5 ms·

It’s both hilarious and sad that we don’t talk about nuclear because other countries will think we’re building bombs. I definitely think the space treaty has t

It’s both hilarious and sad that we don’t talk about nuclear because other countries will think we’re building bombs. I definitely think the space treaty has to go and be replaced by a reasonable treaty that allows militarization of space. Right now it’s akin to nobody building planes that can Cary more than a single person (and no cargo) because they know it gives the other party an advantage

MichaelZuo 5y ago
You want to allow every nation to be able to militarize space? Since that’s what a renegotiated UN treaty implies.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  Yes. We are only putting it off at the moment and it’s hampering progress. If we could put nukes in space it would remove the stigma of using nuclear energy. And other countries could build their defenses so they aren’t as worried. We should build a more realistic treaty that doesn’t hamper progress.
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    Well I mean you do live up to your username but you surely understand that there could be second and higher order effects of such a change in policy and geopolitics? And that these effects could be so great as to overwhelm whatever merits and demerits the first order effects obtain? Although positive and productive effects may accrue it seems highly unlikely when all things are considered that they would outweigh the negative effects and externalities.
gpm 5y ago
You're creating an imaginary strawman and arguing against it here. The space treaty does not ban nuclear power, only nuclear weapons. Nuclear power is just for the most part not worth it, and in the rare cases where it has been worth it, we've used it, in the form of RTGs because that's the only form of nuclear that has ever made sense for any space mission we've launched. Nuclear power is talked about a ton in the space community, with everything from "here's a way we could potentially power spacecraft to bases" to "hey, maybe we could build a nuclear powered rocket engine and get much better mass ratios when we send things to mars".
- edgyquant 5y ago
  I said that because nuclear weapons are restricted when anyone wants to build anything nuclear in space it gets put on the back burner because no one wants to piss of other countries (who are understandably afraid of it being a covert weapon.) I didn’t create a strawman, you did by claiming I did and then arguing against that. You did by claiming it’s talked about in the “space community,” whatever that means, when we’re talking about actual space infrastructure in the implementation phase.
  - gpm 5y ago
    It is simply not the case that nuclear weapons being restricted means anything nuclear in space gets put onto back burner. And there is no serious opposition from the poliferation from despite your strawman that there is and your strawman that it is forbidden by the outer space treaty. This is not a strawman on my part, I am directly addressing the argument you actually made in your comment, even if I was wrong it would not be a strongman, and I resent the fact that you would say "no you" when it is obviously false. Space community here is just a throwaway phrase I used for the various entities involved in Space, space agencies like nasa and the esa, research agencies like darpa, and the huge groups of contractors around them. For instance the latest award of funding that I'm aware of from the US is that General Atomics was awarded $22 million in April of this year for nuclear thermal propulsion research (and theoretically to demonstrate it on orbit by 2025, I'm fairly skeptical that they will meet that goal): https://www.ga.com/general-atomics-awarded-darpa-contract-to-design-nuclear-thermal-propulsion-system-for-draco-mission https://www.ga.com/general-atomics-awarded-darpa-contract-to...
TMWNN 5y ago
>I definitely think the space treaty has to go and be replaced by a reasonable treaty that allows militarization of space. It's hilarious how you and MichaelZuo (and every one of the idiots who denounced the US Space Force before its creation) don't actually know what the Outer Space Treaty says. The treaty does not ban "militarization of space". As gpm said, it only bans weapons of mass destruction in space. Space has been heavily miltarized for 60 years; for the entirety of the space age, military and intelligence agencies have been far, far larger users of space than civilians.

MichaelZuo 5y ago

You want to allow every nation to be able to militarize space? Since that’s what a renegotiated UN treaty implies.

edgyquant 5y ago
Yes. We are only putting it off at the moment and it’s hampering progress. If we could put nukes in space it would remove the stigma of using nuclear energy. And other countries could build their defenses so they aren’t as worried. We should build a more realistic treaty that doesn’t hamper progress.
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  Well I mean you do live up to your username but you surely understand that there could be second and higher order effects of such a change in policy and geopolitics? And that these effects could be so great as to overwhelm whatever merits and demerits the first order effects obtain? Although positive and productive effects may accrue it seems highly unlikely when all things are considered that they would outweigh the negative effects and externalities.

gpm 5y ago

You're creating an imaginary strawman and arguing against it here. The space treaty does not ban nuclear power, only nuclear weapons. Nuclear power is just for the most part not worth it, and in the rare cases where it has been worth it, we've used it, in the form of RTGs because that's the only form of nuclear that has ever made sense for any space mission we've launched. Nuclear power is talked about a ton in the space community, with everything from "here's a way we could potentially power spacecraft to bases" to "hey, maybe we could build a nuclear powered rocket engine and get much better mass ratios when we send things to mars".

edgyquant 5y ago
I said that because nuclear weapons are restricted when anyone wants to build anything nuclear in space it gets put on the back burner because no one wants to piss of other countries (who are understandably afraid of it being a covert weapon.) I didn’t create a strawman, you did by claiming I did and then arguing against that. You did by claiming it’s talked about in the “space community,” whatever that means, when we’re talking about actual space infrastructure in the implementation phase.
- gpm 5y ago
  It is simply not the case that nuclear weapons being restricted means anything nuclear in space gets put onto back burner. And there is no serious opposition from the poliferation from despite your strawman that there is and your strawman that it is forbidden by the outer space treaty. This is not a strawman on my part, I am directly addressing the argument you actually made in your comment, even if I was wrong it would not be a strongman, and I resent the fact that you would say "no you" when it is obviously false. Space community here is just a throwaway phrase I used for the various entities involved in Space, space agencies like nasa and the esa, research agencies like darpa, and the huge groups of contractors around them. For instance the latest award of funding that I'm aware of from the US is that General Atomics was awarded $22 million in April of this year for nuclear thermal propulsion research (and theoretically to demonstrate it on orbit by 2025, I'm fairly skeptical that they will meet that goal): https://www.ga.com/general-atomics-awarded-darpa-contract-to-design-nuclear-thermal-propulsion-system-for-draco-mission https://www.ga.com/general-atomics-awarded-darpa-contract-to...

TMWNN 5y ago

>I definitely think the space treaty has to go and be replaced by a reasonable treaty that allows militarization of space. It's hilarious how you and MichaelZuo (and every one of the idiots who denounced the US Space Force before its creation) don't actually know what the Outer Space Treaty says. The treaty does not ban "militarization of space". As gpm said, it only bans weapons of mass destruction in space. Space has been heavily miltarized for 60 years; for the entirety of the space age, military and intelligence agencies have been far, far larger users of space than civilians.