NationStates Jolt Archive

Delegates of the Republic of SilveryMinnow request a proposal for cooperative funding by nations of the U.N. to begin construction of a Space station.

The primary function of the station would be to safeguard the World's Satellites against destruction.

We may be interested in submitting one. We'd just need the specifics of what is required first, and, obviously, the assurance that other nations can help out- our nation isn't big enough for a project like that.

we are already researching rocket propulsion methods and would happily co-operate in any joint research project.

However, The Hirotan Government has no interest in having a presence on any space station at present, and would prefer to operate in a supporting capacity.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

We offer our cautious support for this project. However, we would like to see the space station to focus more on scientific research and the testing of humans' ability to adapt to low/zero gravity conditions.

The legal implications of a presence in space intrigue us; we hold the view that no ownership should be claimed on planetary bodies, etc. What are other nations' views on this matter?

Sax Russell
Speaker for Science

Space stations cost so much money that even if alchemy were possible in space, it would still not be practical to build a space station.
Human Research :?: It is already known how much tissue deteriorates in space. In addition (If any other proof is needed) humans in space are exposed to harmful doses of radiation. For all these reasons and more, The Disputed Territories of Germany and France will never approve your proposal, and hopes that many others will do the right thing.

There is value in exploration itself. Discovery, knowledge - these are rewards that make such projects worthwhile, in our opinion. Maybe we will find life, maybe not. Maybe we will make astounding scientific discoveries, maybe not. We will never find out unless we search.

There's an interesting line of thought that argues that our planet is a cradle. Perhaps we must grow up and leave it.

These philosophical matters aside, an aspect of this proposal does bother me greatly. It would not be right for the UN to extract funding from member states for a programme many will wish to have no part in. If this cannot be resolved in a satisfactory manner then the project will have to be conducted outside of the UN, in which case a UN charter may be required to ensure that certain standards are maintained and adhered to. This, I imagine, may cause delays and problems…

Sax Russell
Speaker for Science

Whereas I do agree that housing the world's satellites in an internationally-protected space station is a worthy idea, I think that this 'UN Space Station' prospect could be used for a much higher purpose. A UN space station could be used instead for the protection of refugees from areas ravaged by war. I'm a bit sketchy on the details at the moment, but I'm sure that some delegation between nations could work them out. (I'm extremely tired today-forgive me...)

The proposal would found a Space Station to be used by Qualified Teams of all nations, for the purposes of Exploration, Science, Defense of the Earth's Satellites, and a Launching/ Construction/Harbor for Space Vehicles and Crews.

The Station would be built in cooperation from all nations of the U.N. in Zero Gravity outside of the Earth-Moon orbits.

All nations of the U.N. would have access to the Station. Nations without the ability to achieve escape velocity from Earth would be aided in reaching the station by nations with the Capability to do so.

Resolution so far...

The proposal would found a Space Station to be used by Qualified Teams of all nations, for the purposes of Exploration, Science, Defense of the Earth's Satellites, and a Launching/ Construction/Harbor for Space Vehicles and Crews.

The Station would be built in cooperation from all nations of the U.N. in Zero Gravity outside of the Earth-Moon orbits.

All nations of the U.N. would have access to the Station. Nations without the ability to achieve escape velocity from Earth would be aided in reaching the station by nations with the Capability to do so.

Resolution so far...

I find several aspects of this resolution to be impractical. Wuld you mind clarifying on the following points?

1.) Location - You say that the space station should be placed outside of the Earth-Moon Orbits. By this, I assume that you intend to place it in a complementary orbit around the sun. This location seems to contradict the aim of the station to protect earth's satelites (which are all much closer to the planet), and to be inconveniently far from earth for the purposes of deep space exploration. Truly, would not a station on the moon, or even closer to Earth, be a more reasonable place to begin?

2.) Function - I agree with the use of an International Space Station for the purposes of exploration, both physical and scientific. However, you also state that it should be used to defend Earth's satelites. Defend them from what? And with what tools? I would be hesitant to be the first to introduce weapons to space, and I am currently unaware of any threats to the satelites in our orbit.

I would have to see this proposal backed by more scientific fact, and the purposes of the project more clearly delineated, before Rabenswald could agree to it.

Klaus von Schunter
Rabenswald Scientific Council

I believe we already stated our views on space stations in low-Earth orbits. However if you want to make the station orbit the sun, you leave us with no choice but to scrap our space program, in order to waste your money, instead of ours :!: :tantrum:
Postscript: Yes, we have a space program, but its sole purpose is launching satellites and unmanned probes.

However, you also state that it should be used to defend Earth's satelites. Defend them from what? And with what tools? I would be hesitant to be the first to introduce weapons to space, and I am currently unaware of any threats to the satelites in our orbit.

I would have to see this proposal backed by more scientific fact, and the purposes of the project more clearly delineated, before Rabenswald could agree to it.

Klaus von Schunter
Rabenswald Scientific Council
You are naive. Several nations have already lauched orbital weapons, and several other nations, including mine, have secured alliances with them.

not only have nations made orbital weapons, many such as mine exist 100% in space and have laser and ion weapons completely capable of taking out these things. If you want to do something major in space, you have to do it with a nation(s) like mine who are 100% in space, just because of their knowledge of space.

While the nation of Sophista does not approve of this proposal, the reasons involved have already been raised by other member nations. Our delegates will remain seated unless the plane of debate changes.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Rabenswald wrote:

I find several aspects of this resolution to be impractical. Wuld you mind clarifying on the following points?

1.) Location - You say that the space station should be placed outside of the Earth-Moon Orbits. By this, I assume that you intend to place it in a complementary orbit around the sun. This location seems to contradict the aim of the station to protect earth's satelites (which are all much closer to the planet), and to be inconveniently far from earth for the purposes of deep space exploration. Truly, would not a station on the moon, or even closer to Earth, be a more reasonable place to begin?

A low orbital trajectory requires maintenance and use of fuel to maintain, as the closer to a planets mass, the greater the deterioration of the orbit path. Placing the Station in a Complementary orbit with the sun, allows a more efficent use for the resources of the station. Less logistics. The moon is not suitable because its orbital path is fixed around the Earth. The Paths of Satellites, and the moon would have to be figured. Outside the path, the Satellites would be more accessible by the Station. IE: If the moon and the Satellite to be defended were on opposite sides of Earth, a protecting Vessel would have to catch up or wait for the Satellite, (the Satellites usually follow the rotation of the Earth, per transfer of Rotational Energy). Outside the path a Vessel would only have to fly an intercept course.

2.) Function - I agree with the use of an International Space Station for the purposes of exploration, both physical and scientific. However, you also state that it should be used to defend Earth's satelites. Defend them from what? And with what tools? I would be hesitant to be the first to introduce weapons to space, and I am currently unaware of any threats to the satelites in our orbit.

There are nations outside the U.N. that would willingly "blind," a weaker Nation to pursue conquest. The Station manned by Strong U.N. peacekeeping forces would act as a deterent against such aggression.

I would have to see this proposal backed by more scientific fact, and the purposes of the project more clearly delineated, before Rabenswald could agree to it.

The Station is to built specifically for the pursuit of Scientific fact by peaceful means.

The SilveryMinnow Delegation.

No, space should be explored but not colonized in my view and this has already been partly covered in an issue and a past resolution.

The Delegates are missing the main point of the discussion. The topic is to create a viable resolution for a U.N. SpaceStation. The only similar resolution offered was for colonization of the moon.

"Any JackAss can kick down a shed."

-Bob Dole-

Yes, lets build an expensive space station to protect cheap satellites that get replaced in five years anyway. And lets place men and women on this station, so that when it gets attacked, we have casualties on our hands. A very logical and sensible proposal. :roll: Remind me to recall my ambassador from the country where this originated.

The Delegates of the Republic of SilveryMinnow cannot compete with such mental giants and thus withdraw.

There are nations outside the U.N. that would willingly "blind," a weaker Nation to pursue conquest. The Station manned by Strong U.N. peacekeeping forces would act as a deterent against such aggression.

The SilveryMinnow Delegation.

Still though, this would not do much good. Even if the UN ran the station, nations like mine who are only in Space, and have been for many Centuries, this space station would be VERY vulnerable to an attack. We have anti-matter weapons and other VERY advanced WMD's that could kill this thing you are proposing from a few lightyears away, and no-body would ever know who it was attacking it. That is why if you build it, you would HAVE to employ space nations, who can make a station like this have very strong defences. The hard part though, is finding Space nations would be willing to help Earthlings.

the Ayatollah of Nathaniistan wishes to express his oppposition to this ridiculous piece of rubbish.

I agree that space research is a novel idea, and I do concede that an international agency could be feasible, but the ramifications of how research will be conducted worries my people.

First, Nathaniistan is a small nation. Although we have some of the best and brightest researchers in the world, we do not have the capacity to reach escape velocity, given our rather limited resources. This piece of legislation proposes a world of space Haves and Have-nots, in which technologically superior nations can freely choose to send their researchers to space, while forcing smaller nations to be dependent on their abilities. Even if developing space programs produce the ability to reach escape velocity, they must also have the capacity to reach the sun. Technologically superior nations, even if they have the capacity to reach escape velocity, must commit enormous resources to leave the sun's orbit. This situation benefits no-one, and I fail to see any compelling argument for why the benefits outweigh the costs.

Why are you even building the shed, Bob Dole?

The Delegates are missing the main point of the discussion. The topic is to create a viable resolution for a U.N. SpaceStation. The only similar resolution offered was for colonization of the moon.

"Any JackAss can kick down a shed."

-Bob Dole-
Maybe we consider no UN space station viable.

What's more, Nathaniistan wishes to inform all that satellites are in no way sole territorial possessions of UN members. We are protecting non-members, which I feel is absurd.

Also, can you honestly expect a flimsy little space station to protect a bunch of flimsy little satellites from solar emissions? How can you do so without frying your space-marines in the first place?

Nathaniistan concurs with Canada-Germany. Why, o Why do we need a space station, when it does not benefit anyone?

*Germany and France