Should we repeal/amend the 1967 Outer Space Treaty?

[NERVAfan]

Unmanned spaceflight has done tons since the Space Race ended, yes, especially in the last 15 years or so. But manned spaceflight hasn't really "gone anywhere" since Apollo. ISS is impressive in terms of orbital assembly, and size, but I'm not sure it's really gotten us any closer to going to Mars or whatever, despite claims.

As for WW3... wars aren't going away as long as flawed human nature remains as it is. But I really don't think we'll see another "World War" in terms of a near-global conflict, or even an outright open conflict between major powers. The weapons available are too destructive, and economies are differently based than they were in the past so controlling this or that patch of resource-rich land is comparatively less important to national power, and national economies are too intertwined -- you'd be fighting your own trade partner so crippling your own economy if you destroyed their infrastructure. So wars will probably be limited to those in which at least one party is a minor "third world" power, at least until/unless we have colonies on other planets big enough to fight Earth or we meet hostile aliens, or technological civilization falls far enough that nuclear weapons and cheap, easy global trade go away.

The one real risk would be a war based on lingering "Cold War" hostilities (eg US/Russia or US/China sparked over some territory like Ukraine or Taiwan) and if we get through the next 20-40 years without one (as I think we will) that risk will likely disappear as people who remember the Cold War age and retire, and the movers and shakers become people brought up in the post-Cold War world (if we assume people under 10 aren't really aware of politics, and the Cold War ended in 1991, then people under 33 now won't really remember the Cold War. In 30 years that 'critical' age will be 63, and a majority of Congress won't personally remember the Cold War.

[Rokker]

Unmanned spaceflight has done tons since the Space Race ended, yes, especially in the last 15 years or so. But manned spaceflight hasn't really "gone anywhere" since Apollo. ISS is impressive in terms of orbital assembly, and size, but I'm not sure it's really gotten us any closer to going to Mars or whatever, despite claims.

Of course it has/will. Its a major reason behind the upcoming ISS year long mission and a lot of study on the effects of radiation, extended space flight, etc. are very useful.

[Runboy]

Really seems like a good idea,I do not see any cons to this idea.And any conflicts over land claimed in space could be solved by resolving those conflicts on earth,through some form of organization similar to the United Nations.

[NERVAfan]

Of course it has/will. Its a major reason behind the upcoming ISS year long mission

Yeah, but that hasn't happened yet. I was talking about ISS up to now, not future plans.

and a lot of study on the effects of radiation, extended space flight, etc. are very useful.

The Russians have already done space flights longer than one year.

Also, the ISS radiation environment is not the same as deep space or Mars, so no matter what you do at ISS, people will still be able to say "it's too dangerous/untested".

I don't think the background radiation (galactic cosmic rays; solar flares are a real problem but can be shielded against much more easily) is nearly as bad as some suggest; the idea that it's especially dangerous relies on the (very debatable) linear-no-threshold model.

Even if you accept that model, the risk is not out of line for an early-exploration mission, comparing favorably IMO with (say) early 20th century Antarctic exploration.

Also, radiation-induced cancer takes decades to develop, so for a Mars mission in 20 years people will be dealing with it with 2060s medical technology... by which point I'll be very disappointed if cancer is still highly dangerous.

[TheShadow1138]

I was going through some of the other treaties, and came across another wrinkle. If you were to amend or repeal the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, a.k.a. "The Outer Space Treaty", then you would have to similarly amend or repeal the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, which, to a degree, is an update of the principles laid down in the Outer Space Treaty and further forbids the claiming of land on the Moon or other celestial bodies.

[EpsilonGalactic]

Personally, I think that the only way to protect locations like the Apollo 11 landing site and Viking probes is to turn those places, some of mars and ALL the moon into an Internationally protected Park (like Yellowstone. In space)

[Red Iron Crown]

Personally, I think that the only way to protect locations like the Apollo 11 landing site and Viking probes is to turn those places, some of mars and ALL the moon into an Internationally protected Park (like Yellowstone. In space)

World Solar System Heritage Site. I like it.

[DoctorCruz]

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.

I think that this would be a good idea to get space exploration jump started

- - - Updated - - -

Personally, I think that the only way to protect locations like the Apollo 11 landing site and Viking probes is to turn those places, some of mars and ALL the moon into an Internationally protected Park (like Yellowstone. In space)

The entire moon? That seems like slight overkill

[Seret]

Also, radiation-induced cancer takes decades to develop, so for a Mars mission in 20 years people will be dealing with it with 2060s medical technology... by which point I'll be very disappointed if cancer is still highly dangerous.

Some cancers will still be dangerous at that point, definitely. There is no one cure for cancer, because it's not one disease. We can deal with some cancers very effectively already, some we can do very little about. Unless there's a fundamental breakthrough in how we treat them, it'll just be a gradual process of sifting the ones in the "bad" pile into the "not so bad" pile.

[NERVAfan]

Unless there's a fundamental breakthrough in how we treat them

Which is exactly what I'm expecting (I'm talking about by the 2060s after all). I would expect personalized medicine to have advanced to the point that by then you can get a biopsy and a "table-top" machine spits out a personalized treatment (likely an engineered virus or nanite... if there's a difference...)

We are (probably... prediction is always tricky) just hitting the 'exponential curve' of bio-tech... look how the costs of DNA sequencing have dropped since the Human Genome Project...

[kellven]

No. For the simple reason that it's just a bunch of meaningless scribbles on a piece of dead tree. The idea of space, or the international oceans being a shared resource is just a way of saying nobody with enough guns and peasants to do anything about it actually cares enough about it to enforce a claim on it. If that ever changes, whomever decides it is worth the effort to claim it will do so; a silly piece of paper and a bunch of political posturing isn't going to stop anyone if they think there's a profit to be made in the end.

And no, nobody's going to put nukes on mars, or the moon, or anywhere else until and unless there's an actual population up there sizable enough to warrant using strategic weapons to control. We won't be fighting wars in space because wars aren't about weapons fighting each other, they're about people exerting control over people, who are all still on the ground, and not likely to leave any time soon.

[Wahgineer]

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.

How is the moon a useless military asset? It's close to earth, it has a low gravity (easier to launch a missile from), resources to support a base, one side always faces the earth, and it is visible from any point on one side of the Earth for hours on end (if they can see you, you can see them, you can target them.).

[Nibb31]

Because it takes 3 days for any projectile launched from the Moon to reach a target on Earth. And that's after waiting weeks for the proper launch window to hit that target.

The projectile would be spotted right away and 3 days is enough to have your own country wiped out. It's also enough for your enemy to prepare to shoot down the projectile in the upper atmosphere.

It would also take a massive amount of resources to build a military facility on the Moon. It took a Saturn V to put a 15 ton lander on the lunar surface. Sending a 50 ton missile to the Moon only to launch it back to the Earth would be a massive waste of resources. You'd be better off putting it in orbit, if that wasn't equally stupid.

[Rokker]

Personally, I think that the only way to protect locations like the Apollo 11 landing site and Viking probes is to turn those places, some of mars and ALL the moon into an Internationally protected Park (like Yellowstone. In space)

Honestly, I feel like this isnt that much of an issue. Nobody is going to go around desecrating historic space sites.

Because it takes 3 days for any projectile launched from the Moon to reach a target on Earth. And that's after waiting weeks for the proper launch window to hit that target.

The projectile would be spotted right away and 3 days is enough to have your own country wiped out. It's also enough for your enemy to prepare to shoot down the projectile in the upper atmosphere.

It would also take a massive amount of resources to build a military facility on the Moon. It took a Saturn V to put a 15 ton lander on the lunar surface. Sending a 50 ton missile to the Moon only to launch it back to the Earth would be a massive waste of resources. You'd be better off putting it in orbit, if that wasn't equally stupid.

Well, the time taken depends on the energy used. For an Apollo-style injection, sure, but you could cut that time down significantly. That doesn't make a lunar weapons base any more sensible, but the travel time isnt set in stone.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Rokker