All I'm seeing is a few medium class UDMH powered rockets.
Quote from: spectre9 on 03/12/2012 11:31 amTheir capability to even do an Apollo type mission any time soon is greatly overestimated.Actually, that appears to be the way they're going.. which suggests they won't be doing anything after that, just like Apollo.
Their capability to even do an Apollo type mission any time soon is greatly overestimated.
China has their own version of ULA and Rocketdyne do they?All I'm seeing is a few medium class UDMH powered rockets.
Plus, China has a way of "reverse engineering" what they want/need.
That's a brilliant analysis Jim. Thanks!
Quote from: Warren Platts on 03/11/2012 07:26 pmThat's a brilliant analysis Jim. Thanks! Why bother with detail when your first line is wrong
There are few places in the world where there has never been war, where the environment is fully protected, and where scientific research has priority. But there is a whole continent like this - it is the land the Antarctic Treaty parties call '... a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science'.
Australia claimed Antarctica and was then able stop it being exploited to preserve it's natural beauty allowing all the citizens of the world and future generations to enjoy it.
The general analysis so far has been focused on technical or economic factors in China and the moon, but clearly does not attempt any analysis in a historic or political science facet.Will China claim the moon?No, China does not want to mess up the current pyramid of cards that is the international laws governing space. China has never shown a historic desire to massively expand their boundaries except for areas they consider historic part of their identity. The voyages of Admiral Zheng He did not result in overseas expansion, even at the height of Chinese power. The PRC would rather work within the existing system as it benefits them. If there are any resources on the moon worth exploiting China can do so within the existing agreements without the need to bother to claim it. Just look at Africa, China has shown little interest in anything except resource extraction, and does so by supporting governments that we find "undesireable" for various reasons. No, China does too well in the existing system to open Pandora's box.
China has never shown a historic desire to massively expand their boundaries except for areas they consider historic part of their identity. ...
Bodhisattva Guanyin of the Water Moon
...the very best spots on the Moon are few and far between.
The resources and the wealth of the Moon, and beyond, will be available to Earth.
"We are looking for the next generation superpowers out there to help us identify and acquire lunar resources that could benefit life on Earth and our future in space," said Richards.
The other lesson that NASA taught the world, is that whoever gets up there gets to decide what happens.
Quote from: Prober on 03/13/2012 01:31 amPlus, China has a way of "reverse engineering" what they want/need.You got that right. They are absolutely shameless. cf. the Shanghai maglev train.Anyways....Consider the attached map: it is from Spudis and Lavoie (2010). It shows the major resources in the north polar region of the Moon. According to international law, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) are declarable over former res communis on Earth. I have dawn in an approximate boundary of an EEZ of 200 nautical miles around a Moon base located at the North Pole. As you can see, the customary boundary that's drawn on Earth around isolated places like the Falkland Islands would encompass the entire North Polar region.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 03/13/2012 02:41 amQuote from: Prober on 03/13/2012 01:31 amPlus, China has a way of "reverse engineering" what they want/need.You got that right. They are absolutely shameless. cf. the Shanghai maglev train.Anyways....Consider the attached map: it is from Spudis and Lavoie (2010). It shows the major resources in the north polar region of the Moon. According to international law, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) are declarable over former res communis on Earth. I have dawn in an approximate boundary of an EEZ of 200 nautical miles around a Moon base located at the North Pole. As you can see, the customary boundary that's drawn on Earth around isolated places like the Falkland Islands would encompass the entire North Polar region. Wrong. The Economic Exclusive Zone is based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In international law, you cannot expand one charter into another domain. Therefore, the EEZ is not applicable on the Moon.
However, in order for the principle to function, there should be no other claims to the same territory (Malvinas/Falklands is the perfect example), and (this is the key) it should be recognized by other international powers (which is highly unlikely).
Anyway, going back to reality here, the only way China could declare ownership on lunar land is by "kicking the board", saying to the world "what are you going to do about it?". That is NOT going to happen given the current long term scenario. It has more to lose than to win.
Quote from: lbiderman on 03/15/2012 02:34 pmQuote from: Warren Platts on 03/13/2012 02:41 amQuote from: Prober on 03/13/2012 01:31 amPlus, China has a way of "reverse engineering" what they want/need.You got that right. They are absolutely shameless. cf. the Shanghai maglev train.Anyways....Consider the attached map: it is from Spudis and Lavoie (2010). It shows the major resources in the north polar region of the Moon. According to international law, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) are declarable over former res communis on Earth. I have dawn in an approximate boundary of an EEZ of 200 nautical miles around a Moon base located at the North Pole. As you can see, the customary boundary that's drawn on Earth around isolated places like the Falkland Islands would encompass the entire North Polar region. Wrong. The Economic Exclusive Zone is based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In international law, you cannot expand one charter into another domain. Therefore, the EEZ is not applicable on the Moon. Huh? Charters are always expanded into other domains. That's how it's done. What was the reason for the 200 nautical mile EEZ limit? Mainly mathematics: 200 is a nice, round number; 100 miles didn't seem generous enough, and 300 would be too much, evidently. But the 200 nautical mile limit, as opposed to, say 300 km, or 250 statute miles was totally arbitrary. But now that that number is out there, what's to prevent it from being applied to other areas? What IS the appropriate EEZ boundary around a permanently manned Lunar Station? The thing is, if we apply the Law of the Sea standard, one base locks up the entire polar region. You guys don't realize this, because it takes actually looking at a map of the Moon and punching in some numbers into a calculator. But I make it my business to do little things like that. QuoteHowever, in order for the principle to function, there should be no other claims to the same territory (Malvinas/Falklands is the perfect example), and (this is the key) it should be recognized by other international powers (which is highly unlikely).No, Malvinas only proves my point. The Brits were there first with British settlers. They speak English down there--not Espanol. Therefore, they get to say what happens down there. And guess what? It doesn't matter what "international powers" think about the issue. It's a centuries old fait accompli at this point. If China gets up there first, Mandarin will be the official language of future Lunar colonies. As it should be. QuoteAnyway, going back to reality here, the only way China could declare ownership on lunar land is by "kicking the board", saying to the world "what are you going to do about it?". That is NOT going to happen given the current long term scenario. It has more to lose than to win. No, it has more to lose by NOT "kicking the board". See, their whole modus operandi is that major state owned enterprises (SOE's) kind of lead the way for a whole economy. These are things like major oil companies. In the "free" world, we have Shell and BP and Exxon; in the ROW they have PEMEX, ARAMCO, CITGO, etc.--these latter are SOE's where all the "profits" go to the "people", in theory. And for something like developing the Moon, it almost takes the deep pockets of a big nation-state the size of China to get the ball rolling. Otherwise, we're looking at some sort of consortium of Exxon-Halliburton-Rio Tinto-Caterpillar multi-multi-billion dollar conglomerate to make it worth it. And what is the likelihood of that happening? Well, traditionally, in situations like that, the US government (or whoever) would step in and pony up some cash (or sweet land deals) to kick start private development. Of course, now it looks like NASA, the one go-to department, is going to drop that ball. They could go in there and prove out and pay for the development of things like assessing the mineral content of the Moon making propellant from Lunar ice and things like that (which is why I favor transferring the entire HSF program to USGS; they would actually know what to do with a few astronauts; NASA itself is captured by aeronautical engineers and astrobiologists who don't have a clue about actually producing mineral wealth). Thus at any rate, it looks like China is going to have both the deep pockets, and the inclination to get whatever value there is to be had out of the Lady of the Moon. The Moon has figured more prominently in their mythology than it ever did in the West. It's theirs by rights. They care about it more than we do. And if they spend the hundreds of billions of RMB to make it happen, why should they share the spoils with Johnny-come-lately, claim-jumping, carpet baggers, just because the OST says everything belongs to everybody? That's not fair. The spoils belong to whoever makes it happen. Common heritage of mankind?!? What a joke!!!
Seņor, let's say you're right; that still begs the question of whether there ought to be a 200 nm EEZ around a permanently manned base on the Moon. If a country goes up there, spends a trillion CNY to develop the place, shouldn't they be granted a 200 nm EEZ? Who in their right mind would argue against such a proposition? Article XV of the OST states that "Any State Party to the Treaty may propose amendments to this Treaty." So if anybody were to propose an amendment granting a 200 nm EEZ surrounding a permanently manned facility, shouldn't we all agree to it?Seriously, what would be the problem with such an amendment? It wouldn't upend the principle that celestial bodies are the common heritage of humankind: like nautical EEZ's the area would still belong to humanity as whole; it's just that the holder of the EEZ simply gets the exclusive economic rights to the area. The purpose is to prevent anarchy from breaking out, to prevent a "tragedy of the commons".Just because China had an EEZ doesn't mean that foreign companies couldn't also have access to the EEZ; it's just that would have to negotiate with the PRC first, maybe pay a license fee, agree to some technology transfers, ensure that pilots of landers speak Mandarin on the radio, pay a severance tax and things like that. Sure, China would reap all the profits, but the benefits would trickle down to the rest of the planet, even to places like Uruguay. It would be worth it, because if nobody develops the Moon, nobody gets anything. As a character in Bill White's Platinum Moon said IIRC, "For everyone to eat bread, some must eat caviar!"
But now all the heavy lifting and risk taking has already been done. So what's to stop "the Big Australian", BHP Billiton, from getting in on the act?
Quote from: Warren Platts on 03/18/2012 12:45 pmBut now all the heavy lifting and risk taking has already been done. So what's to stop "the Big Australian", BHP Billiton, from getting in on the act? China buys most our ores.. one word that they might stop and they get anything they want.
Hm... I see what you're saying. And those are good points. But consider the potential for conflict as things stand now. Let's say for the sake of the argument that there are indeed vast gold deposits in the polar cold traps (and I'm the first to admit that this is pure speculation based on very little evidence). Now think of everything that needs to be done in order to get that gold back to Earth: the depots, the heavy-duty reusable landers, Lunar propellant production, and then all the gold refining stuff. You're looking at at least $50B USD for DDT&E costs and another $150B to deploy it all at a minimum. That would be about a trillion CNY. Now there's a Chinese state-owned enterprise (SOE) that's happily churning out the gold bars, and China is now the world's largest gold producer as a result. They're careful to restrict production to carefully manage the price of gold: they'll drive the price down a little bit to drive out marginal producers on Earth, but still keep it around $50K/kg to keep the Lunar operation profitable. But now all the heavy lifting and risk taking has already been done. So what's to stop "the Big Australian", BHP Billiton, from getting in on the act? Under the OST as it stands now, there's nothing to prevent BHP Billiton from setting up shop literally on the other side of the crater of the Chinese operation. See the potential for crisis: now the Chinese SOE has to split the market with a "claim jumper" who didn't help pay to develop the prospect; not only that, by ramping up production, there would be a danger that the price of gold would collapse and drive the entire Lunar economy out of business. So (A) it is seemingly unfair that a company that took none of the risks gets to profit from the hard work done by the Chinese SOE; and (B) destroying a profitable Lunar economy is a practical result that no one wants to see. Now for some reason I was thinking that the OST allowed safety zones to be declared around manned facilities, but as I look at it again today, I see there really is no such provision. On the other hand, declaring safety zones aren't specifically prohibited. Similarly, NASA's no-trespassing zones like the 40 acres it claimed around the Apollo 17 site are not specifically disallowed under the OST. Thus although Article II specifically states that the Moon is "not subject to national appropriation", apparently self-declared zones where activities can be limited are in fact compatible with the OST. E.g., NASA is not contesting that the Moon is the common heritage of mankind by declaring it's 40-acre no-go zone, nor is the 40 acre no-go zone a form of national appropriation. Scientific research near the site isn't prohibited, and free access is guaranteed to all, except for the 40-acre core zone. Presumably study of the site through remote sensing isn't prohibited by NASA. So consider this: Article III states that explorers "shall carry on activities ... in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co- operation and understanding." Now, there are space lawyers on this forum that know more about this stuff than I do, but I believe a case can be made that an anarchic, free-for-all, gold rush on the Moon is not conducive to maintaining international peace and security, nor would it promote international cooperation and understanding! So, contra Professor Hickman, I believe that a Chinese SOE could declare an EEZ and still stay within the letter of the OST; in other words, China would not have to withdraw from the OST in order to declare a 200 nm EEZ. Think about it: the EEZ wouldn't prohibit any of the other positive activities spelled out by the OST: e.g., Article I states that there shall be freedom of scientific discovery, and that there be free access to all areas of the Moon, but an EEZ per se would not affect these sorts of activities. People would still be allowed to conduct scientific research on the cold traps, and move around, they just would be prohibited from conducting economic activities. The resources there would still be the common heritage of mankind, but the Chinese SOE would enjoy the sole right to exploit those resources. Once those resources are sold on Planet Earth, however, it's a boost to the whole global economy and so everyone benefits as it all trickles down. Thus, the argument is this: that the OST does not specifically prohibit self-declared zones that place restrictions on activities: presumably NASA's space lawyers have already checked this out; otherwise they wouldn't have claimed the 40 acres around the Apollo 17 site. Since self-declared EEZ's are not specifically prohibited, then presumably they are allowed. Indeed, the argument is that EEZ's are necessary in order to promote international peace and cooperation--without it, anarchy and environmental contamination would ensue. Naturally, the size of the EEZ should be that which best promotes international understanding and cooperation: the 200 nm limit is already on the books on Earth, and it would be big enough to lock up the entire north polar region. Again, EEZ's are not forms of "national appropriation": e.g., the nautical EEZ's on Earth are still international waters; anybody is free to sail through them: people just can't fish or drill for oil without permission. The resources there are still the "common heritage of mankind", but in order to prevent anarchy and collapsing fish stocks, the country holding the EEZ gets to regulate how those resources are managed. It's only fair.What about enforcement? Well, if anyone tried to do any claim-jumping beyond fair-use, scientific sampling, the interlopers would simply be arrested and sent home unharmed. While the OST specifically forbids military operation on the Moon, it does not specifically forbid the use of police forces. E.g., NASA has it's own SWAT team with the power to arrest people: presumably if anybody monkeyed with the Apollo 17 site, NASA would have the power to arrest them for violating NASA's regulations. Similarly, if China were to declare a 200 nm EEZ, they would have the power to arrest anybody conducting economic activities within the EEZ. If potential claim jumpers decided to up the notch and resist arrest through force of arms, that would arguably be a military action and would be forbidden by the terms of the OST. Again, declaring the EEZ wouldn't be a form of national appropriation any more than EEZ's on Earth are forms of national appropriation. Freedom of movement and scientific research would still be allowed. The resources would still be the common heritage of mankind, just like they are in terrestrial EEZ's. You heard it here first!