NationStates Jolt Archive

Manned space flight, and space shots in general are extremely expensive in terms of both resources and the environment, and have little effect on the majority of world citizens.

While I find this conclusion sad, being a physicist, it is my opinion that this is not money well spent, and indeed can not be justified, given how little we have applied the science that we already know to improving the lives of 90% of the people in the world.

This proposal would mean that only the most essential of these flights be allowed, and would aim to direct the money saved into developing ways to apply knowledge we already have into changing people's lives for the better.

Fellow UN members, please support this proposal.

Are you simply suggesting the idea or do you have a copy of the proposal to view? Additionally, are you suggesting that the UN somehow manage/curtail every individual nation's spending on space flights? Perhaps that's a detail to include in the proposal.

Description: ACKNOWLEDGING that current state-of-the art technologies only affect very small portion of the world's citizens.

ACKNOWLEDGING that space travel and associated research are extremely expensive in both monetary and environmental terms.

UNDERSTANDING that a greater benefit could be achieved for the overwhelming majority of this planet's citizens were the funds used for such research diverted to advance the application of previous research to improving the lives of those citizens.

AWARE that any benefits from such space travel and research are likely to be tiny, compared to the spending to achieve them.

AWARE that much space research can be done by surface-based research, and does not require space-flight

This body

RESOLVES to put in place a controlling body which shall measure such research, according to expected and potential gain, and monetary and environmental costs.

DETERMINES that only space-based research deemed absolutely necessary by the controlling body shall be given permission to proceed.

FURTHER DETERMINES that funds allocated to such research be newly directed to find applications of existing science to improving the existence of the majority citizens of the world.

RESOLVES ALSO to review this Bill every ten years, and determine whether the advancement of the application of science to improve lives suggests relaxing, or abolishing this Bill.


I don't know. While there are still problems here, the next logical step is colonization of other celestial bodies like the moon. This will be needed o help alleviate the population boom of the last few decades.

The Preamble of the UN Charter states:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom...

I understand where you're coming from in proposing this legislation. I don't question the fact that the funds spent annually by member nations on space programs could be used (and perhaps better used) to provide for their citizens. However, the only clause of the preamble that this legislation could POSSIBLY be serving is the latter, highlighted selection and I doubt that the standards of life would be significantly improved by such action. What I dislike most about this legislature is the power that the UN is attempting to assume. It is first and foremost a peacekeeping organization, which obviously this legislation has little to do with that, and again, in terms of standards of living, I don't see how this will be strongly benefited. To attempt to manage a member nation's checkbook, so to speak, on such weak grounds, seems unreasonable. It's a fine idea, but not feasible, in my mind. If a member nation wants to invest in space exploration, who are we to truly stop them (as long as the standard of living of their citizens meets some base requirements)? I know I won't accept the UN intruding on the management of my country to such a degree, and I highly doubt that many other nations will.

I find the idea of curtailing scientific activity in certain areas because it is deemed unworthy of attention by a largely unaccountable body an extremely dangerous precedent to set. An emphatic no from my nation.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

as a member of the "UNSC" that was brought about through the UN Space Consortium resolution, I'd suggest that this is already being done.

Member states have been encouraged to unify their space exploration, which I'd argue has gone a long way towards reducing how much has been spent on exploration.

Thus I'd argue this proposal is unneccessary

Leylsh will not support this proposal. Space exploration is an important part of science, and hopefully, always will be.

Let me state that as the author of the Tracking Near Earth Objects resolution and the author of the Needle Sharing Prevention resolution (to come to the floor shortly), I believe that there is room for both in the world.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this, but frankly your proposal doesn't have international standing (i.e. it is in violation of the Rights and Duties of Member States resolution).

Namely, how a nation decides to set its internal / domestic spending programs is its own choice, until such a time that an international threat or risk can be demostrated.

Let me explain why I don't think you've done that and why I have.

In Tracking Near Earth Objects, the very *risk* of impact is equally shared by all nations. It is simply in our collective interest to share information (thus improving our science and reducing our risk) and to plan for this danger together. This is classic collectivism and is the basis for *all* governments on NationStates: diversity is strength.

In Needle Sharing Prevention, the risk associate with HIV/AIDS spread is clearly documented by: UNDP, UNAIDS, UNODC. (NOTE: I've not yet shared the results of the United Nations Development Programme, but trust me ... they are concerned about HIV/AIDS as well.)

But the resolution clearly demostrates that HIV/AIDS victims are part of the global work force. In some regions, the adult prevalance rate can be 33%!!!

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/zi.html

This is just a completely random sample taken from what is known to be one of the most impacted regions in the world.

That means 1 in 3 of the work force are infected. It is also common knowledge that HIV/AIDS patients have weaker immune systems and thus can not work as much as others. The problem is they require more calories ... more food in order to stay in a semi-productive state. Essentially countries with high prevalance rates will literally EAT themselves into starvation. This is a human tragedy that actually crosses borders, especially in the case of injecting drug use ... where the people moving drugs *may* carry the virus to other communities. We the needles goes, the virus follows.

Clearly we have a responsibility to treat these people with respect, but more importantly we have an economic responsibility to address this on a global scale, lest we promote greater inequalities, which lead to conflict and even greater human tragedies.

You'll see that while my nation was also a strong supporter of the Refugee Protection Act and *is* extremely liberal, that we also advocate for responsible global planning.

And example of which is the Ballast Water resolution I co-authored (I did not come up with the idea nor campaign for that, but I wrote it). That proposal addressed the *global* issues of invasive species protection. While this isn't a program immediately targeting human beings, it too is important.

Now look at my economy. Surely if I'm promoting the applied and theoretical sciences (which you'll find no greater supporter than the CCSM), *and* if I'm promoting sustainable development (invasive species protection), *and* if I'm expending tremendous political resources to solve the humanitarian problems of both HIV/AIDS and unequal access to health care by underrepresented groups, clearly my track record will show you that it is possible for a nation like mine to have a healthy economy, strong civil and political freedoms *and* take on all these tasks.

You could say that my government is so active in many of these fields that our administration is HUGE and that it seems almost like an anarchy, but I urge you to reconsider this proposal. It will only make it all that much harder to improve the quality of life for us all *and* it will actually hurt us. Without theoretical and applied science programs, the medical field wouldn't be able to address HIV/AIDS ... and the environmental field wouldn't be able to address invasive species protection.

You say you are a physicist by trade ... well it is common knowledge that before serving as Chair of the Physical and Applied Sciences in the CCSM, that I actually *was* an environmental engineer (in the employ of the CCSM).

If your government wants to not have a space program, fine ... feel free to do that, as my government will continue to share its space science research with all, in accordance of UN resolutions. But do not attempt to demand that my nation give up its sovereign right to protect HIV/AIDS victims or to protect invasive species or to study the stars. Do not tie our hands.

I am actually in favour of this proposal. We are an economically-unstable nation and although we do advocate the absolute essential space trips, the more pointless ones should be removed from the space program/agenda.

Vice President, Errol Jenkins,
Democratic States of Baltiamo

I am actually in favour of this proposal. We are an economically-unstable nation and although we do advocate the absolute essential space trips, the more pointless ones should be removed from the space program/agenda.

Vice President, Errol Jenkins,
Democratic States of Baltiamo

Fine, rule your country as you see fit. But please don't subject the international community to rules that benefit ONLY your community until you can demonstrate a strong argument why the rest of us can't make up our own minds.

And the visiters to my humble home wonder why I avoid the UN (well, aside from the fact that I'm off-planet)...

This resolution is just silly. If a nation cannot afford space research, then they need not partake. To limit those who can solves nothing, save the stunting of the aquisition of knowledge. Indeed, my nation would not even exist were it not for the insane expendatures of the Federation. When Dr. Spectre of The Hack started the project that lead to my creation, and the creation of my nation, their plan was little more than "Nobody's there, let's see what we can find!"

I highly doubt that a UN body would have approved such a mission, even though my presence here impacts nobody save for myself, and the Federation. Also, does this resolution not run afoul of a previous one?


Description: The people of Genius have long stood for Scientific freedom. By ensuring that peaceful and responsible scientists can research by their own accord, and in any nation they please, technology will move forward, and trade will increase. Presented to the Assembly of the United Nations on twenty-second day of November in the year two thousand and two, Common Era. By the representative and leader of Genius: Chris Meyers The Aboolot Protector of Genius Defender of Freedom Friend of the Free Realms

OOC: I'm pretty sure that final clause about reviewing every 10 years is no good.

The Council of Enn cannot support such a resolution, as it is of the opinion that this proposal, should it become resolution, would place an unreasonable limit upon scientific freedom.

Ok, that's a lot of viewpoints and comments, but I'll try to cover them all in order.

Firstly thankyou for reviewing the proposal, and for showing the willingness to engage in debate. Most people who posted gave reasons for their unwillingness to support this bill, and I hope to answer these below.

Now

About not seeing a strong benefit - The cost of space flight is well documented. Each single launch of the space shuttle, a relatively environmentally friendly method of space travel, creates 4000 tonnes of toxic waste.
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/launch/sts_slc-6.htm

Economically the cost of a single space shuttle is over one billion dollars. Each flight of a shuttle costs 400 million dollars

(Pravda, April 2003)

If one shuttle trip a year was prevented, that would mean 4000 tonnes less toxic materials (mostly burnt solid fuel entering the atmosphere) released, and at least 400 million dollars more to spend on developing technologies that will promote equality.

How many nations have space programs? How many of you make more than one shuttle launch a year? How huge does that make the potential impact of this bill?

There is a very strong benefit.

About the dangerous precendent of curtailing scientific activity because it is deemed unworthy.

I struggle to see how this is a dangerous precedent. I know of no other scientific activity that has such a large negative impact on our planet and uses so many resources that could be used elsewhere.

The closest is perhaps nuclear weaponry. Which the (real world) UN has already banned:
http://www.unog.ch/frames/disarm/distreat/ctbt.pdf

So it is neither a precedent, nor does it pose any danger for scientific research which does not consume disproportionate amounts of resources and do disproportionate amounts of damage to our planet.

About the unified space budget making it unnecessary. I don't believe this is so. I am a supporter of the unified budget, as I believe it can help promote cooperation between nations. However, it places no specific restraints on space exploration. A trip to Mars, for instance, is estimated as costing 100 billion dollars, and would require many seperate launches (each releasing 4000 tonnes of toxic material). The cost to our planet, and the cost in resources that could be spent elsewhere will be reduced if nations can agree to undertake this together, but it will still be extreme in comparison to any potential scientific benefits.

About Space research being an important part of science: I agree. Completely. As a physicist (who focussed on astrophysics for a large amount of my degree) I love space science. However having thought at length about this I can find no acceptable justification for a large number of space flights. Space research will hopefully always be part of science, and one I find intrinsically beautiful. In the Wyrd Wyrm most of our space science will be done from ground based stations, because a huge amount of space research can be done there without needlessly harming the planet, and freeing funds to invest in developing other technologies.

About the Tracking Near Earth Objects bill : If you do not believe that the environmental cost of space flight is not shared by all the planet, I can see no common ground on which to debate. I only hope that the other UN members will see that there is a clear cost, shared by all.

About the HIV/Needle Sharing prevention bill : You state that in more highly affected regions infection can be 33% as a demonstration that this affects all member states? If all it takes is demonstrating that people affected are part of the global work force, then I contest that all the people who would benefit from technologies we can develop with the released funds are part of such a work force. I don't need to point out that everyone inhaling the materials released into the atmosphere by launches probably means that the global work force is affected.

About tieing your hands: I believe that is a strawman. This bill would not do that in any way. It says nothing about treating HIV patients, or preventing invasive foreign species from spreading. Indeed, if you could demonstrate that space based research was necessary to develop such technologies we would fully support it. In the absence of such a demonstration we believe the resources are better spent elsewhere.

If the members believe that the final clause is unconstitutional then it should be removed. I think I was influenced to include it by my enjoyment of astrophysics, and a feeling of sadness that I had to come to the conclusion, in the face of the evidence, that this bill would be a huge positive influence on our planet.

Declaiming the proposal as silly is unfair. I have, I believe, demonstrated sufficiently that the cost of space flight is high in both environmental and economic terms. I have listened to all the points, and attempted to answer them. If any delegate or member has further points to discuss I will be very happy to do so, and will read them and consider them carefully.

The fatal flaw here is that very few nations here can be considered analogous to the United States. Especially when you consider a nation like mine has well over 2 billion more people than the US. Why would one assume that I am bound by US tech, and US costs?

If you don't assume that we have similar technology to the contemporary world, what basis do we have on which to form discussions and proposals?

A few examples:

Why does the UN seek to limit needle sharing? You assume I don't have a panacea.

Why does the UN say we should share space research? We have a GUT, and understand the universe perfectly.

Why does the UN try to reduce pollution? My country has technologies that filter all pollution from everything and turns it into useful materials, so it doesn't matter how much pollution we create - it will all be turned into useful stuff.

This all sounds silly, but is surely along the same lines as saying

Why should the UN limit space research for both environmental and economic reasons? My country can send things into space at the cost of 50 cents per tonne, and do it in a completely sustainable way.

Many items developed for the space program are benefiting the lives of people on earth (Teflon being one) not to mention the knowledge we have gained. Knowledge is very important to us.

We have no charter and we are not bound by that other UN.

Your proposal also discriminates against ‘futuristic’ space faring nations.


Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The people of Mattikistan have voted to continue our current spending on space programs. We will not go against the vote of our people, whether the UN tells us to or not. In short, we do not support this proposal, and would not abide by it if it somehow came to pass -- we would rather leave the UN than do the opposite of what our people want. Technological development is paramount to the success of humanity, and space is required for a great deal of this development. We have already begun funding limited manned space missions, and plan only to increase this funding as time goes by.

I'm surprised by how many UN proposals deliberately try to infringe upon our sovereign desisions. How much Mattikistan or any other country spends on space programs is none of the UN's concern. We spend more than enough on humanitarian missions; indeed, we recently curtailed our already dangerously-low military spending in favour of them. We thank the UN to keep out of our internal affairs.



Minister for Foreign Affairs
The Confederacy of Mattikistan

I'm surprised by how many UN proposals deliberately try to infringe upon our sovereign desisions.
That all depends on the type of decisions you make ;)

Un/fortunately national sovereignty is not compatible with the UN

Giordano,
UN Representative,
The Black New World.

Then we shall have to re-evaluate our relationship with this illustrious union regardless.

Minister for Foreign Affairs
The Confederacy of Mattikistan

I have yet to see a convincing argument against this proposal. I am quite happy to have someone debate it, and would love to be proved wrong. But this debate isn't happening. Nevertheless, the proposal appears to have disappeared from the proposal list - can anyone explain why this is?

If the UN does not limit the sovereign power of nations, what can it do? A peacekeeping force, a logging ban, compulsory humanitarian aid, environmental treaties: all these must limit sovereign power by restricting what a government can and can not do.

That the proposal discriminates against futuristic space-faring nations I can not answer. Except to say I have just become such a nation through judicious science spending, and have now used my replicators and nano-bots to cure disease and end hunger world wide. The UN can make no meaningful resolution if some level of development roughly analogous to the real world can be assumed.

Finally to the honoured member who so kindly informed us that Teflon was a by product of the space industry.

PTFE or polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon is a brand name for this polymer) was discovered on April 6, 1938 by Dr. Roy Plunkett. He was working with gases related to Freon refridgerants.

We would remind this member it is against the spirit of this august body to deliberately mislead its members, especially when such false information might cause the success or failiure of an important bill.

I would have to disagree with this proposal. Space exploration is a huge part of Hylind's scientific spending. Not only does it help us explore new areas to find new resources but it also help us find new homes since earth is getting crowded.

My people are studying how to turn Europa into a home for my people and any other country that wishes to contribute.

I have yet to see a convincing argument against this proposal. I am quite happy to have someone debate it, and would love to be proved wrong. But this debate isn't happening. Nevertheless, the proposal appears to have disappeared from the proposal list - can anyone explain why this is?


Funny that.

Many of us (all posting here) have yet to see a convincing argument FOR this proposal.

The truth is you can tell us that you plan to use the UN to control how our nations choose to spend their money, but you've presented an extremely weak case on why we should. And on top of that, I think many of us have valid points that our Space Sciences research programs have secondary benefits.

If you want to rule the world, why don't you just build an army and take over our governments. If not, why don't you LISTEN to us when we tell you, "No thank you, but we have a pretty good idea how we'd like to spend our spice melange."

(I'm guessing that your proposal either didn't get enough endorsements, as you have to do this all in 3-4 days. But how many people have telegrammed you saying, "Gee this is a wonderful idea?" Probably very few. If the Ban on the Death Penalty didn't pass, I think your idea is doomed for failure unless you can come up with some facts to support your opinions. And I'm telling you now, don't bother looking for them, because there aren't *many* facts for EITHER position. You really are making a resolution that is based on an opinion that isn't based on any facts ... and that is why people are angry with your idea.)

The only Justification that Greenspoint needs for any manned launch into orbit or beyond is that we CHOOSE to make the trip. Speaking as a capitalist, it's our money, and we'll spend it as WE see fit.

As a director in the United Nations Space Consortium I can assure you that I know of no nation that makes non-essential space flights, not with the high cost and risks involved in each one.

It's not like we're driving the car down to the mailbox to collect our government handout checks. These aren't sight-seeing trips these highly trained astronauts and scientists are taking.

This proposal should and must be defeated.

So many advances were brought on by the Space Age. Apparently the author has no idea how useful they are. Pocket calculators, mobile isolation suits for immunodeficient people, satellite TV, GPS, communications of all sorts, weather forecasting, laser technology, cochlear implants, advanced blood pumps, and a plethora of other invaluable tools. And let's not forget Tang and Astronaut Ice Cream.

And if environmental concerns are the problem, NASA is experimenting with a new type of solid fuel that is made of parrafin... yup, candle wax. Very environmentally friendly. Otherwise, the SRB's can be replaced with more hydrogen and oxygen tanks. The shuttle's main engines basically leave only water as burn byproducts.

The new Democratic Republic of Meatopiaa is devoutly democratic, and capitalist. While Meatopiaa is neither a Delegate for it's region, nor currently an U.N. official of any kind, Meatopiaa IS deeply devoted to one day exploring space. Any resolution that would hinder that peaceful goal, is not acceptable.

And if environmental concerns are the problem,

Good point.

NASA and other global space programs have a large role in remote sensing and Global Positioning Systems ... both of which are critical in the environmental protection field.

The connection goes as follows:

Environmental Protection <--- Earth Sciences
Earth Sciences <--- Applied Physics / Mathematics
Applied Physics / Math <--- Theoretical Physics / Math

The question is, where does our greatest understanding of the Earth Sciences come from? Again remote sensing and GPS.

If you care about "trees" and "bunnies" (i.e. beginners environmentalism) then you make use of remoate sensing and GPS. When you start to talk about subjects like climate change, energy production, air pollution, water supply, and biodiversity, you are using data systems and raw data collected and transmitted by satellite networks.

The fine arts might not be so closely connected with Space Sciences, but Earth Sciences are. I'd argue that Medical Sciences are to the degree that they make use of Space Science technologies.

It could be worse though ... instead of Space Sciences being the driving force behind Physics and Math, it could be Military Sciences.

The Order is not a member of the UN, and this sort of proposal is why: They're trying to control you in the UN, take your government from you and make it belong to their powergroup. Now, for why Space Exploration should be encouraged, not discouraged into turning the world into an introverted, stagnant culture.

From space, as several have mentioned before, we have gained so much new technology, and space exploration and missions are forcing us to find newer, cleaner, more cost effective methods of travel. We learn from doing, not only from doing some math on a chalkboard and saying 'It'll work." So many times, things that may work in theory dont, and that is why we need the experience.

Secondly, while we can do much space research from the surface, there are several issues with it. The initial issue is with cloudcover and other planetary conditions: How can you watch a star, check out the infrared radiation, observe other galaxies from behind a cloud? You cant. That is why we've created such tools as the Hubble Space Telescope. Also, the HST was built because, on the earth, there is all kinds of dust and other particles in the air that diffuse the light, and lessen the effectiveness of ground-based observation devices. Furthermore, the issue of Gravity prevents us from making a proper ground-based lens that can observe as far into the universe and as far back in time as Space-Based devices, such as the HST. By being able to observe from space, we can see so much more that we could never see from the surface of the planet.

Third, there is the issue of population. Someday, either the Earth is going to have to enact strict population controls..or else we will have to expand further. And that will require space travel. If we cut out most of it now, in the future, we may still be stuck with merely the old space shuttle and fuel-burning craft. I realize this third argument is rather far fetched, but bear with me here. In the future, the knowledge produced to day can be proved invaluable.

Fourth, to bring us back to a more tangible point: By stifleing space travel, you create a stagnation in a part of human culture. This disease can spread further through our world, killing off more and more promising branches of our culture. While I will admit, protecting the environment is a noble and important goal, doing it at the cost of advancement and learning is unacceptable-if we do such [cut out science], we destroy our chances of making the breakthroughs that could help us even more than just dropping the programs.

In conclusion (And to wrap up a quick rebuttal that I havent had the time to research a proper paper for, much less go through proper draft methods, get references, ect..), The Earth itself limits the amounts of research we can do through physical conditions here on the surface, be it gravity, air, or weather. Furthermore, orbital observation platforms and experiments have proven to be invaluable to science, and to cut out so many parts of space programs, you will stifle our culture, our technology, and our race, present and future. This is only a temporary patch to treat a problem that requires us to go out into the universe and LEARN as much as we can so that we may one day fix what we've done....Sometimes, though, doing the right thing, you're required to do a little harm, because in the end it will be a greater benefit to all. That right there, is simply how life works.

Finally to the honoured member who so kindly informed us that Teflon was a by product of the space industry.

PTFE or polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon is a brand name for this polymer) was discovered on April 6, 1938 by Dr. Roy Plunkett. He was working with gases related to Freon refridgerants.

We would remind this member it is against the spirit of this august body to deliberately mislead its members, especially when such false information might cause the success or failiure of an important bill.

Then what am I thinking of… It sounds like Teflon…

I didn’t mean to deceive the UN I just got my wires crossed but that does not mean that space travel hasn’t had any scientific benefit. In my post I said I was naming one example and another member has kindly given others.

Still we believe that knowledge, even for it’s own sake, is priceless.

And you still haven’t convinced me that you aren’t discriminating against ‘future tech’ nations.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Thus I'd argue this proposal is unneccessary

Agreed. Also because this proposal contradicts itself- it says that only travel that is deemed "necessary by the government" be commissioned, and this is too vague. It could mean that the government explores areas needed to fit people because of a population boom, or it could mean that the government would fund a personal joy ride because they feel it's "necessary to get away". Thus, I do not accept it.

Some of this is excellent, some is..disappointing.

I didn't realise anyone was angry about the proposal. That's an extreme reaction, I was hoping for informed debate.

Secondly to the Teflon person, I apologise for coming over harsh, if I did. I make mistakes like that all the time if I'm not careful. If you do remember what material you were talking about, please post a short history.

For not stating facts - I have stated facts. 4000 tonnes of toxic materials PER LAUNCH is a fact, for instance. Not a single one has been refuted. In return I have addressed every point raised by an opponent to this bill. With facts. Don't make allegations like this which are not true.

For the list of advances derived from the space program, thankyou. This is the kind of useful evidence that advances the debate. Now I'll try to prove that none of them required space based research.

Pocket calculators: Did not require space based research. Derived from calculating machines. It could be argued that they were speeded by the expenditure on the space race, and that the space program was good because it increased the science budget. I argue that if the budget is kept the same, the space program is not the best way to spend the money.

Mobile isolation suits: Did not require space based research. If money spent on beating the US or beating the Russians into space was instead spent on applying the technology to improoving lives, it is likely these suits would have been developed sooner, not later.

Satellite TV, GPS, comms sats forecasting: Requires unmanned space shots, with small payloads, to set a satellite which can fulfil a role for several years.

Lasers: Principle expounded by Einstein in 1910s. did not require any space based research.

Cochlea implants: I'll google this, back shortly....ok Initial research on electromagnetic stimulus of hearing in the 18th century. Interest renewed in 1930s, Wever and Bray (1930) and Stevens and Jones (1939) prominent studies. Research continues into the middle 20th century, with work leading to patients being able to distinguish words (Djourno and Eyries (1957)). Space program not mentioned.

Advanced Blood pumps: I can't find any information on this, if you can post any information on why space based research was necessary for these I would love to hear it.

And further, which of those above impact the majority of citizens on our planet? The ones without clean water, etc etc. It is valid to say you don't care abotu them as much as your own citizens, but the UN remit is to improve equality.

Finally to two points which I believe may have some strength:

As to environmentally friendly fuel, that is very exciting news. How long will this take to become viable? The proposal included a clause for frequent review, to ensure that if the cost of space travel dropped, the bill would remain current. At the moment this is not the case, and space shots are still hugely expensive and massively damaging to the environment. I don't believe this development would address the monetary cost.

Secondly the "advanced space faring nations" point: The point I tried to make flippantly before was that this may well be true - we might discriminate against them. I hadn't considered this, as basically I don't believe we can have any meaningful debates in teh UN unless we can assume some given level of technology. A sufficient level of technology will resemble magic - we can do anything with it. Is it invalid to argue against legislation to prevent needle sharing, if I say my country has enough technology to release nanobots that clean all needles? What is everyone's opinion on this? How does the UN cope with massively future-tech nations, while remaining meaningful?

If I missed anyones points, please restate them - there was a lot to get through.

Nations angry ... well, perhaps that is too strong of a word, because there is no hostility, but I wish you'd address what you *feel* the impacts of restricting space sciences would be on our understanding of earth sciences and environmental protection.

Let me say this, our understanding of things like tides (which are very important for coastal nations and land locked nations alike) and weather patterns come from large networks of satellites.


My favorite example of this would be NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS).

http://eos.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://eos.gsfc.nasa.gov/projects.html

My point should be clear after spending just a second to poke around these two pages. Satellites are important to modern day environmental data collection techniques, without which are ability to monitor and protect our environment would be hampered. (An opinion at this point, but in time I'm positive I'll be able to generate costs of remote sensing networks as well as provide figures for the advantages of forecasting systems.)


Another perfect example of the benefits of satellites would be the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

http://www.noaa.gov/

While satellite collected data is only a portion of NOAA's responsibility, you should check out:

http://www.noaa.gov/satellites.html

Believe me, people actively use this data all the time for peaceful applications. No, life saving applications!


A more common day application of the Space Sciences, which you seek to restrict are Global Position Systems. These have benefits in the earth sciences, engineering and construction, and even law enforcement!

here is one of many links about GPS

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/gps/gps_f.html

I grabbed this one, largely because I'm in a hurry, but I'd like to call attention to one last GPS link

http://www.aero.org/publications/GPSPRIMER/EvryDyUse.html


During construction of the tunnel under the English Channel, British and French crews started digging from opposite ends: one from Dover, England, one from Calais, France. They relied on GPS receivers outside the tunnel to check their positions along the way and to make sure they met exactly in the middle. Otherwise, the tunnel might have been crooked.

Remember the example of the car with a video display in the dashboard? Vehicle tracking is one of the fastest-growing GPS applications. GPS-equipped fleet vehicles, public transportation systems, delivery trucks, and courier services use receivers to monitor their locations at all times.


To be honest, I find it troubling that somebody would seek to curtail space sciences programs, when I think if you feel there is a resource allocation problem, I'd suggest focusing on proactive solutions instead of mandating tax shifts.

[OOC: Did you find out what happened to your proposal yet? I'd be honestly curious to hear why it wasn't in the queue. I'm hoping it just lived its 3-4 life.]

Oooo..Yer forcing me to pull up my old research on things like the HST. Eeevil. Couldnt sleep properly for a week after writing that paper.

Maybe instead of completely limiting things, your basic oversight functions would be roled into something like ...

UN Committee the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/COPUOS/copuos.html

I know little about COPUOS, but even better ... Nations States already has its own space committee:

UN Space Consortium

It would be neat to see a current resolution expand upon a previous one, provided that it does not change the old impacts of the first resolution (you have to be very careful when dealing with old resolutions, but with care it can be done).

One other thing I'd like to note, as I re-read your post: You said nothing regarding the points I made (Save for technological development in some areas), those being the conditions on the planet itself limiting the research that can be performed, population issues, and stagnating human culture. I'll put together a page shortly, featuring the research paper I made regarding the HST and the benefits from it's abilities (as well as its history, among other things. If one learns anything from space exploration, I pray it be at the very least the history so that our mistakes can be remembered..), ect...I cant remember the main contents of the paper, its been almost three years since I wrote it, and most of it was written on a caffinated buzz at late night in a college dorm as an undergrad sophmore, so the writing wont be of the *greatest* quality, but I believe that the information should still be relayed somewhat effectively.

Then again, when I go re-read it today, I might say forget it.

Anyway, the point to this particular post-let: Ye missed most of the points I made....

All good posts, but firstly I apologise for missing the points that I missed (all from one person- doh).

They are: Conditions on planet limiting research

This is true only in a few special cases. Where these cases were found important enough they would continue.

Population issues:

I do not believe that we can seek to save the human race from overpopulation through space colonisation before we have even provided acceptable living conditions here for the people who live here. If we can not provide over one billion people with safe water to drink (Global Water) how can we hope to colonise space with enough people to make a difference to overcrowding.

Stagnating human culture:

I can not provide evidence this is not the case, but would ask for an estimate of how many people would be culturally affected by more manned space flight? I do not believe human culture needs space flight.


Either way, the vast majority of arguments against this proposal seem to be that satellites are almost a vital necessity. I agree entirely, and do not seek to end space shots, merely to limit them in order to prevent unnecessary environmental damage, and to avoid wasteful spending of resources when so many people don't have what I regard as facilities that should be a basic human right.

I admit freely that I espouse a large level of global responsibility, and feel that we should aim to reduce suffering whether it is that of our own citizens, or those half way around the world. I understand that not every nation shares this sense of responsibility, which may mean they percieve this proposal from a different angle.

Also the fact that most objections are of this nature suggests my proposal was worded badly, and gave the impression that all space shots would cease. This is obviously my fault :-p I didn't mean this at all. I meant to refer more to the manned space shots which do not give back anything like what we put into them, scientifically. A trip to Mars, for instance, would do little to aid our understanding of the universe, especially compared to the costs.

So, would members be in favour of a less-harshly worded bill? Perhaps using Mikitivities idea to amend the existing bill on space research? I am in favour of fairly tight controls, but what level of control do you think would be appropriate for a UN regulation?

It is our belief that there is no point whatsoever even trying to save humanity if we're not doing what has gotten us to this point in the first place: exploring. If humans hadn't looked up at the sky and wondered what was up there, or looked at a tree and wondered what it was, we wouldn't even be thinking about saving humans from poor quality water, let alone cancelling unnecessary space flights.

People don't want to go to Mars for scientific reasons, not primarily. People want to go to Mars to see it for themselves. We've run out of places on the Earth to explore, barring perhaps the ocean. It does not matter what technologies, what scientific advances, come from space travel, it is the philosophy of the matter that is important.

I say, if we're not going to explore space, what are we doing besides simply existing? Nothing. We will no longer have purpose. And people without a purpose can become depressed and self-destructive.

You can argue, you can pass this resolution. We will ignore you, we will leave the UN. Mattikistan will not become stagnant, existing without purpose, just because you personally have a problem with space travel. Cut your military spending in favour of humanitarian issues; THAT is where the waste comes from.

I understand the motivation behind this proposal and respect the desire to see nations' resources put towards the wellbeing of the peoples of our planet(planets for the future techs). However, knowledge and exploration have, for me at least, an intrinsic value in themselves. One can argue that poorer nations should be discouraged from pursuing space programmes, perhaps, but that is no justification for universal restrictions.

Furthermore, this proposal cannot legislate for the space programmes of non-UN nations. The UN may prove an invaluable mediator in disputes of a spacebound nature; what clout will it have if its own member states have no stake in off-Earth activities?

Ecopoeia's own space programme was abandoned in its infancy for largely economic reasons, and rightly so. Instead, our government, townships and collectives are focusing on ensuring our citizens have their basic needs addressed. However, we have no desire to see other nations take the same route as us. I for one will be cheering each extraterrestrial milestone with all my heart.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

So, would members be in favour of a less-harshly worded bill? Perhaps using Mikitivities idea to amend the existing bill on space research? I am in favour of fairly tight controls, but what level of control do you think would be appropriate for a UN regulation?

If you're in favour of fairly tight controls, then I'm not going to be offended ... I just think that you'll have a stronger reaction. My initial reaction was based out of fear, but is much less so now. Though my nation still maintains that space sciences research is important.

If you want to make use of / incorporate mechanisms from prior UN resolutions:

1. Don't use the word "amendment". That got Hersfold and myself in a bit of trouble. It was sorted out, but amendment implies changing a prior resolution. That is against the NS rules.

2. Talk to the UNSC members and get their feedback on what they are doing now and if they'd like to work with you. If you can get them behind you, then you'll have powerful allies and a strong case to make before this body.

Mikitivity - that's some great advice. I think I'll go down this line. You have my immense respect for trying to assist me with this, even though you suffered such a negative initial reaction to the idea (due to my poor wording, I suspect).

What level of controls do you think are acceptable in a bill? I think there are levels of space science here:

Necessary satellites
(Telecoms, GPS...)
Orbital Experiments
(Probably into material science, formation of polymers in zero gravity, and biological science, horticulture etc)
Manned Orbital experiments
(We have a bunch of scientists in orbit looking at polymers/horticulture etc)
Manned space flight (no real stated scientific purpose)
(We're going to send a group of guys to Mars, to see if we can)
Commercial space flight
(Rich people spend a lot of money to be taken into orbit for kicks)

It would help me if people reading this who have an opinion say what they think about the levels of controls (if any) they think should be placed on each of these activities. See earlier in this thread for potential costs of each space shot.

And finally that last point:

>People don't want to go to Mars for scientific reasons, not primarily. People want to go to Mars to see it for themselves....it's the philosophy of the matter that is important<

I agree 100% that the philosophy is important. My philosophy is that I would rather 50 thousand of those billion people without clean water didn't have to see their relatives die from unnessacery diseases, and for several thousand unnamed and unknown people around the world not to die from cancers related to the pollution created by the numerous space launches even a single trip to Mars would require. I would choose this over a few rich people getting the ultimate holiday, instead of "just" spending a couple of weeks jetting around the world drinnking champagne again. If your philosophy is significantly different from this, I suspect we will struggle to find common ground on which to debate.

Mikitivity - that's some great advice. I think I'll go down this line. You have my immense respect for trying to assist me with this, even though you suffered such a negative initial reaction to the idea (due to my poor wording, I suspect).

What level of controls do you think are acceptable in a bill? I think there are levels of space science here:

Necessary satellites
(Telecoms, GPS...)
Orbital Experiments
(Probably into material science, formation of polymers in zero gravity, and biological science, horticulture etc)
Manned Orbital experiments
(We have a bunch of scientists in orbit looking at polymers/horticulture etc)
Manned space flight (no real stated scientific purpose)
(We're going to send a group of guys to Mars, to see if we can)
Commercial space flight
(Rich people spend a lot of money to be taken into orbit for kicks)

It would help me if people reading this who have an opinion say what they think about the levels of controls (if any) they think should be placed on each of these activities.


Actually I owe you an apology. Between the undemocratic actions of Great Bight in the North Pacific and initial "needles always increase drug use" statements that were being batted about, I did not take the time to completely read your proposal, and had a knee-jerk reaction.

After your replies to others, I went back and reread everything and realized that you *are* attempting to address a global resource allocation issue. In particular, I was very interested to read about the environmental costs associated with launches.

I would argue that commerical space flight should be allowed, provided the waste / by-products and safety of such flights do not interfere with the rest of us. Think about how in many countries there are civil aircraft pilots. They are regulated, but their decision to fly airplanes is a personal choice.

In a way, I see it as a chicken vs. egg situation. If you tackle the commerical problem first, it will seem like you're trying to zap private industry. If you don't taclke the commerical problem first, then you look like your trying to sell outer space.

If you take the middle ground and start with a "Declaration on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space" (which I think is a noble idea and one that will pass if it comes to vote), you'll have nations complaining that your declaration has no teeth.

Here is the thing though. People claim that my proposals have no teeth (even though I do arm my ideas with retractable claws) ... but I point to my nation's participation in international affairs and ask them, "Do you reall not believe me when I say, I hope to get to this in the future?"

Right now, my government is going to finish the current resolution and then prepare for the International Small Arms Blackmarket Conference that it will be hosting, but you've already demostrated enough follow-through to convince my government that you *can* take baby steps here and if people complain you aren't addressing an issue, you can tell them that you will in future legislation, but that it is impossible to publish more than 2-pages of a resolution at a time. Good laws are not born overnight.

Also a member of the UNSC, we find this proposal vague (as it does not designate how we are to determine which missions are most necessary) and a direct attempt to overrule the previous proposal creating the existence of the UNSC. We believe things are going well the way they are. Membership in the UNSC is by no means mandatory, which means nations can spend or not spend as they so desire.

Also a member of the UNSC, we find this proposal vague (as it does not designate how we are to determine which missions are most necessary) and a direct attempt to overrule the previous proposal creating the existence of the UNSC. We believe things are going well the way they are. Membership in the UNSC is by no means mandatory, which means nations can spend or not spend as they so desire.

This certainly makes you and the others of the UNSC experts in international law concerning space, so with that in mind ... what if the proposal as listed above were modified?

The basic idea, and I could be wrong, is that there are costs towards anything, and the Wyrd Wyrm is basically proposing that we establish a form of metric and body to evaluate the costs relating to space flight.

My thought was that we could perhaps expand the mission of the UNSC, and naturally if this expansion adds burden to the organization, then we'd want to find appropriate funding mechanisms to see to is that the UNSC's original purpose continues unhampered.

At this point, I'm mostly just providing thoughts. Thus far everything the UNSC has done has met my government's satisfaction and approval.

Just a note:

"and for several thousand unnamed and unknown people around the world not to die from cancers related to the pollution created by the numerous space launches even a single trip to Mars would require."

I'd like to see the evidence proving this.

Still working on getting things put together for my next rebuttal.

"Fine, rule your country as you see fit. But please don't subject the international community to rules that benefit ONLY your community until you can demonstrate a strong argument why the rest of us can't make up our own minds."

We are not acting selfishly. We are just simply giving our views on such a proposal and we, as a peacful and loving nation, are sure many nations would benefit from it. We did not require such a condescending response, but we will take your comments on board.

Representatives of Wyrd Wyrm, as a representative of a stockholding nation, I would like to invite you to the UNSC headquarters (http://invisionfree.com/forums/Texas/index.php?c=8), if you or other members of your nation want to discuss anything with the UNSC.

Represenatatives of Guaifenasin, we don't mean to cause offence, but we do not see the name Guaifenasin as either a stockholder or an elected director of the UNSC. As a representative of a stockholding nation, I have to ask; what is the relation of Guaifenasin to the UNSC, because we of The Weegies have certainly not heard of your country before, and we have taken quite an interest in the UNSC.

It will be good to see some evidence Blackwolf.

Meanwhile I don't think what I said was controversial, but:

Adults in America's most polluted cities have a 15 to 17% greater chance of early death than elsewhere.
(Dockery, et al., Harvard School of Public Health, 1995)

Professor Harrison said that...it was possible that fine particles could cause as many as 3,910 deaths from lung cancer in the UK each year.
(BBCi)

Daily average particulate content of air at ground level roughly 20 um per m^3
(recorded at Moore Line monitor)

2001 low emission guidelines in America were 0.04 g/mile.

Each shuttle launch, in terms of matter released into the atmosphere alone, is like driving 25000000 miles in a reasonably fuel efficient car (European cars are more efficient, newer cars also tend to be more efficient and it's now 2004).

25 million miles.

I can understand your feelings that the money could be better spent elsewhere, but I feel that it would be unwise in the extreme to attempt to forecast the benefits of space based research (or research in general) [refering to the 'Resolves to put in place a controlling body...' clause]. We cannot really know what benefits this research will bring until we reach them.

Furthermore, for me space travel is about more than technical know-how. It is about new ideas and philosophies. Who knows what outlook on life a generation of people brought up in space, well aware of their insignificance in the grand scale of things, would have. It's almost spiritual.

Sorry to bring up an old example, but what would the world be like if no-one had colonised America, because there was no forseeable benefit for the people back home?

If you are worried about pollution, first off the space shuttle puts out comparatively little pollution when compared to the thousands of jet airliners. Hows this for a statistic: after the 9/11 attacks, when all civil aviation in the US was banned, the days were 1 degree warmer and the nights 1 degree cooler, due to the absence of vapour trails from airliners.
If you are really worried about spacecraft pollution build a space elevator or six. They are as clean as anything and a lot cheaper per ton put into orbit.

See you on Mars

I agree 100% that the philosophy is important. My philosophy is that I would rather 50 thousand of those billion people without clean water didn't have to see their relatives die from unnessacery diseases, and for several thousand unnamed and unknown people around the world not to die from cancers related to the pollution created by the numerous space launches even a single trip to Mars would require. I would choose this over a few rich people getting the ultimate holiday, instead of "just" spending a couple of weeks jetting around the world drinnking champagne again. If your philosophy is significantly different from this, I suspect we will struggle to find common ground on which to debate.

As I thought you may, you ignored my suggestion that you cut military spending instead, which uses a substantial amount of money. The difference between space spending and military spending is, that while space research can and does bring scientific, technological and medical advances once in a while, military spending kills people DELIBERATELY -- and it kills lots of them. Mattikistan's military spending? Next to nothing. This is where we get the money to spend on solving humanitarian issues. We sacrifice the human need to kill and destroy rather than the need to explore to help other people. Perhaps with the extra money freed up from buying guns and weapons of mass destruction, you could address any pollution issues caused by space travel anyway?
And, you may say, war and death has brought new technological advances as a result of people needing more efficient ways of killing each other. Even the rockets used for early space travel came from military ideas. In which case, I shall use exactly the same argument that you used for space: any worthwhile advances would have come about anyway, the military just helped them pick up the pace.
With the billions, if not trillions, you could save from military spending, never mind fresh water -- you could have them drinking hot cups of coffee. And still continue to explore and grow as a species.

Represenatatives of Guaifenasin, we don't mean to cause offence, but we do not see the name Guaifenasin as either a stockholder or an elected director of the UNSC. As a representative of a stockholding nation, I have to ask; what is the relation of Guaifenasin to the UNSC, because we of The Weegies have certainly not heard of your country before, and we have taken quite an interest in the UNSC.

:) We mean to begin participation should any stock become available (which will be never). We were on hiatus for a bit and didn't get to jump on the bandwagon as soon as sales were offered. So, we have misspoke. :)

>Sorry to bring up an old example, but what would the world be like if no-one had colonised America, because there was no forseeable benefit for the people back home?<

Well, I'll avoid any obvious controversial statements here :-). I didn't realise however that the colonisation of America required huge amounts of government funding, and massive environmental damage. Indeed, I was always of the opinion that one of the major reasons for the American revolution was that the King was asking for too much in taxes on, for instance, Tea in Boston. Seems strange that the "people back home" sent large numbers of redcoats to try to retain a colony that you suggest had no benefit to them.

As to a generation raised in space, chances are they would have similar outlooks to humans everywhere. Human nature appears to be relatively unchanging across vast gulfs in culture and time (The Red Queen: Matt Ridley). Also to raise such a generation would be beyond our current technology and means.

To continue to advance as a species: I would regard as more advanced a species that

As to the "we can not be certain what benefits...until we get them" this is true to a small extent. However it is hugely unlikely we will get any benefit by chance. As well to set up a Mars shot in theory, but not spend the money on rocket fuel etc etc to actually carry it out - you would belikely to find out just as much. There is such a thing as a cost-benefit analysis, and the cost-benefit analysis for much manned space flight is weighted hugely in the cost area.

Jet Airline pollution: First it isn't a valid argument to say "well, A is doing more harm than B, so B must be ok". Secondly vapour trails are moisture and do not cause long term environmental damage (after 9/11 average temperatures dropped/raised at night/day because the vapour trails AND THEIR EFFECT was gone. Finally I think the burden of proof is on you to show how much more polluting jet airliners are rather than just making a claim. But I've done some research and commercial airliners get over 30 passenger miles/gallon (Boeing), and fly perhaps 2 billion passenger miles a year. (unconfirmed source - a friend who works in aerospace consultancy). This doesn't make them massively more polluting than frequent space shots.

As to cutting military spending I apologise for missing this point - I've looked back and found the sentence I think you mean.

The point about the fallacy "A is worse than B, therefore B isn't bad" holds true here as well. You are welcome to set up a proposal to reduce military spending.

The environmental cost of the military is low (possibly positive, as less "friendly" weapons are replaced). The funding cost of the military is high, but also brings very tangible benefits and is often used to promote equality and prevent suffering. Given that there are nations which would be happy to invade an unprotected neighbour who do you rely on for defense? I hope you don't feel virtuous because other UN members military spending keeps your people safe?

The Wyrd Wyrms military is geared towards rapid deployment to disaster areas, peacekeeping missions, humanitarian relief and anti-terrorist operations. It remains large enough for credible self-defence.

As to deliberately claiming to be on a UN body that you aren't on I don't think any words need to be spoken to express how disgusting that is.