4 ms·

Agree, I'm interested in the political aspect of this as well. For most of modern history (past WWII lets say) exploration of unknown frontiers (Antartica, spa

Agree, I'm interested in the political aspect of this as well. For most of modern history (past WWII lets say) exploration of unknown frontiers (Antartica, space, the moon etc) has been done under nation states with various levels of funding from governments either at 100% public or a public/private mix. This exploration is done usually with the end goal of expanding human knowledge or sometimes for national defense as in the space race and the moon. What makes me SUPER uneasy about what SpaceX is trying to do with Mars is the 100% private nature of this, at least from an ownership perspective. Is SpaceX trying to claim ownership to Mars, or a least a part of it? Who or what gives them the right to make this claim? Wouldn't humanity as a whole be better served to see Mars the same way we see Antartica? Additionally, why does SpaceX get to say who goes to Mars and who doesn't? Shouldn't we choose who gets to go on missions to Mars based on expertise in technical and scientific fields vs how much one can pay for a ticket? Why should the ability to go to Mars be based capital? Does a little child who wants to be an astronaut also need to be a billionaire? Ultimately, what gives the super rich the right to leave this planet for a colony on Mars while the rest of us try to figure out how to survive on the planet that they had a large hand in destroying in the first place. Why should we, as a society, even support a colony on Mars that will take many years to be self sustaining in the above configuration. Hopefully our international bodies wake up and start taking the privatization of space seriously and at least start enacting and enforcing some guidelines, regulations, and treaties around space and bodies in our solar system.

mikeash 10y ago
SpaceX isn't standing in anybody else's way. Any and all other interested parties are free to pursue their own plans. Adding guidelines and regulations won't suddenly make it so that other people go, all it'll do is make it harder for SpaceX to do so. This post sounds to me like sour grapes. "I can't go, so I don't want anybody to go unless we all can." I hope I'm wrong, because that idea terrifies me a bit.
- brooklyndavs 10y ago
  Good, it should be harder for SpaceX and other completely private entities to go since space is identified as a public Common (see my comment above). Its not sour grapes. When Neil Armstrong went to the moon it was for all Americans and all of Humanity. During the space shuttle missions there was a public effort to try to select a broad representation of cultures, backgrounds, educations, nationalities etc to be astronauts. However, if the only ultra rich get to go, which it sounds like the case since that would be the only way to fund a private mission, why should everyone left be ok with it? Why should the richest people in the world, most who have had a incredibly large role in environmentally destroying the ONLY planet all of humanity can live on, just leave everyone else to clean up the mess? It would be the ultimate FU to the rest of the 99.9% of humanity. http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/24/9792854/neil-degrasse-tyson-interview-delusions-of-space-enthusiasts http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/24/9792854/neil-degrasse-tys...
  - ifdefdebug 10y ago
    I really don't see many multi millionaires sitting on Mars trying to do subsistence agriculture honestly and if some want to, they are welcome... You are missing the point. Capital funded the moon missions as well - just in that case it was the capital of the community you belong to, let's say your nation, so you feel involved. Nowadays NASA can't even put a human being into orbit any more - and that's not the fault of SpaceX. As a "public Common", everybody should be allowed to go there. That's not the same as to claim ownership, which indeed should be publicly and very well regulated.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    What purpose will that serve? You make things harder for SpaceX, so... what? Everybody just stays home? Does that make you happier, because we're all equally stuck?
    - snerbles 10y ago
      It's the Harrison Bergeron approach to space exploration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
TrevorJ 10y ago
Did you miss the part where they are doing this for NASA? There's already a legal framework in place, in fact, legislation has to be passed just to enable private space flight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight#American_deregulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight#American_d...
- brooklyndavs 10y ago
  Ah! There is a big difference, I believe between subcontracting LEO for NASA and a frikin Mars mission. Since so far everything is done for NASA I don't have a problem with it. NASA, like any giant government agency subcontracts out a lot of work to various parties. The whole "Military-industrial complex" thing. In the case of LEO where it's NASA controlled but privately contracted SpaceX is awesome because they are bringing down the cost of launches to LEO. This saves us, the US taxpayer $$$. The frikin Mars mission is different because from what I understand SpaceX is going with or without NASA. That's the difference between an Apollo mission, where the Saturn V was developed by Boeing and others, and Boeing just going alone. Personally, I think this legislation is a bad idea and is a direct attack on a global common. It will be interesting to see how this holds up internationally. Its almost like the US saying to the world we open up waters in the middle of the Atlantic (international waters) for resource extraction by any of our corporations. Try and stop us.
  - ItsDeathball 10y ago
    >Its almost like the US saying to the world we open up waters in the middle of the Atlantic (international waters) for resource extraction by any of our corporations. The US doesn't have to do anything for that to happen, since that's the current status quo. Fisheries in international waters are in crisis due to overfishing in part because they are global commons and access cannot be restricted.
    - brooklyndavs 10y ago
      Eh from what I am seeing access is fairly regulated. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/permits/highseas.html http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/permits/highseas.html http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-2/fisheries/deep-sea-fishing/catching-fish-in-international-waters/ http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-2/fisheries/deep-sea-fish... Status quo seems to be not good enough on the enforcement end, which leads to illegal overfishing.

mikeash 10y ago

SpaceX isn't standing in anybody else's way. Any and all other interested parties are free to pursue their own plans. Adding guidelines and regulations won't suddenly make it so that other people go, all it'll do is make it harder for SpaceX to do so. This post sounds to me like sour grapes. "I can't go, so I don't want anybody to go unless we all can." I hope I'm wrong, because that idea terrifies me a bit.

brooklyndavs 10y ago
Good, it should be harder for SpaceX and other completely private entities to go since space is identified as a public Common (see my comment above). Its not sour grapes. When Neil Armstrong went to the moon it was for all Americans and all of Humanity. During the space shuttle missions there was a public effort to try to select a broad representation of cultures, backgrounds, educations, nationalities etc to be astronauts. However, if the only ultra rich get to go, which it sounds like the case since that would be the only way to fund a private mission, why should everyone left be ok with it? Why should the richest people in the world, most who have had a incredibly large role in environmentally destroying the ONLY planet all of humanity can live on, just leave everyone else to clean up the mess? It would be the ultimate FU to the rest of the 99.9% of humanity. http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/24/9792854/neil-degrasse-tyson-interview-delusions-of-space-enthusiasts http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/24/9792854/neil-degrasse-tys...
- ifdefdebug 10y ago
  I really don't see many multi millionaires sitting on Mars trying to do subsistence agriculture honestly and if some want to, they are welcome... You are missing the point. Capital funded the moon missions as well - just in that case it was the capital of the community you belong to, let's say your nation, so you feel involved. Nowadays NASA can't even put a human being into orbit any more - and that's not the fault of SpaceX. As a "public Common", everybody should be allowed to go there. That's not the same as to claim ownership, which indeed should be publicly and very well regulated.
- mikeash 10y ago
  What purpose will that serve? You make things harder for SpaceX, so... what? Everybody just stays home? Does that make you happier, because we're all equally stuck?
  - snerbles 10y ago
    It's the Harrison Bergeron approach to space exploration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

TrevorJ 10y ago

Did you miss the part where they are doing this for NASA? There's already a legal framework in place, in fact, legislation has to be passed just to enable private space flight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight#American_deregulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight#American_d...

brooklyndavs 10y ago
Ah! There is a big difference, I believe between subcontracting LEO for NASA and a frikin Mars mission. Since so far everything is done for NASA I don't have a problem with it. NASA, like any giant government agency subcontracts out a lot of work to various parties. The whole "Military-industrial complex" thing. In the case of LEO where it's NASA controlled but privately contracted SpaceX is awesome because they are bringing down the cost of launches to LEO. This saves us, the US taxpayer $$$. The frikin Mars mission is different because from what I understand SpaceX is going with or without NASA. That's the difference between an Apollo mission, where the Saturn V was developed by Boeing and others, and Boeing just going alone. Personally, I think this legislation is a bad idea and is a direct attack on a global common. It will be interesting to see how this holds up internationally. Its almost like the US saying to the world we open up waters in the middle of the Atlantic (international waters) for resource extraction by any of our corporations. Try and stop us.
- ItsDeathball 10y ago
  >Its almost like the US saying to the world we open up waters in the middle of the Atlantic (international waters) for resource extraction by any of our corporations. The US doesn't have to do anything for that to happen, since that's the current status quo. Fisheries in international waters are in crisis due to overfishing in part because they are global commons and access cannot be restricted.
  - brooklyndavs 10y ago
    Eh from what I am seeing access is fairly regulated. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/permits/highseas.html http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/permits/highseas.html http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-2/fisheries/deep-sea-fishing/catching-fish-in-international-waters/ http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-2/fisheries/deep-sea-fish... Status quo seems to be not good enough on the enforcement end, which leads to illegal overfishing.