.

While i think that OST may be and will be problem for colonisation of space, you have no substance in your claims that we would have thriving moon colonies now, if there was not OST and USA gave moon lands for free to Americans.

Costs of humans in space here and now are prohibitive for private companies. In '60 even more. Get over it, nothing would change on moon, if OST never been established.

__________________
Sanity is overrated.
Butterfly.

I was merely making a rhetorical point. My actual extrapolation was based on the actual decline in spacecraft costs from the late 1950's to the 1960's.

Don't be ridiculous! NASA's own plans on the drawing board called for establishing a permanently manned station(s). There were plans for spacecraft that could carry a dozen personnel to the Moon. All this could have happened if NASA's budget had been maintained at 1966 levels.

Now NASA's budget is 1/7 in terms of fraction of GDP compared to what it was in 1966. The Outer Space Treaty removed the most important, overriding justification for NASA funding levels, and that was--according to Lyndon B. Johnson himself--the fear that a totalitarian power would attempt to assert sovereignty over the Moon. With the threat of foreign sovereignty removed, the US could afford to put the Moon on the back burner--it had enough on its plate all over the Earth.

My argument's real simple:

1. the US feared the USSR might take over the Moon;
2. so the US maxed out NASA's budget in order to establish "use and occupation" of the Moon;
3. in addition, the US pursued a diplomatic track for an international treaty where everyone would agree that the Moon belonged to nobody;
4. everybody agreed that the Moon belonged everybody (and therefore nobody);
5. so everybody signed the OST;
6. therefore, there was no need to establish "use and occupation" anymore;
7. therefore, there was no need for permanent lunar stations;
8. therefore, NASA's budget was slashed to the bone;
9. therefore, that's how we arrived at the present situation: no Moon bases.

Your point about the high cost of going to the Moon is a red herring. If NASA's budget was $100 billion per year, believe me, the cost of going to the Moon would be lower than it is now because of economies of scale and more dollars for engineering research.

__________________
Fitting a three-parameter curve of uncertain form to ten points with three exceptions certainly brings one to the far edge of the known world. -- Bradley Ephron

Let me know when you're tired of rhetoric.

Very funny!

But sure, no problem, Ronald, the rest of my post #95 was intended to be substantive:

__________________
Fitting a three-parameter curve of uncertain form to ten points with three exceptions certainly brings one to the far edge of the known world. -- Bradley Ephron

If it was intended to be substantive, where's the substance?

You make a lot of assumptions, but don't show a lot of evidence to support those assumptions.

For example, if the US was afraid that the USSR might "take over the moon", then where's the evidence that the USSR would benefit from doing so? And if the USSR can benefit, why not the US? Why not have a proper Moon Race, and take over the moon, if it's so profitable to do so?

The OST was probably more about preventing the militarization of LEO during the height of the Cold War, for obvious reasons. All the other clauses, about the Moon and whatnot, were mostly just for show, and to avoid the situation where some jackass claims the moon without actually having any capability to exploit it, and then sitting on that claim indefinitely.

Like Antarctica.

You're totally projecting: I have provided a lot of evidence backed up by at least 14 links. Number of links my critics have posted: zero. I could bombard you with a bunch of pdf's I read this morning if I thought for a second you would read them. No need to waste more pearls. Too bad, really, because the intertwined history of the space race and the origin of the Outer Space Treaty is a fascinating topic.
The evidence goes back to at least 1959, when the Soviets included a horde of medallions engraved with the Soviet coat-of-arms in the nosecone they crashed into the Moon. (Burying a stash of medallions is an old Russian tradition used to claim new territories.)

I've already addressed this question at length in several posts in this thread.

There's more to it than that, but you're latest explanation is better than your first, when you wrote, "Indeed, it's likely that the profit motive was in some way partly responsible for the OST in the first place."

Like Antarctica? Which "jackass" are you referring to? Roald Admusen? Because Robert Falcon Scott lost the race along with his life and the lives of his companions.

__________________
Fitting a three-parameter curve of uncertain form to ten points with three exceptions certainly brings one to the far edge of the known world. -- Bradley Ephron

About this issue, I suggest reading through this old thread which has recently been revived. If space exploration has reached something of a plateau, that's not because of any treaties that discourage it, but because the next step is really, really hard to achieve.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Actually, the necromancer himself hit the nail on the head:
That's basically what I've been saying; the Outer Space Treaty allowed everyone to call the space race a draw, and we haven't had space race levels of funding ever since.

__________________
Fitting a three-parameter curve of uncertain form to ten points with three exceptions certainly brings one to the far edge of the known world. -- Bradley Ephron

I don't think it was the Outer Space Treaty alone that ended the space race. I still remember how the space race reignited in the early 80s, before Gorbachev started reforming the Soviet Union.

To the contrary: it was the tremendous developments in space technology by the U.S. in the 60s, culminating in the Moon landings, which cooled down the space race.

I have a couple of questions for you:

1) Do you think that only a space race can motivate people to go to space?

2) If the choice were between another space race, and a stagnated space program, which one would we be wisest to choose?

3) Do you think that any one nation can set up a space program to go to Mars, or to colonise the Moon, all by itself?

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

I think you're referring here to Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. And that only further supports my view that US politicians and bureaucrats are more interested maintaining an upper hand internationally than they are in planetary science. Notice that NASA did not get serious about returning to the Moon until China suggested that it might be interested in going there themselves.

Now that's a strangely counterintuitive thing to say. Not saying you're wrong--just curious how you arrived at that conclusion.

1. Obviously, there is not much of a space race going right now, yet people are still in space; my point is that a space race can provide an overriding justification for funding levels that are an order of magnitude greater than current levels.
2. That's a good question; I'd like to see NASA's budget increased to $100 billion per year; total federal outlays these days are basically $3 trillion; so $100 billion would be about 3.33% of the federal budget--and that's actually slightly less than the 4% of the total budget that NASA took out in the mid-1960's; I don't think that would break the bank.
3. I believe that at $100 billion per year, it would be a piece of cake for the US to colonize the Moon by themselves.

__________________
Fitting a three-parameter curve of uncertain form to ten points with three exceptions certainly brings one to the far edge of the known world. -- Bradley Ephron

Once the race to the moon was over, it became apparent how expensive the space race was.

And the USSR's and USA's interests turned elsewhere.

__________________
Wanted: Diabolical Plan for World Domination.

It also refutes your claim that the Outer Space Treaty single-handedly brought an end to the space race.

The space race started because the USSR wanted to intimidate the US and the West in general with its recently-gained technological and military might (and vice-versa, to be quite fair). It cooled down in the late sixties because the US showed that it was capable of going as far in space as the Soviets, and more. I agree also with John Jones about the cost factor. Both powers then moved their rivalry to other theatres.

1. My question was whether you believe that only a space race can sustain space exploration.
   
2. You did not answer my question here, either. To wit: given the choice between (a) a slowdown in space exploration and (b) another space race, which of the two should one responsibly favour?
   
3. Let's talk reality. Is any one country likely to dole out $100 billion per year for space exploration in the near future?

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

It's not my claim that the OST "single-handedly brought an end to the space race; that would be like saying the atom bomb "single-handedly" brought an end to WWII. Causality does not ordinarily operate in single-handed mode.

If I answered "no" (as I did), it wouldn't affect my main argument.

Space race!
Why not? The global aerospace industry is well over $1 trillion per year. $100 billion is only 0.7% of US GDP.

__________________
Fitting a three-parameter curve of uncertain form to ten points with three exceptions certainly brings one to the far edge of the known world. -- Bradley Ephron