|
|
#61 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
Again, refrain from posting if there is naught but repetition to post.
Seeing the difference between OST and MT (moon treaty), I am more reassured that the moon wouldn't be the scape of new warfare and competition, this, however, does not place other celestial bodies in the same position. With US' ego, I'm more than convinced they will take a swipe at outer space using whichever means, seeing how they purposely did not sign the agreement. |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
I disagree. Knowing how territorial Russia is they would most likely be the initial country to claim space bodies. The United States does not necessarily have an ego itself, but its leaders do. They would counterclaim the space bodies for themselves. However, what would they benefit? Well, they wouldn't. As far as we know there is no economic benefit i outer space, or envioromental. Claiming anything that has no personal or public use is pointless, making claiming the Earth's moon pointless as there are no benefits to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
tool
|
With some technology in the works, implementable within the next 10-15 years, the price of lifting items to space could be brought as low as, or even lower than $100/lb, 1000 times less than it is right now. Keep that in mind when you say "space isn't profitable," because at this rate there's almost no way it isn't profitable.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
With earth's resources depleting at an alarming rate in the future, earth's exhausted supply is mere finitude. Hence, the moon and all of its resources (minerals, elements, etc) is better than a gold mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
I'm saying it -currently- isn't profitable. And there are [to my knowledge] no discovered profitable elements/potential mines in space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
tool
|
The moon is a perfectly good mine. Gold can be mined on the moon and brought back for less than its sale price as it is, plus Helium 3 and other rare earth elements.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
Bringing in another planet's gold would be a bad choice. With so much gold circulating it would easily become inflated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Gold is a ridiculous economic standard now anyway. Currency can be made of whatever we want because we can accurately gauge the comparative strength of foreign economies now. Gold also isn't sufficiently vital in enough things to be any more of a world standard than any other metal used in electronics etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
Agreed. If society saw anything to be valuable, it would be currency. Even dollars aren't even currency, just a substitute for the gold and other valuables backing it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
What? Currency has always been (even when backed by the gold standard) nothing more than an intermediary in the barter system. "Dollars" are the currency used in many places including Canada and the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
Exactly what I was saying. But back onto topic: can an government or private agency own the moon? Have we reached an agreement making this thread void?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Treaties say on the one hand "Nobody can" and on the other hand "countries can't" We don't know whether or not any country or organisation will take advantage of the discrepancy to try and do so, but the most likely consequence will be a move to remake the treaties rather than allow it.
Seems pretty done to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
Lol, let it be known that today is the first day rzr and devonin have come to an agreement
![]() Ok, I've been tossing around an idea on racism that I may post for us. Maybe someone else can throw a new thread up here... |
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Age: 31
Posts: 63
|
Nobody owns the moon, we need to find a great way to be able to organize laws, who it applies to and how it shall be enforced.
We have to research fuels and safety and other things, it is totally not profitable to go to the moon. So really, that whole treaty thing is out of date and has to be reviewed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#75 | |
|
tool
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#76 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Age: 31
Posts: 63
|
do you know the costs to send a spaceship into space, not to mention building a site, hiring employees who are not only skilled at what their jobs are, but they have to be astronauts (spl). So they have an extremely high hazard pay. Repairs. Who knows what else?
Plus prices are based on supply and demand. More supply meeting the demand means less demand and lower prices. = not profitable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
People have already shown that they are eager to line up for a chance to go into space. People have -paid- millions of dollars to be brought into space, and the sheer volume of applicants for the Civilians in Space program suggests that finding people willing to take the chance of untimely demise to go to space won't be hard.
If the proposal to start colonizing/mining/using space were accompanyed by the joint international development of a workable Space Elevator then the costs involved would basically pay for themselves immidiately. |
|
|
|
|
|
#78 | |
|
tool
|
Quote:
As I said before, read the thread before you make blanket statements, or you look like a fool. Fool.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
The way Wikipedia elaborated on the Space Elevator, it was as if it was already built. But it would be extremely revolutionary for such a reachable-in-our-current-era kind of technology.
While I was on Wikipedia, I did a search for Moon Treaty. Examine the picture below. ![]() Conditions are as followed. * Bans any military use of celestial bodies, including weapon testing or as military bases. * Bans all exploration and uses of celestial bodies without the approval or benefit of other states. * Requires that the Secretary-General must be notified of all celestial activities (and discoveries developed thanks to those activities). * Declares all states have an equal right to conduct research on celestial bodies. * Declares for any samples obtained during research activities, the state that obtained them must consider making part of it available to all countries/scientific communities for research. * Bans altering the environment of celestial bodies and requires states must take measures to prevent accidental contamination. * Bans any state from claiming sovereignty over any territory of celestial bodies. * Bans any ownership of any extraterrestrial property by any organization or person, unless that organization is international and governmental. * Requires all resource extraction and allocation be made by an international regime. Judging from the picture, the countries with predominance in space exploration, like JKPolk said, USA and Russia, did not sign such a treaty. I guess this treaty was signed too young in our days to be taken seriously, perhaps. Last edited by Zythus; 04-8-2008 at 05:02 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
If Wikipedia said that one already existed, someone has been very silly with wikipedia.
The technology doesn't really exist yet to make a workable one, though they've done a lot of work with carbon nanotubes suggesting they'd be up to the task. I presume the wiki page was like "Here's how it would work if we could make one, so let's pretend we did, and we can look at all the things it would imply" Edit: Yeah looking back over it, the basic thrust of the message seems to be "We can't make one right now, but we know exactly how we'd make it and how it would work, so we can talk about it that way" |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|