U.S. Space Exploration and Possible Dominance

[Kurai Tsuki]

I made this poll out of my concern that the rich nations will dominate space exploration, and ultimately the Third World will be left out.

[Individual]

Yes, that's right!

Step right up, step right up. Place your bets, place your bets.

You guessed it, you can now invest in property on the moon. How will you get to your property you ask? Well simple...don't...just pay up!


MoonShop

Planetary Investments

Lunar Registry

Lunar Land Owner <-- Clearance &#036;29.99 an acre (Special offer, while supplies last)

Hey you there&#33; Yes you&#33; You said you were an imbicile, well we have just the thing for you. Come here son, and purchase your own moon estate&#33; Yes, that is right. Your own moon acre. Just think, if your great-grandchildren have made it through heir to the thrown, GWB III&#39;s term, they may be able to hand the property down three more generations.

Think of the possibilities junior&#33;

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don&#39;t think those people claiming to be selling moon real estate are genuine.
Claiming territory on the moon I think comes under similar circumstances to claiming territory in Antarctica.

Most likely the future colonists of the solar system will be communist; I am curious to see how land allocation will work out.

I think also The Moon should be renamed Luna, it&#39;s proper name.

[CorporationsRule]

First of all, that&#39;s the worst poll ever.

The answer to the question is "YES", but who the hell would be in favor of it? Nobody that would get past the "you have to believe that proletariate revolution will simply save the world and stuff" police anyway.

So yes, the US/Corporate government will dominate space. They won&#39;t dominate space exploration. At least, they won&#39;t care if they do. That&#39;s not what space dominance is about. Dominating space is about dominating the next strategic military frontier.

The Mission to Mars bullshit is nothing but a cover for weaponizing space.

And if anybody tells me that this is a conspiracy theory or that I hate technology and that&#39;s why I think space exploration is a load of shit then I&#39;ll just spit, because militarizing and dominating space is what the crazy fuckers in charge literally say they want to do, and who the fuck is going to stop them?

Maybe China...yet another reason we&#39;re all gonna die&#33;

[CorporationsRule]

"The U.S. Air Force Space Command?s website included an interesting blurb recently from the official Chinese Communist Party newspaper, Renmin Ribao. On Dec. 12, 2003, an article ran about China?s growing discomfort regarding U.S. space intentions. China worried that the Bush administration?s emphasis on space control, as seen by apparent U.S. plans for ?space combat troops? and possible ballistic missile defense space-based interceptors, has given China a ?new vulnerability? in space. To counteract these moves, the paper (an official mouthpiece of the government) urged that the international community boost ?outer-space arms control? so that it would ban testing, fielding, or using space-based weapons, systems, and their components. This echoes China?s long-held position promoting a comprehensive space weapons test ban."

http://www.cdi.org/program/docum...ogramID...age=index.cfm#3

From the horses mouth:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/space20010111.html

[CorporationsRule]

This MSN link expired, but I had the article copied, so I&#39;m going to cut and paste it. Please nobody cry.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3939584/

SCARBOROUGH: But first, the president wants to launch America on a &#036;1 trillion trip to Mars. It?s time for tonight?s ?Real Deal.?

George Bush is preparing to tell Americans that he wants to send a man to Mars. But, first, taxpayers are going to need to pick up the tab for an American-built rest stop on the moon. Now, even as somebody who grew up in a family worshipful of the Apollo space program, I must admit, I am baffled by the president?s galactic strategy.

We are, after all, a nation saddled with a &#036;500 billion deficit and the largest federal debt in history. You know, the situation?s gotten so bad that the Pentagon now can?t even afford to keep our troops stocked with bullets and body armor, but more on that later.

For now, the president has a lot of explaining to do before he convinces Americans that we?re ready to join him on &#036;1 trillion trip to Mars. Why don?t we just send our troops the &#036;200 vests that will save their lives and bring them back home from their journey overseas and bring them back home safely and in one piece?

And that?s tonight?s ?Real Deal.?

Congressman?s Tom Feeney of Florida is here to talk about the mission to Mars and the moon. And so is Nobel laureate physicist Douglas Osheroff from Stanford. We also have radio talk show host Lionel with us.

Congressman Feeney, let me begin with you.

Why should we be funding a moon colony and a mission to Mars right now?

REP. TOM FEENEY, REP- FLORIDA: Well, in the first place, Joe, I actually am very excited about the president?s proposal, even though I?m one of the leading fiscal conservatives, voted against the recent Medicare proposal, partly because it does bust our budget, in my view.

But let me say this. Bottom line, Joe, exploration is important. Research is important. But somebody on the face of the Earth is going to control and dominate space in the next several decades and centuries. If it?s not the United States, it may be a hostile nation, a hostile set of nations, or even a hostile or rogue terrorist group.

This is a matter in part of national security and homeland defense. If we lose our dominance of low Earth and high Earth orbit, bottom line is, we?re going to risk our very security in the United States of America.

SCARBOROUGH: But, Tom Feeney, with our budget deficit, with us rebuilding Iraq, homeland security, do you really think this should be a trillion-dollar priority right now?

FEENEY: Joe, you know these numbers are big.

But because you were such a great fiscal conservative when you served in Congress, we spend less than &#036;15 billion a year in the NASA program. That is about how much as the president is proposing to spend on treating AIDS in Africa, which I voted against, by the way. We?ve got a &#036;1.7 trillion deficit annually. Every single conservative that I know of believes, first and foremost, the federal government ought to be involved in securing our borders and protecting our homeland, our national defense.

Ultimately, somebody will dominate space. If it is not the United States, it?s going to be somebody very hostile to our interests. We can?t permit that to happen. And NASA, while it needs to work closer with the Defense Department, NASA is part of America?s leadership and dominance in the future of space exploration and in protecting our security and homeland.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, let me bring the professor in here.

Professor, what do you make of President George Bush?s plan to set up basically a space station on Mars to help?to the moon?to help us get to Mars?

DOUGLAS OSHEROFF, NOBEL LAUREATE PHYSICIST: Well, it may well in fact help us get to Mars.

I think the question is whether that is what we should be planning and spending our money for at this time. Certainly, what NASA has demonstrated is that we can do an awful lot of exploration of Mars using robotic probes.

SCARBOROUGH: So, are you saying that it would be better for us to send unmanned probes to Mars, instead of trying to send men and women there instead?

OSHEROFF: I think to send men and women to Mars or to the moon again, these are, I think, really emotional issues. It?s a matter of national pride. I don?t think it?s a strategic issue.

I think one can do all of that stuff, protecting?I hope that space will not become something?an armed front. I hope that will never happen. I think, in fact, you can do all of those things with robotic probes.

SCARBOROUGH: Lionel, let me bring you in here. You?re a radio talk show host, obviously, originally?just across the state from the space coast, now nationwide.

What are Americans saying about the president?s plan? And how do you think they are going to respond to this trillion-dollar plan to send a man to Mars?

LIONEL, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, you know, Joe, I think, very frankly, we should be exploring Uranus, which apparently is where the president and Karl Rove?s heads are implanted.

All I know is, my parents have to struggle monthly to afford basic medication. And we?re going to go to Mars, because we?re going to, what, look for weapons of mass destruction there? Listen, I?m all for exploration. You know, I know that it is part of the human spirit to explore and to venture. But a space station on the moon, so that we can then go to Mars? Why?

I mean, did Karl Rove and the president twist up a fatty one night and sit back and say, I?ve got one; let?s go to Mars? And, listen, we?re all for dominance. You know, I guess I am, and not in a sexual way?well, maybe yes. But this is, to me, when we have a dire?and you so correctly say, we have American men and women who are looking for Kevlar body armor, we?ve got so many domestic problems, what psychotic moment came over the White House to go to Mars, as the Nobel laureate is?and I am as well, though not documented .

We?ve already got explorers there. We?ve got rovers. I mean, why? Does this fiscal conservative president understand that this takes, what, &#036;1 trillion? And when we do go to Mars, what exactly are we going to find? Why?

SCARBOROUGH: Well, Lionel, let?s look at the numbers. And I want to ask the congressman about this.

President Bush is going to ask Congress for an &#036;800 million down payment next year for the project, which will cost at least &#036;1 trillion. But our first-quarter budget deficit was &#036;126 billion. And it?s going to hit &#036;500 billion for the year.

Now, Tom Feeney, you?ve probably heard more jokes today about the president?s plan than you?ve over the past 24 months. But you know the president, the administration and those in Congress supporting this are going to have a lot of raised eyebrows, saying, why can?t we protect our troops in Iraq? Why can?t we take care of senior citizens at home? Why can?t we spend this money on education? What?s your answer to that?

Bottom line, how can we afford this with the largest deficit ever?

FEENEY: In the first place, the NASA budget, which is less than &#036;15 billion as we talk right now, Joe, is a minuscule part, a very minuscule part

SCARBOROUGH: Right, Tom. But it won?t be, though, Tom. If the president?s plan is enacted, it?s going to skyrocket, is it not?

FEENEY: Joe, respectfully, no. What we?re talking about, according to the president?what I?ve heard he?s going to propose is about a five percent increase a year in the NASA budget.

And I will tell you this, that it will still be a minuscule part of our overall federal budget, over &#036;1.7 trillion a year. I agree with you that we have been irresponsible, even as Republicans, the last three and four years. We need to do a much better job. The notion that the government ought to be micromanaging from cradle to grave every aspect of our education policy, our health care policy, is something I?ve worked hard to fight against.

But I will repeat this. Somebody is going to dominate space. When they do, just like when the British dominated the naval part of our globe, established their empire, just like the United States has dominated the air superiority, ultimately, whoever is able to dominate space will be able to control the destiny of the entire Earth.

And I think America is the only country with the moral capability and authority to establish what I consider a Monroe Doctrine in space, guarantee all free nations can use space, but no hostile nation will use it to take us over.

[Kurai Tsuki]

Originally posted by CorporationsRule@May 7 2004, 11:52 PM
The answer to the question is "YES", but who the hell would be in favor of it?

Sorry, I should have been more clear, in the second choice the Yes part was implied.

[Umoja]

I voted in favor of it, because if the United States started buying realestate in space, or putting stations in the Larange Points of the moon (basically in the moons orbit around the earth), this would encourage other nations (notably China) to seek to do the same thing, and would probubly lead to either another space race, or a massive war.

The advantage to a space race is that we get off this rock, and go through a rapid increase in technology. Looking at it from a communist perspective, the corporate exploitation would be bad, but I could see some potential goods.

[CorporationsRule]

Looking at it from a communist perspective is going to get you shot with a space laser.

[DarkAngel]

5 acers on mars is 20 bucks...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Looking at it from a communist perspective is going to get you shot with a space laser.

That attitude will get you nowhere fast.

Basically one of the fundamental principles of Marxism is appropiation by the proletariat of the capitalist means of production.

Whether that &#39;means of production&#39; extracts metal out of space rocks or makes booster rockets, we must snatch it with all haste.

Just because something is developed under capitalism doesn&#39;t make that something evil.

[CorporationsRule]

You are a huimorless schmuck.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are a huimorless[sic] schmuck.

Sorry, I was under the impression that this was a serious debate.

No matter what developments Capitalism manages to produce in it&#39;s dying years, communist society will either adapt to it, adapt it to society, or get rid of it (Who really NEEDS more than one brand of cheese and onion flavour crisps?)

Just like Capitalism did to fuedalism.

[CorporationsRule]

How is the proletariat going to seize the means of production when their every move is monitored?

Hence, "Looking at it from a communist perspective is going to get you shot with a space laser."


"Sorry, I was under the impression that this was a serious debate."

Anybody who&#39;s seriously worth listening to understands that they&#39;re absurd.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How is the proletariat going to seize the means of production when their every move is monitored?

I don&#39;t see how being watched is going to change anything. except maybe make the clash between the proletariat and their master&#39;s lapdogs sooner.

And no amount of monitoring will stop the determined saboteur.

Hence, "Looking at it from a communist perspective is going to get you shot with a space laser."

But they couldn&#39;t zap all or most of the working people; who&#39;s gonna do all the shit jobs? Who&#39;s gonna drive their limos?
Zapping people with space lasers is like swatting a hornet&#39;s nest with a broomstick; it&#39;s all fun and games until the hornets get pissed off and sting you to death.

Anybody who&#39;s seriously worth listening to understands that they&#39;re absurd.

Could you rephrase that? you make it sound like people who are worth listening to are silly, which is a contradiction.

[The idealist]

But I will repeat this. Somebody is going to dominate space. When they do, just like when the British dominated the naval part of our globe, established their empire, just like the United States has dominated the air superiority, ultimately, whoever is able to dominate space will be able to control the destiny of the entire Earth.

And I think America is the only country with the moral capability and authority to establish what I consider a Monroe Doctrine in space, guarantee all free nations can use space, but no hostile nation will use it to take us over.

When read that part of the text I nearly killed myself laughing. Either that guy is brainwashed, or that is the biggest joke of the century.

Better check if popped my appendix with all that laughing, oh dear

Besides, what is the monroe doctrine? Getting caught with you pants down?

[Kurai Tsuki]

Originally posted by NoXion@May 7 2004, 08:35 AM
I think also The Moon should be renamed Luna, it&#39;s proper name.

I aggree with that, i also think that, "earth," should be called by its proper name; Terra.

[CorporationsRule]

I think earth should be called Civilization&#39;s *****.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That&#39;s what we call Nature actually.