5 ms·

And who does the tax get paid to? Some mythical Global Government that will totally work this time?

by nba456_ 3mo ago

mukbangpervert 3mo ago
The video discusses this directly.
LunaSea 3mo ago
Any company removing space debris from orbit. Like a carbon capture price to offset your launch.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- nba456_ 3mo ago
  What you're describing is a global government, otherwise that can't be enforced.
  - jqbd 3mo ago
    US can enforce US satellites, no?
    - swiftcoder 3mo ago
      Provided they are launched in the US, on a US-owned carrier? Most likely Can't necessarily stop a multinational firing things to space on Russian/Chinese/ESA launch vehicles
    - rvnx 3mo ago
      Maybe but if so, it would mean that US spontaneously would go against one of their main strategic interests for the planet ? Doesn't makes too much sense. It's like this bicycle meme where the person puts a stick in its wheels. It's for the same reason that petrol cars are encouraged in the US. Punishing SpaceX will lead to a bigger financial crisis, an upset Elon Musk who might refuse to fund the next democratic election and dozens of thousands of lost jobs (fortunately they already became millionaire, riding the right rocket) for a problem that most of the rich population doesn't care about. Because in the city, it's about your petrol car, big trucks, and nobody to see the stars and a bit more pollution doesn't change much at that scale from their eyes. CFCs (these gazes destroying ozone) were a notable exception, because it would lead to death of everyone (the same way that petrol with lead), except death, universally there was no advantage to defend. But a space filled with US satellites is a great advantage for the US, since they are the only ones with the capabilities to deploy thousands of them, and it's a big business for military intelligence. I can imagine the main reason they are going to regulate, is so that older satellite debris don't destroy the new shiny satellites, but beauty of the sky is going to be the very least important factor.
      - someonebaggy 3mo ago
        CFCs were solved because we found new chemicals that were more profitable than CFCs. Global warming may eventually be solved because renewable electricity is (already) more profitable than fossil electricity (but only when it's working, which is the major sticking point). In neither case did thinking about the bad things that would happen if we continued along a path actually stop us continuing along that path. It was always about profit.
  - NDlurker 3mo ago
    US could sanction countries/corporations/people who don't comply.
    - sakjur 3mo ago
      Could the US effectively sanction BRICS these days?
      - NDlurker 3mo ago
        Hmm, probably not
  - Sanzig 3mo ago
    Not at all, it can be handled via international treaty. Frequency allocations for civilian satellites are already handled this way, a UN body (the ITU Radiocommunication bureau in Geneva) acts as a neutral party that handles satellite spectrum coordination between UN member states. The ITU has no enforcement power, but fundamentally that doesn't really matter much, since enforcement is handled by the member states. Are there attempts by various member states to skirt around the rules or favour their own national interests? Of course, and sometimes these are successful - but nobody just outright ignores the rules, because they know it very quickly leads to a tragedy of the commons. Administering an orbital LVT is exactly the kind of thing that could slot cleanly into an expanded ITU mandate. Where the money goes would be up for debate, but I think the cleanest solution would be ITU rebates most of it back to the government of the country that applied for the orbital slot provided that they demonstrate it's going into a space sustainability fund. Is it perfect? No, but it's based on a rickety-but-mostly-works international model and it doesn't require global government conspiracy theories to come to fruition.
    - notahacker 3mo ago
      Also, the number of countries with practical space launch capability is very small. US / China agreement isn't trivial, but if you can get them agreeing to ITU-administered slots, getting ESA, Japan, India, NZ etc is pretty straightforward (and Russia's capacity isn't huge even if they don't want to play ball)
- pantalaimon 3mo ago
  In low earth orbit, space debris removes itself after a few years
  - Sanzig 3mo ago
    Eh... no, not really. At low altitudes (<500 km), sure, but much above 600 km you are starting to look at decades for a passive deorbit depending on solar cycle and ballistic coefficient.
    - vasco 3mo ago
      Decades is a few years in a trash conversation. Things stay longer in a regular dump.
  - numpad0 3mo ago
    But that's the problem. The debris disperse whatever heavy metals and compounds into the atmosphere. Removing the debris and taking it somewhere, even just landing them protected in a heat shield, could reduce those vaporizing particles, if those are going to be a problem.
steveBK123 3mo ago
My new startup, SPECTRE. It's a new SaaS play - Satellites As A Service. That is, your satellite gets to stay in orbit as long as you pay me. Otherwise my satellite killer eats them.
- glitchc 3mo ago
  Extortion is my business -- Ernst Blofeld
athrowaway3z 3mo ago
The Dutch figured out how to do collective dike maintenance a millennium ago without inventing mythical super government. Collective rules worked just fine. I encourage you to reflect on this bias. I suspect you're taking the American state as a template, and extrapolating its incompetence. The history is filled with different ideas - some of them far older than America itself. Hell, I'd call America a place so naturally rich, it's practically the case study how much dysfunction can be papered over with money instead of statecraft.
- ericmay 3mo ago
  And how did the Dutch collect the toll and who received the tax benefits for it? I’m interested in understanding your comparison here and how it would be applicable to space and how you envision it working based on your comparison.
  - athrowaway3z 3mo ago
    You wish to take up a specific space, and with the right to use it come obligations. There was no tax or toll to consider. People naturally self-assembled under the idea that if you benefited, then you had to contribute. The calculation was: how much land did you have, how valuable was it, how much benefit you'd get from some waterworks (it wasnt just dikes but also rerouting rivers etc). Obligations were denominated in labor. My point is not that this was some perfect idyllic corruption-free scheme - it wasn't - but it was very transparent. All you should need for a stable system is for the majority of interests to align. One addition you can add is to have the labor be turned against individuals/groups that decide to unalign - i.e. instead of trashing space debris your next labor is to de-orbit a satellite if 1 company decides to try their luck at tyranny over cooperation. Things hinge on a shared understanding that its always possible to go back to the salted earth solution.
    - ericmay 3mo ago
      Ok but that's not what I asked... You're just saying "we should have some system that benefits everyone". Ok sure that sounds nice, but you compared it to a specific framework with an off-hand "we've solved this so long ago" type of comment. Surely if it's so simple and straightforward and the Dutch "already figured it out" you'd have at least some idea of a proposal or implementation details. How will the toll be collected? Who will collect it? How will it be fairly distributed?

And who does the tax get paid to? Some mythical Global Government that will totally work this time?

by nba456_ 3mo ago

And who does the tax get paid to? Some mythical Global Government that will totally work this time?

mukbangpervert 3mo ago

The video discusses this directly.

LunaSea 3mo ago

Any company removing space debris from orbit. Like a carbon capture price to offset your launch.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
nba456_ 3mo ago
What you're describing is a global government, otherwise that can't be enforced.
- jqbd 3mo ago
  US can enforce US satellites, no?
  - swiftcoder 3mo ago
    Provided they are launched in the US, on a US-owned carrier? Most likely Can't necessarily stop a multinational firing things to space on Russian/Chinese/ESA launch vehicles
  - rvnx 3mo ago
    Maybe but if so, it would mean that US spontaneously would go against one of their main strategic interests for the planet ? Doesn't makes too much sense. It's like this bicycle meme where the person puts a stick in its wheels. It's for the same reason that petrol cars are encouraged in the US. Punishing SpaceX will lead to a bigger financial crisis, an upset Elon Musk who might refuse to fund the next democratic election and dozens of thousands of lost jobs (fortunately they already became millionaire, riding the right rocket) for a problem that most of the rich population doesn't care about. Because in the city, it's about your petrol car, big trucks, and nobody to see the stars and a bit more pollution doesn't change much at that scale from their eyes. CFCs (these gazes destroying ozone) were a notable exception, because it would lead to death of everyone (the same way that petrol with lead), except death, universally there was no advantage to defend. But a space filled with US satellites is a great advantage for the US, since they are the only ones with the capabilities to deploy thousands of them, and it's a big business for military intelligence. I can imagine the main reason they are going to regulate, is so that older satellite debris don't destroy the new shiny satellites, but beauty of the sky is going to be the very least important factor.
    - someonebaggy 3mo ago
      CFCs were solved because we found new chemicals that were more profitable than CFCs. Global warming may eventually be solved because renewable electricity is (already) more profitable than fossil electricity (but only when it's working, which is the major sticking point). In neither case did thinking about the bad things that would happen if we continued along a path actually stop us continuing along that path. It was always about profit.
- NDlurker 3mo ago
  US could sanction countries/corporations/people who don't comply.
  - sakjur 3mo ago
    Could the US effectively sanction BRICS these days?
    - NDlurker 3mo ago
      Hmm, probably not
- Sanzig 3mo ago
  Not at all, it can be handled via international treaty. Frequency allocations for civilian satellites are already handled this way, a UN body (the ITU Radiocommunication bureau in Geneva) acts as a neutral party that handles satellite spectrum coordination between UN member states. The ITU has no enforcement power, but fundamentally that doesn't really matter much, since enforcement is handled by the member states. Are there attempts by various member states to skirt around the rules or favour their own national interests? Of course, and sometimes these are successful - but nobody just outright ignores the rules, because they know it very quickly leads to a tragedy of the commons. Administering an orbital LVT is exactly the kind of thing that could slot cleanly into an expanded ITU mandate. Where the money goes would be up for debate, but I think the cleanest solution would be ITU rebates most of it back to the government of the country that applied for the orbital slot provided that they demonstrate it's going into a space sustainability fund. Is it perfect? No, but it's based on a rickety-but-mostly-works international model and it doesn't require global government conspiracy theories to come to fruition.
  - notahacker 3mo ago
    Also, the number of countries with practical space launch capability is very small. US / China agreement isn't trivial, but if you can get them agreeing to ITU-administered slots, getting ESA, Japan, India, NZ etc is pretty straightforward (and Russia's capacity isn't huge even if they don't want to play ball)
pantalaimon 3mo ago
In low earth orbit, space debris removes itself after a few years
- Sanzig 3mo ago
  Eh... no, not really. At low altitudes (<500 km), sure, but much above 600 km you are starting to look at decades for a passive deorbit depending on solar cycle and ballistic coefficient.
  - vasco 3mo ago
    Decades is a few years in a trash conversation. Things stay longer in a regular dump.
- numpad0 3mo ago
  But that's the problem. The debris disperse whatever heavy metals and compounds into the atmosphere. Removing the debris and taking it somewhere, even just landing them protected in a heat shield, could reduce those vaporizing particles, if those are going to be a problem.

steveBK123 3mo ago

My new startup, SPECTRE. It's a new SaaS play - Satellites As A Service. That is, your satellite gets to stay in orbit as long as you pay me. Otherwise my satellite killer eats them.

glitchc 3mo ago
Extortion is my business -- Ernst Blofeld

athrowaway3z 3mo ago

The Dutch figured out how to do collective dike maintenance a millennium ago without inventing mythical super government. Collective rules worked just fine. I encourage you to reflect on this bias. I suspect you're taking the American state as a template, and extrapolating its incompetence. The history is filled with different ideas - some of them far older than America itself. Hell, I'd call America a place so naturally rich, it's practically the case study how much dysfunction can be papered over with money instead of statecraft.

ericmay 3mo ago
And how did the Dutch collect the toll and who received the tax benefits for it? I’m interested in understanding your comparison here and how it would be applicable to space and how you envision it working based on your comparison.
- athrowaway3z 3mo ago
  You wish to take up a specific space, and with the right to use it come obligations. There was no tax or toll to consider. People naturally self-assembled under the idea that if you benefited, then you had to contribute. The calculation was: how much land did you have, how valuable was it, how much benefit you'd get from some waterworks (it wasnt just dikes but also rerouting rivers etc). Obligations were denominated in labor. My point is not that this was some perfect idyllic corruption-free scheme - it wasn't - but it was very transparent. All you should need for a stable system is for the majority of interests to align. One addition you can add is to have the labor be turned against individuals/groups that decide to unalign - i.e. instead of trashing space debris your next labor is to de-orbit a satellite if 1 company decides to try their luck at tyranny over cooperation. Things hinge on a shared understanding that its always possible to go back to the salted earth solution.
  - ericmay 3mo ago
    Ok but that's not what I asked... You're just saying "we should have some system that benefits everyone". Ok sure that sounds nice, but you compared it to a specific framework with an off-hand "we've solved this so long ago" type of comment. Surely if it's so simple and straightforward and the Dutch "already figured it out" you'd have at least some idea of a proposal or implementation details. How will the toll be collected? Who will collect it? How will it be fairly distributed?