4 ms·
The interesting thing is, we have those budget cuts to thank for this. In the 50 years since we landed on the moon, we've put a massively expensive and questio
by redthrowaway 15y ago
The interesting thing is, we have those budget cuts to thank for this. In the 50 years since we landed on the moon, we've put a massively expensive and questionably valuable series of tubes a few hundred kilometres from the Earth's surface, and sent a couple robots to Mars. These are both notable accomplishments, but they're hardly enough to give humanity any permanent presence in space. Space exploration has languished under the management of the federal government, and it has only been since the cancellation of the Shuttle that we've seen private enterprise truly step in with any sort of sustainable mission.
I have long argued that the cuts to NASA are short-sighted and a net loss for humanity; perhaps it's time to re-evaluate that notion. They may well have been short-sighted, but the hole left by the fading government monopoly is opening up some incredibly interesting opportunities.
- kamaal 15y agoAll it would take to get governments back into the game is some private firm proving the value of resources that can be mined there. If governments get a clue of how valuable space real estate, energy and resources can be. Expect a space race, like weapons race. In fact you can expect wars on the basis of who controls which asteroids and who gets to stay where on mars.
- redthrowaway 15y agoI can see perhaps the Chinese and maybe the Russians looking to own asteroids, but that would require they pull out of several international treaties (not that big of a deal). For the West, their model has always been government-backed private monopolies (Hudson's Bay Company, East India Company, United Fruit, modern oil companies, etc). The American government would be more than happy to let Planetary resources do their own exploitation, while throwing its military weight behind them "to protect American interests". I'd be surprised if Europe makes much of an effort.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Shivetya 15y agoTwo words : United Nations. Given the ever growing need for money I can bet a tax would be put in place to where it might not even be profitable after all the regulation and such got put into position. Think about it. They can lay levies for everything from managing the movement of objects in space to the environmental damage and insurance against such for returning materials gained in space. Then comes the whole "it belongs to all and none" type spiel that will surely follow.
- Symmetry 15y agoYou've outlined why the Secretary General of the UN might like this idea, but why on Earth would any of the space capable nations go along with this plan?
- Symmetry 15y agoHuh? They would have to pull out of treaties to own asteroids, but there's nothing preventing them from mining them.
- vibrunazo 15y agoBut it's hard for governments to have its sight range longer than the election cycle. Private companies can aim for longer than 4 years without worrying about not being reelected when it's time to collect the spoils of their hard work.
- pjscott 15y agoThat's especially true if they're controlled and funded by people with long-term vision who care more about getting important things done than they care about short-term profits. That's how SpaceX could spend so long burning money out of Elon Musk's pocket before they started turning a profit. This company has the same kind of backing: some very rich people who really want to see asteroid mining happen, and don't give a damn which congressional district gets to manufacture the hardware for it.