Re: Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/22/98 5:54:04 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
>> >The analogy of Antarctic or deep-sea exploration
>> >is not valid here - they are not pursued for quite different reasons
>> >(e.g., international treaties asking for leaving Antarctide
>> >pristine [e.g. banning assimilating any outside animal species],
>> >or exluding private rights to deep-sea resources).
>> >There will be one more fight needed from space-exploration 
>> >advocates: stopping atempts to make space & cellestial bodies 
>> >equally "protected" from human enterprise.
>> 
>> Well their are similar treaties for space, but that doesn't really mater.
If
>> there was money on the line those treaties would go the way of their
>> predisesors.  The big problem is they all proved not worth the bother.  So
>> Arctic bases arew maintained for political reasons (so all claiments keep
>> rights to Antarctica in case they want it in the future) and the undersea
labs
>> have all been pulled out or sold.
>> 
>
>Hmm, I thought those treaties technicaly only prevented _NATIONS_ from
>makeing claims on extra-terestrial objects, not individuals or
>corporations...


No they prevent anyone from making a claim, they also make it difficult for
indeviduals or corps to even get to space.  If they are like the law of the
sea treaty they also mandate that if a corporation gets there and finds
anything valuble.  The profits are all to go to the UN for disbursement as
they see fit.

Kelly