Should we repeal/amend the 1967 Outer Space Treaty?

[NASAFanboy]

Personally, I am for amending it so nations may claim land on other celestial bodies as long as they prove they can send people there, but still must maintain its total ban on all sorts of military activities in space to prevent massive warfare going on (Which will cause a much bigger impact than warfare limited to Earth). Why?

Several reasons:

- Firstly, it will be leverage for NASA to have to attain more funds from Congress. Congress is made of of people who grew up in the Cold War era. They have a hatred and paranoia of communism thanks to that. They may also be fearful of communist activities if they gain the "High Ground" over the United States. China wants to land a man on the Moon? Well, NASA now has plenty of political leverage. Space race inbound, more achievements for humanity. Yay.

- If humanity is to ever become a spacefaring race, it will have to be repealed sometime. Nations spend billions of dollars in space infrastructure. They land the equipment and men on other celestial bodies. Of course, if they build a sustainable base/small colony, they're going to claim the land for themselves. Better repeal it sooner or later.

- Humans are a naturally competitive species. We likely take on more ambitious space projects if our rivals are constantly prodding us in the back to tell us about theirs. Space cooperation is a slow but steady approach, but we need to combine it with aspects of a space race to make it go faster. Why a hurry, some may ask. Because why not? Faster, the better.

--------

Please keep politics (As in Republicans vs Democrats) out of this discussion.

Also, please keep it civilized.

[xenomorph555]

While im all for speeding up progress, space races give the victors the "been there done that" mentality and cause us to be stuck in LEO for 20 years.

[FREEFALL1984]

Yes, Competition is what drives us, most technological breakthroughs occur during wars when competition is a necessity for survival. If we suddenly said the first nation to land people on mars could have free access to all the resources the red planet has to offer for the next 250 years. The major superpowers would be climbing over each other to colonize, and it wouldn't stop there, they would spend the next 50 years trying to figure out a way to send things back efficiently so they could make the most of the resources while they had undisputed access to them.

[CaptRobau]

The only thing that that competition would do, under those rules, would be that the space-faring countries would just send a simple Apollo 11 mission. Get there, walk around a bit, win the competition and then go back. Then they can just sit back, because they´ve locked down Mars and will only do something when in the next 200 years space travel has become so advanced that it´s easy to go Mars.

[Nibb31]

Personally, I am for amending it so nations may claim land on other celestial bodies as long as they prove they can send people there, but still must maintain its total ban on all sorts of military activities in space to prevent massive warfare going on (Which will cause a much bigger impact than warfare limited to Earth). Why?

Several reasons:

- Firstly, it will be leverage for NASA to have to attain more funds from Congress. Congress is made of of people who grew up in the Cold War era. They have a hatred and paranoia of communism thanks to that. They may also be fearful of communist activities if they gain the "High Ground" over the United States. China wants to land a man on the Moon? Well, NASA now has plenty of political leverage. Space race inbound, more achievements for humanity. Yay.

First: There are no communist countries with any space capability (Hint: Russia is no longer communist and Chine is just about as capitalistic as it gets). Additionally, "High ground" is a military tactical concept that is meaningless when considering the Moon.

Second: Land will only be claimed if

a- It has any value.

b- The claim can be defended.

c- The cost of defending the claim is lower than the value of the land.

There is no profit to be made on the Moon, Mars, or on Asteroids and there won't be for a very long time. There is no point in amending the Outer Space Treaty until we start seeing routine flights to those places.

- If humanity is to ever become a spacefaring race, it will have to be repealed sometime. Nations spend billions of dollars in space infrastructure. They land the equipment and men on other celestial bodies. Of course, if they build a sustainable base/small colony, they're going to claim the land for themselves. Better repeal it sooner or later.

Who says that humanity is to ever become a spacefaring race? You do, obviously, but can you generalize that to the entire human race? Other countries, other cultures, other demographic groups, might have other ultimate goals in life.

We have a lot of work to do here before we can even be considered a united race, let alone spacefaring...

- Humans are a naturally competitive species. We likely take on more ambitious space projects if our rivals are constantly prodding us in the back to tell us about theirs. Space cooperation is a slow but steady approach, but we need to combine it with aspects of a space race to make it go faster. Why a hurry, some may ask. Because why not? Faster, the better.

Again, you are generalizing western cultural traits as if they were inherent to our species. Competition isn't more or less part of human nature as cooperation. It all depends on the context and what there is to gain.

To do big things, humans are only motivated by 3 things: safety, comfort, and wealth. Space projects don't tend to increase any of those things.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Nibb31

[NASAFanboy]

We only did that because the Outer Space Treaty said we couldn't claim land, and thus, there was no risk of Soviet space bases on the Moon; but in ce the treaty was drafted, it was a cheap solution to the space race and removed and incentive of further exploration by NASA.

Had there been that risk, it is likely the Apollo missions would've achieved much, much more than it did today.

You got the land, but now you got to keep it.

Flags and footprints ain't gonna cut it if China wants the land on the Moon.

Also, while China is currently allowing economic freedom, the government is still very much a communist one. It's the government Congress fears, not its economy.

Edited April 16, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[Nibb31]

Also, while China is currently allowing economic freedom, the government is still very much a communist one. It's the government Congress fears, not its economy.

You need to read up on the definition of communism. There really isn't much left of communism in China today other than the name of the party.

[Holo]

Again, you are generalizing western cultural traits as if they were inherent to our species. Competition isn't more or less part of human nature as cooperation. It all depends on the context and what there is to gain.

Competition may not hold for all cultures universally, but anywhere war happens there must be some sort of competition. And that occurs pretty much everywhere.

[NASAFanboy]

You need to read up on the definition of communism. There really isn't much left of communism in China today other than the name of the party.

Said party controls the entire Congress.

And whatever the case, I'm not Congress, and Congress doesn't know.

The though of the enemy controlling " high ground" is very effective, as it drove the United States to the Moon, the Chinese to the Great Wall, the French to the Magniot Line, and the Germans to the V2. It may seem silly from your perspective, but politicans are silly creatures.

And so, it works.

[Nibb31]

Said party controls the entire Congress.

And whatever the case, I'm not Congress, and Congress doesn't know.

One could argue that there is very little difference between a one-party system and a two-party system. Most democratic systems offer a much greater choice... but we are digressing.

The though of the enemy controlling " high ground" is very effective, as it drove the United States to the Moon, the Chinese to the Great Wall, the French to the Magniot Line, and the Germans to the V2. It may seem silly from your perspective, but politicans are silly creatures.

And so, it works.

And the United States gave it up as soon as they realized that it makes no sense from a strategic or tactical perspective. The Moon is useless as a military asset.

[Dodgey]

Hmm, how to put this in polite terms. Let's just say it is a completion which involves a measuring device and male genitalia.

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't think the treaty is significant in how quickly space is being explored or settled.

Being able to claim land on celestial bodies is not really a significant factor. Whoever sets up housekeeping on a planet or moon first is going to have all the benefits of "owning" the land, even if they don't have a clear title to it, legally speaking. The only thing ownership helps with is a situation where two or more colonies are disputing a particular patch of ground, in which case a specific treaty is likely to resolve it.

Space colonies need economic reasons to exist, not political ones.

[Idobox]

The thing is, spacecrafts, and thus bases, still belong to somebody. Other countries would not be allowed to use or enter whatever you put on the Moon or Mars without authorization.

The whole point of owning land is to forbid anybody to use it, in particular to keep whatever resources it contains for yourself. Countries might argue about who has the right to exploit high value resources, like lunar ice, but land itself won't have any real value for a very long time.

[Red Iron Crown]

The thing is, spacecrafts, and thus bases, still belong to somebody. Other countries would not be allowed to use or enter whatever you put on the Moon or Mars without authorization.

If I land on the Moon and want to kick over a planted flag (for instance), who can stop me whether I have authorization or not? Forbidding something requires the power to prevent.

[vger]

Second: Land will only be claimed if

a- It has any value.

These days, that land can have value regardless of what's in the rocks. It could have value as long as its facing the Earth.

Anyone remember this?

First time I saw it, I got this creepy feeling that someday, someone could end up buying the moon, just so we could all look up into the sky and see a fracking Apple logo.

If I land on the Moon and want to kick over a planted flag (for instance), who can stop me whether I have authorization or not? Forbidding something requires the power to prevent.

If you entered someone's installation, or tampered with a remote probe, I'm betting that whoever's property you violated, would probably treat it as an invasion. And while a fight probably wouldn't break out on the moon over it, both parties are on Earth, and well within attacking distance of each other.

Of course, if a corporation was the one that did it, then what? Would the nation claim no responsibility, the same way they typically do with terrorism, as a way of waging war without officially doing it?

Edited April 16, 2014 by vger

[Idobox]

If I land on the Moon and want to kick over a planted flag (for instance), who can stop me whether I have authorization or not? Forbidding something requires the power to prevent.

It's exactly the same with claiming land and all international relations. Ukraine and Russia both claim Crimea belong to them, and unless someone is ready to wage war for it, it will remain Russian.A country able to put a base on the Moon has nuclear capability, so nobody will screw with them and commit space piracy.

And since we won't have the capacity to deplete resources on other planets for the foreseeable future, there is no reason to fight for land (unless you just want to forbid the other country access to that resource), so it's not a big deal if nobody owns it.

These days, that land can have value regardless of what's in the rocks. It could have value as long as its facing the Earth.

The Moon is large, and still looks tiny. Drawing on it for advertisement would be massively expensive and give poor results (plus a probable massive backlash)

[Accelerando]

Competition may not hold for all cultures universally, but anywhere war happens there must be some sort of competition. And that occurs pretty much everywhere.

true, but so does cooperation on all levels. without cooperation of some sort, even on a business level, there'd be no way to build a functioning/stable society, which is bigger emphasis for many cultures than for some others esp. in the East. so nibb's point still holds water.

[Raven.]

No, do not amend the treaty. Me personally, I've always admired the Native American viewpoint that land does not belong to any one person; we are stewards of the Earth, not its owners. My belief extends to those celestial bodies other than the earth, they do not belong to anymore, nor should they ever.

Also, there is a contradiction in the OP. If you establish ownership of an item, such as a block of land on the moon, then you are taking the sole responsibility for defending that stake. How are you going to defend it? By throwing a sock at the trespasser? Or a wrench? Or will it come to the point to where we have armed astronauts on the moon just so they can keep trespasser "off their lawn?" You see where this is going. Establishing ownership of something breeds greed, and greed leads to violence.

Leave the treaty, the moon and Mars belongs to no one.

[Horn Brain]

Space needs to be free of political boundaries. Everyone can use space so long as they don't interfere with anyone else's use of space (no orbital littering, demolishing other countries' infrastructure on other worlds, etc.). It would be good to force humans off the Earth to think of themselves as humans and not as Americans, Russians, Chinese, etc.

[Red Iron Crown]

Space needs to be free of political boundaries. Everyone can use space so long as they don't interfere with anyone else's use of space (no orbital littering, demolishing other countries' infrastructure on other worlds, etc.). It would be good to force humans off the Earth to think of themselves as humans and not as Americans, Russians, Chinese, etc.

My bet is the first colonists will think of themselves by nationality for a generation or two, then think of themselves as Lunans, Martians, etc. They'll have more in common with the colonists from other countries than with their Earthbound countrymen.

[Holo]

Space needs to be free of political boundaries. Everyone can use space so long as they don't interfere with anyone else's use of space (no orbital littering, demolishing other countries' infrastructure on other worlds, etc.). It would be good to force humans off the Earth to think of themselves as humans and not as Americans, Russians, Chinese, etc.

I'm finding issue with you thinking it's a good idea to force people not to identify with their own culture, regardless of where they are.

[78stonewobble]

Hmm... I couldn't say yes or no, because I think that it'll have to be replaced with something different.

Something that allows for some ownership, but not ownership at any cost.

Ie. there should be provisions making it illegal to bulldoze an apollo landing site due to it's historic value or wipe out that single oasis on mars with life or other stuff like that.

Sites of special scientific or historical significance should not just be destroyed. I think we should try to behave a little better in space than we have done here on earth.

But as long as those provisions are made I have no problem with atleast certain places on the celestial sphere being exploited for their ressources.

EDIT: In the beginning I think it would probably be best for not to allow it to be a "free for all"... but rather we set aside certain areas on ie. the moon or individual asteroids for private use.

EDIT2: Ownership as such, would only be applicable, if it's a permanent presence.

Edited April 16, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[Idobox]

Also, there is a contradiction in the OP. If you establish ownership of an item, such as a block of land on the moon, then you are taking the sole responsibility for defending that stake. How are you going to defend it? By throwing a sock at the trespasser? Or a wrench? Or will it come to the point to where we have armed astronauts on the moon just so they can keep trespasser "off their lawn?" You see where this is going. Establishing ownership of something breeds greed, and greed leads to violence.

By attacking the nation that stole your moon dust field.

For the foreseeable future, putting people on the Moon or Mars will be very expensive and difficult, so only big countries or federations will be able to do it, and they will have the means to force other people to respect their property.

My bet is the first colonists will think of themselves by nationality for a generation or two, then think of themselves as Lunans, Martians, etc. They'll have more in common with the colonists from other countries than with their Earthbound countrymen.

I'm not sure: look at the USA today. Except for a few native Americans, everybody is from immigration, most of them more than 2 generations ago. And they still distinguish between WASP, Irish, Italian, Black, etc...

Ie. there should be provisions making it illegal to bulldoze an apollo landing site due to it's historic value or wipe out that single oasis on mars with life or other stuff like that.

Sites of special scientific or historical significance should not just be destroyed. I think we should try to behave a little better in space than we have done here on earth.

Once again, nations going to space are big and have the means to get respected. You don't need a law to stop China from destroying the Apollo site or the USA from drilling for oil through an important martian site, because that would anger powerful people who can embargo or nuke you. Some form of committee, or simply calling the other big countries before doing anything should be enough.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm not sure: look at the USA today. Except for a few native Americans, everybody is from immigration, most of them more than 2 generations ago. And they still distinguish between WASP, Irish, Italian, Black, etc...

Heh, I was going to use the US as an example of my point. They're generally Americans first, and then their ethnicity second. Irish-american, African-american, etc.

[TheShadow1138]

Amending the Treaty would require a majority of the states party to the treaty to approve the amendment, which may prove difficult as smaller nations could simply withhold ratification of the amendments to keep the larger nations capable of reaching other celestial bodies from carving up the Solar System. Also, I believe the competition that would inevitably follow (whether it be for national pride or some kind of economic benefit in the future) is one of the reasons the treaty was written in the first place.