Who is going to punish the USA for a violation of that particular space treaty? And how?
Will Gingrich found the UFP?
- Thread starter jayrath
- Start date
- Status
Who is going to punish the USA for a violation of that particular space treaty? And how?
Don't insult the Romulans.
^Apparently, not if Newt has anything to say about it.
He doesn't.
^
Given that we (America) are politically unwilling to drill for our own oil, and now we politically don't want a pipeline to import more oil from our largest oil supplier, getting this resource if possible from space is a fine idea.
And that's what Gingrich wants, all people to work.
While I don't agree with Mr. Gingrich's timeline for a lunar colony, at least he is articulating a willingness for America to have manned space program, unlike our sitting President who has no desire for us to even have one.
As evident by the Yugoslavia War (that Europe right?) that killed 140,000 people in the early 1990's.
Treaties serve a purpose, but they're not a panacea. And when they've served their purpose, or are obsolete, they should be dissolved. The "Moon treaty" is irrelevant, only 13 countries ratified it. The "Space Treaty" is a different story, there are good things in it, extending law formally into space is a must. But some parts are poison to extending Humankind's presence off of Earth. Countries should be able to claim reasonable sized areas and resources. So should corporations, companies, co-operatives and private individuals.
Under the treaty, only what is launch off of Earth in property. Anything build with extraterrestrial materials is owned by everyone, and therefor no one. If I, and a hundred thousand of my close personal friends, mine a asteroid and build a space habitat and companion solar collector guess what? We can't own it, and have no recourse if someone else want to simply take it.
No ownership, per the Space Treaty.
If America or any other countiry builds a base on Mars, only what they hauled from Earth is legally theirs. Even food grown in Martian soil could be considered "common heritage." Expanding the base using indigenous materials would make that portent of the base "common heritage," and not national territory like the rest of the base.
It would be the same with any commercial concern, or private individual.
I did say Western World to which Yugoslavia didn't belong. The war was a result of the breaking up of the Eastern bloc (and yes, I do know that Yugoslavia was officially part of the bloc-free states but they did have a socialist regime even if it was a bit more liberal in some regards than others).
I'm going with Romulan/Ferengi hybrid.
And I don't want to think about how that happened.
gingrich couldn't 'found' his ass let alone a colony on the moon
i'm sure one will be established eventually....right now we don't have the money, patience or resources to build one
i'm sure one will be established eventually....right now we don't have the money, patience or resources to build one
Interestingly enough, it's Mitt Romney that's the known Trek fan in the GOP field, not Newt....
Last edited:
Newt's ramblings are irrelevant as he's going nowhere near the presidency. Plus, a guy like Newt would never be able to get behind the Prime Directive.
^Losing an election doesn't necessarily make one's ideas irrelevant. SEE: Al Gore Jr.
He's being laughed at and will continue to be laughed at. Newt has nowhere to go nor do his half-baked ideas.
^ While I'm certainly no fan of Gingrich, one shouldn't count him out. After all, one could say that same thing about Gore and his half-baked ideas.
Oh, I was just talking about his looks.
I would be sad if advocacy for/opposition to space activity became a partisan issue. I, as a Dem, am pleased to see a prominent Repub advocating space activity (just wish it wasn't Newt).
I would also like to see somebody advocate a "Manhatten/Apollo style effort to develop commercially viable fusion power. We'd be able to tell the Saudis, the Venezualans, (not to metion the Texans and Alaskans) to, er, bathe in their oil.
I would also like to see somebody advocate a "Manhatten/Apollo style effort to develop commercially viable fusion power. We'd be able to tell the Saudis, the Venezualans, (not to metion the Texans and Alaskans) to, er, bathe in their oil.
Actually, there are at least two fusion reactor experiments going on, one being an international coorperation located in Germany and the other being in the USA if I remember right. I think the Chinese wanted to buy the old fusion reactor (that used to be situated in Garching near Munich) but I'm not sure whether they did.
Anyway, it's not that easy. So far, the plasma in the old reactor could be maintained for a few seconds and the research was extremely costly because it needed lots of electricty. They had their own generator that continually drew electricity from the grid, otherwise every time they started a new plasma injection the lights in Munich would have gone out for a moment.
Anyway, it's not that easy. So far, the plasma in the old reactor could be maintained for a few seconds and the research was extremely costly because it needed lots of electricty. They had their own generator that continually drew electricity from the grid, otherwise every time they started a new plasma injection the lights in Munich would have gone out for a moment.
A Presidential candidate's proposal for a big return to space is pretty much lip service to stir up feelings of patriotism in potential voters. An actual proposal will likely hit the usual "We need to solve problems here on Earth" argument in Congress that will either gut it, delay it, or kill it altogether, IMO.
.. And 13,000 people to create a state? Newt was against statehood for the District of Columbia, despite the population there being more than half a million residents (more citizens than in the state of Wyoming). I suspect that the lunar colony would be approved for statehood only if Newt could be sure that it would vote Republican!
On a more serious note, I have heard him defending his proposal by calling it a bold challenge that is comparable to JFK's proposal, a comparison that I think is wrong-- being off by orders of magnitude. Kennedy proposed "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." Newt is talking about hauling enough stuff up there to house thousands of people, not to mention getting them all up there! That is just too much too soon (unfortunately) based on economics and priorities.
If he had proposed constructing and supporting a moon base on the scale of the ISS, I would think that it might be possible. But his proposal is not all all reasonable and it makes him look silly and not to be taken seriously on this matter. Worse, I think "it rubs off"- making anyone who is serious about space exploration and colonization look to be a joke in the eyes of the general public.
On a more serious note, I have heard him defending his proposal by calling it a bold challenge that is comparable to JFK's proposal, a comparison that I think is wrong-- being off by orders of magnitude. Kennedy proposed "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." Newt is talking about hauling enough stuff up there to house thousands of people, not to mention getting them all up there! That is just too much too soon (unfortunately) based on economics and priorities.
If he had proposed constructing and supporting a moon base on the scale of the ISS, I would think that it might be possible. But his proposal is not all all reasonable and it makes him look silly and not to be taken seriously on this matter. Worse, I think "it rubs off"- making anyone who is serious about space exploration and colonization look to be a joke in the eyes of the general public.
Last edited:
- Status