Ok there's a huge been a huge renaissance in aerospace the last few years. On the private front, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, John Carmack of Id, Elon Musk of Paypal, Paul Allan of Microsoft, Richard Branson of Virgin, Walter Anderson, formerly of MCI-Worldcom, Robert Bigelow, of Budget Suits of America and a host of other wealthy individuals have spent hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions) on new ventures to commercialize technologies which range in sophistication from suborbital gliders to actual orbital launchers and space hotels. Basically, a lot of these tech geeks who struck it rich in the 90s and who grew up reading science fiction are trying to make their childhood dreams come true, and some of them are doing a good job of moving us in that direction.

On the public front, China has thrown their hat into the ring, Russia, while they haven't done anything yet, has started talking big once again, and Bush has committed NASA to recreating the technological capabilities that were lost when the Apollo program was scrapped 35 years ago.

At this point, it seems likely that by mid century there will be a permanent human presence in space.

We know the UN wants to manage space as a socialist park.

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/lpos.html
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/SpaceLaw/gares/html/gares_34_0068.html

My question is, what political framework do you think should be established in space.

My preference would be for none. Since I know that Isn't going to happen, I'd settle for one that allowed individual colonies the widest possible latitude to manage their own affairs without interference from Earth. I think the vast, empty stretches of Mars, the barren voids of the Asteroid Belt, will provide room for hundreds - if not thousands - of new human colonies to innovate, to experiment, and to improve on or replace the outdated forms of human political organization that have ossified on Earth. Space is a great proving ground, not only for technology, but for new social and political innovations. Most, as is the nature of such things, will probably fail. Those that succeed will enrich even the homeworld by their example.

6/16/2008 10:59:04 AM

You're gonna need a 'socialist commune' in space until man is well defined there. A capitalist system, "Oh shit, your oxygen tanks just burst and you'll die in a few days if you don't replace them? 50 million or you die" just wouldn't work in my opinion.

In such a rough and unnatural place we will need to cooperate as much as possible.

6/16/2008 11:03:34 AM

Unless you want to get all your stuff sent to you by Earth governments, you're also going to need production. If you have more than a few dozen people that means you're going to need a price system to do cost accounting and convey information and incentives. Otherwise, division of labor and complex productive enterprises just don't work so well.

6/16/2008 11:13:19 AM

pretty much the same one we have for antartica

the "nobody gives a shit about that desolate hellhole" form of government

6/16/2008 11:15:25 AM

SkankinMonky, there has been extensive analysis performed on the economic systems common to the sea where, it just so happens, one ship often came across another ship in need. While there is a credible negotiation deadlock where both sides have an incentive to keep negotiating past the point of no return, all-in-all it turns out to be the best set of incentives possible to let such bargains, when they are struck, to stand.

This is because if someone gets to sell a $10 tank of oxygen for $50 million every now and then in the void of space, then greedy merchants will set up (probably unmanned) outposts in those voids in hopes of earning unconcionable profits, with the unforseen consequence that anyone that finds themselves in distress gets rescued. Yes, they have lost most of their money, but they get to keep living. Compare that to the alternative where selling oxygen for $50 million is illegal and therefore everyone desperate for oxygen dies, all their money going to their next of kin.

6/16/2008 11:17:47 AM

More like "hey, we are almost out of oxygen and this unmanned space station is selling it for 50 million bucks, what are we going to do?"


"Rob it of course"

6/16/2008 11:28:51 AM

^^^ Does Antarctica have huge deposits of potentially very valuable fusion fuels like He3 or vast stores of precious metals like platinum and iridium?

Sooner or later, these are going to be pricey enough, and the costs low enough, that human settlement off world becomes economically enticing, Still it's probable that the first people willing to bear the risk and hardship incumbent upon such a pioneering role will be zealots of one type or another. The establishment should probably encourage people like me to ship out to the 'belt or some other frigid, barren waste by offering to leave us be, if only to be rid of our earthly rabble rousing.

[Edited on June 16, 2008 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ^]

6/16/2008 11:29:25 AM

short of the moon, i say if you can claim land, it's yours, no different than colonizing or homesteading.

But the physical nature of space, say the space directly over a country, be considered that country's "airspace" to a certain extent. No I have no idea what that extent should be.

Quote :

"You're gonna need a 'socialist commune' in space until man is well defined there. A capitalist system, "Oh shit, your oxygen tanks just burst and you'll die in a few days if you don't replace them? 50 million or you die" just wouldn't work in my opinion. In such a rough and unnatural place we will need to cooperate as much as possible."

6/16/2008 11:37:34 AM

Just out of curiosity, why make an exception for the moon?

6/16/2008 11:48:30 AM

Quote :

" This is because if someone gets to sell a $10 tank of oxygen for $50 million every now and then in the void of space, then greedy merchants will set up (probably unmanned) outposts in those voids in hopes of earning unconcionable profits, with the unforseen consequence that anyone that finds themselves in distress gets rescued. Yes, they have lost most of their money, but they get to keep living. Compare that to the alternative where selling oxygen for $50 million is illegal and therefore everyone desperate for oxygen dies, all their money going to their next of kin."

This ignores my caveat of saying until we are well defined in space. If greedy merchants are able to set up in space without much effort then I'd say we're already well defined. My thoughts are for the first 50-75 years, depending on the rate of technology. Afterward, space will be governed in a way that is consistent with the beliefs of the people in space.

6/16/2008 11:57:38 AM

^^ i figured since we already planted our flag there

6/16/2008 12:02:37 PM

Quote :

"You're gonna need a 'socialist commune' in space until man is well defined there. A capitalist system, "Oh shit, your oxygen tanks just burst and you'll die in a few days if you don't replace them? 50 million or you die" just wouldn't work in my opinion. In such a rough and unnatural place we will need to cooperate as much as possible."

Let me just address this because I think it's outright fallacious.

Remember that the pilgrims initially organized themselves as a "commonwealth" and contributed their produce into a collective pool, from which they all attempted to live. This experiment in collectivism led to two years spent on the verge of starvation. The colony only began to thrive once they divided up their land and began to work as individuals. Writes William Bradford in On Plymouth Plantation...

Quote :

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them."

The problems with command economies, of any size, are well known.

1)The problem of incentive. This stems from the disutility of labor. People, almost any people, would rather slack off than work. If incentives don't closely reflect productivity, it can be hard to motivate people to produce. If this is a problem for pilgrims, those sober, humorless examples of thrift and hard work, it will be true of astronauts. This can be overcome by threats from authority, if, for example, the astronauts are drawing a salary back on Earth. However, I believe that the carrot is more effective, and certainly more pleasant. than the stick.

2)The problem of calculation. In a command economy, the commander has to decide how to allocate available resources to serve the most urgent wants of the community. This works on a very small scale, say within a family unit, but very quickly breaks down with larger groups. It would be very difficult to fairly and accurately balance the needs and desires of 1000 people when deciding how much of each resource to allocate to different lines of production. Such a decision, made by one person, or a small group of planners, would be almost entirely arbitrary and would not likely reflect the true priorities of the colonists.

In contrast, under a market economy, every individual bids with their money on how resources are to be allocated. These demands are transmitted very efficiently through prices and profit/loss signals to producers, who use available resources to satisfy consumer demands. Each person has only to decide what they need or desire to live and demand it with money. Each person, being a producer, also has to look at the prices and decide how best to use their talents and resources to make money, in other words, how to fulfill the needs and desires, expressed as prices, of others. In this way, the energy, knowledge, intellect and creativity of every member of the community are harnessed to solve the problems of calculating what and how much of each product to produce.

This market could even start before the colonists left Earth. Imagine a collection of small space businesses organizing themselves on Earth as the first exploratory missions are being conducted. One small mining interest might spend those years studying geological data returned by the scouting party and designing mining equipment suitable for small-scale operations off-Earth in the unique environments of space. Another small manufacturing firm might try to figure out what products the colonists would need and design tooling to manufacture some of them in-situ. The mining firm and the manufacturing firm might even negotiate contracts ahead of time. For example, raw materials from the mining firm to the manufacturer to make its products in exchange for the manufacturing firm helping the mining firm bootstrap its operation by using some of the first resources gleaned to build more mining equipment on-site. The possibilities are endless, multiply for agriculture, other lines of manufacturing and various services.

One of the most exciting prospects is the possibility of setting up a futures market on Earth for space resources and products, so that prices at each stage of the Solar System's development can be estimated beforehand and those estimations continually refined as new information is learned and new developments made. This could help entrepreneurs figure out the optimal combination of capital equipment to bring from Earth at each stage vs. bootstrapping from local resources and manufacturing.

The fact that this economy would be voluntary and decentralized need not mean that it will be haphazard or disorganized.

[Edited on June 16, 2008 at 1:07 PM. Reason : f]

6/16/2008 1:01:29 PM

It would be a dictatorship with the governance of said dictatorship being done by committee. Which really doesn't matter, because most of the people that would be dictated to would be the employees of said dictator.

The dictator would either be NASA, the European Space Agency, the Russians, or the Chinese.

The clearest historical comparison would be the race for early colonialism of the New World. Sure, anyone could take a boat over here and strike a flag in the ground (the city of New Bern in eastern North Carolina was originally a Swiss colony for example, there was a New Sweden in Delaware, New York was originally New Amsterdam and Dutch), but they would be defeated quickly either due to lack of monetary resources or lack of a good military.

So all the minor players got crowded out, leaving the powers that retained major control as the English (American colonies, Belize, Guyana, most of the Caribbean), France (Quebec, Louisiana, Haiti, a couple Caribbean islands, French Guiana), Spain (South America minus Brazil, Mexico, Central America, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Dominican Republic), and on the minor player stage, Netherlands (some Caribbean islands and Surinam) and Portugal (who got Brazil through a geographical mistake).

[Edited on June 16, 2008 at 1:19 PM. Reason : /]

6/16/2008 1:11:05 PM

Quote :

"This ignores my caveat of saying until we are well defined in space. If greedy merchants are able to set up in space without much effort then I'd say we're already well defined."

No it doesn't; it is a required caveat. If it is to the point that space travel is easy then everyone will do it and this 50 million for oxygen would never take place: just stop at the next citgo and get all the oxygen you want for cost.

This is the difference between driving across America in 2008 and driving across America in 1860. In 2008 no one will find themselves in the predicament of deciding between their life savings and survival, but in 1860 such an outcome was the natural outcome of making such a journey.

It is the same reason price gouging laws cause no harm in fair weather. It is only when the wind starts blowing that the right to pay too much for whatever will save your life or property becomes important.

[Edited on June 16, 2008 at 1:20 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/16/2008 1:14:50 PM

Megaloman84 has convinced me

6/16/2008 7:44:55 PM

space will most definitely be a Corporatist-Oligarchy

6/16/2008 8:27:00 PM

no different than earth haha

i do find it funny though all the fighting that goes on just trying to suck resources out of africa and the middle east. imagine what i'll be like in space. then again with infinite resources in space, maybe the conflicts will die down

6/16/2008 8:29:15 PM

Perhaps something along this order, that or Organians....

6/16/2008 10:12:02 PM