[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Space questions...
- To: Kevin C Houston <hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
- Subject: Re: Space questions...
- From: kgstar@most.fw.hac.com (Kelly Starks x7066 MS 10-39)
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 10:35:50 -0500
- Cc: Kelly Starks x7066 MS 10-39 <kgstar@most.fw.hac.com>, Philip Bakelaar <pbakelaar@exit109.com>, Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl>, KellySt@aol.com, T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl, stevev@efn.org, jim@bogie2.bio.purdue.edu, rddesign@wolfenet.com, David@InterWorld.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com, DotarSojat@aol.com, sl0c8@cc.usu.edu, neill@foda.math.usu.edu, mkshp@ionet.net
At 10:16 AM 7/23/96, Kevin C Houston wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jul 1996, Kelly Starks x7066 MS 10-39 wrote:
>> >>Kelly, I'm not sure that Socalist leanings are the real reason for the
>>third
>> >>world nations' wanting the space treaty. It seems to me that the more
>> >important
>> >>reason, is that they are currently unable to participate in any commercial
>> >>exploitation, and want to stall the more developed countries from
>>gaining an
>> >>unbreakable foothold. At least until they (the third world) can be in a
>> >position
>> >>to catch up.
>>
>> No, in the interviews I saw, the U.S. reps said the third world reps
>> honestly didn't understand where the U.S. was coming from. They had all
>> agreed on the idea that space and oceans were the common heratige of
>> mankind and everyone should get equal access rights. They just didn't
>> understand why the U.S. would think that didn't imply an equal share of the
>> profits.
>>
>> Eiather way, its not like the first guy out there could claim all the best
>> planets. Much less that the third world could get out their on their own
>> in the next century.
>>
>So, the US goes to the moon, mines ore, and charges a fortune for it.
>This pays back the high developement cost, and since there is no
>competiton, they make back the startup cost. after a few years, some
>smaller country decides they want a piece of the pie. So they send
>their own mining contingent to the moon, but find that the US can always
>undercharge for the ore, because the startup cost has been paid back.
>This is what I was talking about.
>Kevin
Thats possible. But the R&D cost of the equipment would also be paid for
international who wanted to buy the equip. (assuming we'ld sell.) Sort of
how the current B-2 bombers cost $1 billion dollars, but any more would
cost about $400 million. <Overhead kills you.>
Kelly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Starks Internet: kgstar@most.fw.hac.com
Sr. Systems Engineer
Magnavox Electronic Systems Company
(Magnavox URL: http://www.fw.hac.com/external.html)
----------------------------------------------------------------------