>>"Think about it. As access increases, space could quickly turn into a pirate zone if everything is sent up with no means of defense."<br /><br /> />"I think the energy cost is going to be defence enough.<br />Who the hell would pay to take a capsule up to a 57 degree, 700km orbit just to take a look see? And piracy is completely ludicrous, those Lacrosse satellites weigh over 15 tonnes."<br /><br /><br />Piracy in the sense that, like the high seas, there is no law or police force in space - so anything goes. In the foreseeable future, assuming lower cost access to orbit becomes a reality, if a private spacefaring citizen wanted to rendezvous with and take apart a spy satellite for fun or profit, what could stop them? They could haul some sensitive bits back to Earth and sell them to the highest bidder. <br /><br />For that matter, what is to prevent someone salvaging and selling off, for example, bits of hardware from the Apollo 11 landing site?<br /><br />Etc..<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle
- Status
>"For that matter, what is to prevent someone salvaging and selling off, for example, bits of hardware from the Apollo 11 landing site?"<br /><br />If you're willing to spend the several hundred billion dollars required in developing a system to retrieve the Apollo 11 descent module, I say go for it.<br /><br />Also, I'm not particularly worried about tourists breaking spysats. It will be more than half a century of commercial development until we have vehicles cheap enough for non-national astronauts to get to that altitude. By then I expect lawmakers to have worked out how to legislate a zone of exclusion around them, much like we do with commercial air traffic.
Spying is essential component of space flight.The pursose of spcecraft is to supply military data .Obviously we dont know much about it.Biilions of dollars are not spent for nothing.
>"Also, I'm not particularly worried about tourists breaking spysats. It will be more than half a century of commercial development until we have vehicles cheap enough for non-national astronauts to get to that altitude. By then I expect lawmakers to have worked out how to legislate a zone of exclusion around them, much like we do with commercial air traffic."<br /><br />Clearly, cheaper human spaceflight won't happen tomorrow, but the possibility is forseeable now that people like Musk and Bigelow are working on possible means of transport. <br /><br />As for "zones of exclusion", don't expect a silly law to stop a determined salvor. Salvage laws have been on the books for generations, but haven't stopped unscrupulous types from taking stuff off of shipwrecks. For example, some divers from New Jersey reportedly broke into the sunken Andrea Doria and hauled out a bunch of stuff a few years ago. They had to spend some bucks to do it. Another guy, a rich American, is planning to try to raise a sunken Japanese submarine in the Atlantic. He's spending millions and millions on the effort. An organization in France pulled a bunch of stuff off of a Confederate shipwreck for awhile, until the U.S. Govt. claimed ownership.<br /><br />Etc. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle
unless the scavengers come from deep space, they will have to land at one point in time. they can be intercepted on the ground, without the need to keep a space cruiser patrolling around the planet.<br />Mind you, space cruisers are cool, but NOT if they are used to deter mankind from commercial space exploration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
So this will lead to another Air Force/Navy war over who is in control. Star Trek gave it to the Navy, but I'm sure there will be a lot of expensive maneuvers. Billions in powerpoint exercises alone just to roll out the uniforms and insignias. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Which uniforms look best when the shirt is ripped.<br /><br />I'm just remembering Captain Kirk in all those episodes.
>"unless the scavengers come from deep space, they will have to land at one point in time. they can be intercepted on the ground, without the need to keep a space cruiser patrolling around the planet. "<br /><br />I'm getting more and more hypothetical now, but I think that's what is needed to contemplate the future. <br /><br />Yes, our salvors must land, but they don't have to land in (or take off from) the U.S.. Historically, pirates and privateers existed and prospered because they were able to take refuge in certain "friendly" ports (New York was once once of these, believe it or not). Often, they were used as pawns, during wartime, to harass an enemy's shipping. And yes, many of them were caught and hung, or worse, but high seas piracy continues even today. <br /><br />Imagine a war between two nations, both with existing milsat fleets in orbit. Neither has enough rapid launch capability to launch enough satellite destroyer missions, so one or both attempt to buy launch services from other-country commercial launch providers. Pay is on a mission-accomplished basis only. <br /><br />Bingo! Space privateering!<br /><br />I'm pretty sure that there are commericial "spy satellite" companies already. The next step to full-blown privateering is not so far fetched, IMO. The haul doesn't have to be hardware. It could be "bits" stolen from line-of-sight telemetry intercepted in orbit. This is the "Information Age", after all. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /> - Ed Kyle
edkyle98, why do I get the impression that you're just warming up on this subject? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Interesting stuff so far! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
The American military is responsible for more killings than any other army, terrorist or institution. They dropped the first nuclear bomb and now a CNN reports suggests so far 665000 people have died in Iraq.<br /><br />If the US military is given access to space, which I afraid will eventually happen, since NASA is government owned, it will be the start of the space militarisation race. Don't be surprised if China decides to take the same path to compete with the US.<br /><br />Our only hope is that a noble person is elected as US president and he fully realizes the ill implications of warfare from space. Trust me, only technological difficulties is stopping the evil Bush, otherwise he would immediately order to nuke North Korea from space.
Interesting thread.<br /><br />I am amused by all the naive optimists that think the militarization of space is a choice. “Militarization” is no more avoidable in space than oxygen.<br /><br />Do you think for a second that the folks that were willing to shred the Geneava Convention would hesitate to do the same with the Moon treaty were there a financial or power interest at stake? Hardly.<br /><br />True militarization is a ways off but only because there is not much at stake yet. All of the things we discuss here about privatization are true. Privatization comes with the corollary of wealth. Once money is to be made, Space development will explode. Soon after there will be assets worth stealing and worth protecting.<br /><br />Human nature is what it is. Waiting for it to change is like Waiting for Godot.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>
>"unless the scavengers come from deep space, they will have to land at one point in time. they can be intercepted on the ground, without the need to keep a space cruiser patrolling around the planet."<br /><br />Even if they are from deep space, if they dip too far into our gravity well we can blast their salvage vehicle out of the sky with either Gekiganger or a kinetic interceptor. After the first strike I'm fairly sure the ground rules regarding spysat salvage will become clear.
you are confusing protecting assets in space with militiarizing it. Militiarizing is about using space as a base for warfare. Some people are talking about whther its an prelude to StarTrek etc etc, but let me tell in the StarTrek Universe there was the business of actually protecting earth from forces like romulans and Xindis(alien races) We are yet to make contact with any alien. So militiarizing space means whether any military should use as its base to attck enemy countries.
people like you(mrmorris) exist in every message board on the net. you cannot prove anyone who differs from you wrong so you come up with disgusting posts like the one you have made.<br /><br />Prove me wrong if you have the guts. <br /><br />you live in some wealthy neighborhood in america and think the rest of the world is your enemy. whats true is that the rest of the world pities you for your values and limited understanding of what is right and what is wrong. 
<br /><br /><br /><br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />Thank you, SkyOne. Your response was nicer than the ones I was thinking of... Space weapons are inevitable, whether to "protect" us from incoming alien menaces, or from big rocks from space, or to protect our assets. I just hope they are used for the right reasons, not for threatening others to do things our way or else. I do think we need to protect ourselves and assets, but it's a fine line between being defensive, and becoming offensive.<br /><br />All things considered, I think we are probably being naive to think that they aren't there already, to some extent. All those "classified military launches" were sending something up there. Somehow, I don't think they've been all flowers and candy....<br /><br /><br />Rae
some really good points brought up here.<br />I think weapons in space are OK as long as they are not used to harm people on the ground but rather againts threats from deep space, like aliens, or , more plausibly, NEOs on a collsion course with our planet, or, later, the Moon or Mars if we establish colonies there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<font color="yellow">"you cannot prove anyone who differs from you wrong so you come up with disgusting posts like the one you have made. Prove me wrong if you have the guts."</font><br /><br />*sigh* -- I don't defend Bush. Frankly I consider him to be an idiot. Mind you, I voted for him, but that's more a matter of "Better the idiot you know...". If any party could come up with a candidate worth voting for (and who was dumb enough to <b>want</b> to be President) I'd vote for them.<br /><br />Your post was simply a tangental rant. I was mocking the rant part.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"you live in some wealthy neighborhood in america and think the rest of the world is your enemy."</font><br /><br />I think much of the world dislikes Americans -- and that the American government has given them good reason. My personal beliefs can't be summed up in a pithy sentence or two but don't coincide with US government policy even in the broadest of terms.<br /><br />OK -- the inaccuracies in your rant:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"The American military is responsible for more killings than any other army, terrorist or institution."</font><br /><br />Provide your source of information for making this statement. I submit to you that Nazi Germany made the US look like pikers for *all* foreign conflicts they've been involved with. My source. The Soviet deaths alone (largely from Hitler's invasion of Russia) top the US military's headcount.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"They dropped the first nuclear bomb"</font><br /><br />Yep the first <b>two</b> actually... but then sloppy people tend to forget about Nagasaki. Estimates on civilian casualties from the two range at about 200,000. From the same link, total civilian casualties for Japan were about 300K, so about two-thirds came from the bombs. Mind you -- estimates for death tolls on Koreans who w
Nucleus, meet Star. You may or may not be trolling, but you are completely outclassed by MrMorris.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
You are confusing one form of violence for another. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>
LMAO, well said <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I think it’s worth noting that many of the elements of Bush’s National Space Policy are derivatives of the strategy first stated by Newt Gingrich and the New Right back in the 70’s. The main tenets of that strategy were the commercialization and militarization of space. If you’ve read the new policy, it’s clear that this is what he’s talking about.<br /><br />I’m really not just trying to plug my blog, but this is exactly what I wrote about in more detail there: http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /><br />Secondly, tplank had it right when he spoke of the inevitability of militarizing space, but I’ll restate that here. Once assets in space are considered to be valuable or nationally sensitive, whoever owns them will do whatever it takes to defend and keep them. That means that even those of us who dream of space hotels, and civilian colonies on Mars must accept that there will at a minimum be space police officers and the equivalent of Coast Guard patrol boats.<br /><br />What Bush is proposing is a matter of degree. He has requested that the Secretary of Defense develop the means to defend US space systems, and to “deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.”<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>
This is the most exiting part for me;<br /> <br /> <font color="yellow"> The document includes a long section on which government agencies will administer space nuclear power systems, which will be used if they "safely enable or significantly enhance space exploration or operational capabilities". The question is whether the systems are part of president George W Bush's plans for crewed missions to the Moon and Mars, or potential power plants for some new kind of military satellite<br /> </font> <br /><br />I think they will be used for both. I believe it can be done safely & in many different forms. The Russians put up more than 30 satellites with reactors & here in the US we have experience testing Nuc Engines & have some really wonderful designs for next generation engines that are both small & powerful. I hope they start working on building & operating them & not just keep talking. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
SpaceX launches 21 Starlink internet satellites from Florida, lands rocket at sea (photos)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram