From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: question on privately funded space colonization
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:06:43 GMT


-From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
-Subject: Re: question on privately funded space colonization
-Date: 7 Jan 93 14:09:54 GMT
-Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

-In article <C0GxFn.9x.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

->-From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
->-Subject: Re: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization

->-Can one
->-reasonably expect people to do things when the government can step
->-in at any time and say no, or say that what you have done belongs
->-to it?  
-...
-My concern has nothing to do with the principle of eminent domain.  It also
-has nothing to do with claims about ownership of the moon.  

-Consider the possible scenario:  An American organization raises enough
-money to produce and operate a space station, acquires launching rights
-in Tanzania, acquires the necessary equipment, and then existing law is
-invoked to tell the organization that they cannot do it.  I believe that
-this law could be invoked if Americans even participate in a foreign
-organization.

If they want to launch a big beryllium-fuel rocket from the middle of a
city, sure. Your complaint is that US citizens can't circumvent US safety
regulations by going overseas. I don't see why they can't launch and also
conform to the safety regulations.

If you feel that people using private launchers should follow no safety
rules other than the ones they care to follow themselves, then I disagree.
If there are specific regulations that you feel are excessive, then you
should describe the specific ones you object to, and we could discuss
whether those rules should be relaxed. An example might be whether you
feel that low-altitude range safety should be more closely coupled to
local ground conditions. But you have to be specific about what regulations
you object to, and how you think changing them would help - generalizations
aren't much good.

-Or the bureaucrats decide that the presence of a lunar colony would 
-"not be in the national interest," and invokes RICO (it sure is that
-broad) to seize at least any American assets of the organization.  

Could you please explain more about RICO? I haven't been able to find
out much about it. Something to do with racketeering? If you can give
more details, I could try to look it up in the US Code.

-I doubt that the government of any industrial nation wants man in
-space unless it is strictly under its control, or at least under the
-control of those who would stifle mankind.

If you mean that it would not be in the interest of existing nations to
encourage the development of governments that ignore international laws
and agreements, you're right. And consider human rights issues - suppose
US citizens set up a colony on the moon, and decide to revive the
institution of slavery - would you say the US would have no legitimate
interest in the matter?

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov