Conquering the LaGrange Points? 911
3laws_safe writes "For decades, people have dreamed about building colonies at the five LaGrange points, intersections in space where gravitational and centrifugal forces balance out to provide orbital stability. But now, the official magazine of the U.S. Space Command advocates seizing control of the LaGrange points before other nations do it. From the article: 'We face the need to control the chokepoints of the solar system.' Arthur C. Clarke, who depicted a LaGrange colony in his classic 1961 novel A Fall of Moondust, is not very happy about this. He argues we should not 'export national rivalries beyond the atmosphere.' Is he right? Or should we prepare for the fact that such rivalries are inevitable, even in space?"
Seize for military or commercical. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd do more for my kids's personal futures if Virgin Galactic (and I don't even know what country they're in) owned one of them than if any particular company's military base were put there.
Not Enough Oil (Score:0, Interesting)
Where will the space programs be in the face of $100 oil? Probably on the ground.
Which rivalries, commercial or military. (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems it'd be best for the US if WalMart owned one of the lagrange points, just like WalMart owns much of manufacturing in China and Exxon owns much of the oil in the mideast. If it's siezed as a military base it'll just sit there with lots of cost and little benefit to anyone; but if it's purchased as a commercial facility, it'll be a tax on everyone going into space. To rephrase the distinction in more concrete terms; China is WalMart's biggest ally, but China is also the US military's largest competitor for space domination.
I agree that the US corporations should race to control commercially the Lagrange points (as we do buying up oil in the mideast); but I think it'd be stupid if we decided to occupy them at great cost to ourselves (as we do to certain countries in the mideast).
Only FIVE such points? (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually - already satellites there... (Score:4, Interesting)
The WMAP page also explains that the L1 and L2 points aren't as stable as the article implies...
This sounds familiar... (Score:3, Interesting)
What about all the British, French, Spanish, Dutch colonies in the Americas? They are all happy independent nations now (for the most part) that fought wars, not necessarily with each other, but against their home nations for independence.
What in the name of God or science makes you think space is going to be any different?
Think about who would move to a space colony: a pot-smoker wanting to get away from unjust laws on his lifestyle, a Falun Dafa group seeking asylum from persecution, and a libertarian trying to get away from taxes.
Nations can do their best to try to expand into state out of fear of other nations doing so first, but it's going to be the colonists that end up fighting the wars for these nations, and eventually, wars of independence a few generations later.
Maybe not every colonist would take up arms, but my assumption is that even of the ones that don't, they will most likely achieve independence anyway (Canada), so why would the US want to be the first?
Because it's not a body (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.islandone.org/Treaties/BH766.html [islandone.org]
http://www.spacelawstation.com/international.html [spacelawstation.com]
I always thought that outer space would at least prevent people from contesting territory, since area, particularly off of the major planets, seemed so vast relative to the cost of putting things up there. I figured scarcity wouldn't be a problem and the territorial boundaries that nations are based on might be partially undermined.
I figured space would be libertarian.
I guess this just re-emphasizes that even in space there are scarce resources which people are going to end up fighting over, and which will necessitate extending national power into outer space, in order to enforce any claims on territoriality.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
Aha! See, while it's easy to feel like we shouldn't be having such petty conflicts, what you've hit on is the magic of it. We'll have a lot of different strategies going outward. A lot of different motivators. It's evolution in action, keeping us viable into the stars.
On the surface, it's seems unfortunate. But in the long run it will mean we survive.
Re:Dimensions (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Peaceful use of Space just a temporary phase... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd be more pessimistic if there was easy to get/exploit resources at the LaGrange points, but where costs are high and profits low, I think cooperation is more likely than conflict, or most likely no action at all.
Re:yes (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally think human beings are born pretty nasty and all in all stay that way. I think the folks sent to space thus far haven't been really representative of the group as a whole. And this whole article revolved around needing control of those points to be succesful in fighting on the ground. The two are tied together.
We'll see how it all works out, well somebody will. I am not opposed to your view point being correct, just doubtful.
Re:Be prepared (Score:4, Interesting)
The real question here is how the hell do you defend a LaGrange point? They're known positions with no cover. The amount of money and energy required to build an installation at a LaGrange point is vastly more than it would take to overwhelm its defenses with numerous small impactors or beam weapons.
The idea that the LaGrange points represent some kind of interplanetary chokepoint is plainly being advanced by military officials who are used to operating at low velocities on a more or less two-dimensional surface. In space, the only position that matters is not being near the position you were in when the enemy targeted his fire. Big stationary fortresses don't even make sense on the ground any more; they never made sense in space.
Re:yes (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Feel free to tell me why I am.
Re:Peaceful use of Space just a temporary phase... (Score:5, Interesting)
But forgetting about natural resources - the big difference is that Antartica isn't a security threat - space is - its the ultimate high ground. An engine attached to a boulder makes it into a space to surface bombardment system. You don't need nukes or lasers to threaten from above - just being up there is threat enough...
But who knows? Maybe we'll suprise ourselves, and the ISS and McMurdo stations will be the models of our future (well - maybe not the ISS).
We are fucked (Score:1, Interesting)
George Orwell massively disagrees with you (Score:2, Interesting)
Rumsfeld Doctrine on space (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon.asp
Re:yes (Score:3, Interesting)
So one can label these sub-groups whatever they want. It is my opinion that they will fight for control of one another and that as technology improves this will include fighting for what the linked pdf calls the 'high ground'
Many other nations don't display aggressive nationalism as commonly seen in the 'Western world'.
I truly don't believe that this statement can be supported by facts - current or historical. But then again it is somewhat nebulous. What is many? What is 'aggressive' nationalism? What kind of time frame are we looking at? I can immediately think of some of the most ruthless empire building the world has seen and it did not take place in the west. Nor was it instigated by western nations. Again I propose that this is a human problem.
Re:Which rivalries, commercial or military. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
Can you provide any evidence to support that assertion? At the heart of this "story" is rivalry. Inevitably, rivalry will be the very reason our species manages to get beyond this planet.
Space colonization is going to be like any other form of colonization in history, only with less killing of the natives.
You're not thinking long term here. The great great great grandchild of Hyatt will probably figure some sparsely populated rock would be a nice place to terra-form into a resort. Shortly thereafter we'll have mass graves, bombings and all the rest. "Sparsely" will probably be measured in tens of millions.
Napoleon understood this; the only motivation of man is self interest. When individuals believe that their self interest is best served by participating is some collective you get nations, wars, etc. Space isn't going to change this.
As for seizing resources; our space faring descendents will eventually decide they'd rather be independent and they'll have to fight for it. They'll eventually win, because they'll have the knowledge, resources and will.
One "day" someplace far, far away a human will be born, live a long life we fools can not even fathom, and die. It will have never even been aware of the existence of a "Bible", "Quran" or Arthur C. Clarke. The warmongers in the "U.S. Space Command" that contributed to making such a thing possible won't be credited for this.
Will there be churches on Mars?
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
Learn your history. The British Parliament offered seats to the Colonies. The radicals, members of the Sons of Liberty (who would be classified as terrorists today) put pressure on the colonial assemblies to reject the offer because the Sons of Liberty from the outset wanted independence. They especially did not want to pay the monies owed to Britain for finally dispatching the one true threat in North America to all of the colonies, that being the French, during the Seven Years War/French & Indian War.
Some other misnomers taught to us through our *great* K-12 educational system about the American Revolution.
*Quartering of soldiers. Did not happen. The Loyalist families volunteered to house some of the soldiers. The majority of the soldiers were housed in Inns. The British made the colonial legislatures pay the innkeepers for the soldiers staying. The Legislatures and some of the members did not appreciate this. But people were not forced to take soldiers into their homes as we are inaccurately taught in schools.
*Standing army a tyranny. The British soldiers stayed in the North American colonies to not only keep the peace between the colonials and the Native Americans, but also to keep the French from trying to regain Canada or assault the North American colonies. Some colonial morons, some of which became our "Founding Fathers" declared that such a move was to stomp on their liberty and curtail democracy, which was not the case at all. The British troops were also there because the colonial militias proved to be completely ineffective in the 7 Years War. The brunt of the fighting was left to the British Army.
*Tea tax. The stupidest thing of all the American Revolutionary history. The British East India Company was going bankrupt and essentially controlled India. The British needed a means to pay for it, as well as repaying the huge debt run up beating the French and protecting the North American Colonies during the 7 Years War. So they gave a monopoly to the East India Company to sell tea in the Colonies. This pissed off the smugglers, who violated British trade laws (as well as Naval laws) by importing inferior Dutch tea. The tea was then handled by wholesalers, distributors, and stores. The East India Monopoly threatened to destroy this black market trade, whose headquarters was in, ta da, Boston. Only select merchants would sell the East India tea. So what happened? Smugglers, merchants, and wholesalers protested, *disguised* themselves as "Indians," and dumped the British tea into Boston Harbor. This led to the closing of Boston Harbor by the British. Even Ben Franklin at the time thought it was fair for Boston to pay up for the damage before the harbor was re-opened.
*Trial-by-peers. The problems of Boston continued escalating. Even a British Naval vessel was burnt by colonial radicals. Since trial-by-jury - a standard Right of Englishmen - meant a "trial by peers," the British were unsuccessful in getting a conviction against smugglers, because the jury was made up of smugglers. So the British decided to send the smugglers to London for conviction. Of course, the radicals were pissed off by this trampling of their liberty.
*George Washington. We think of him as a great general, but he proved otherwise in the earlier 7 Years War, which started when his hat was shot off his head while riding horseback. The general could not speak French, which is required of a leading officer in the British Army at the time because you had to sometimes negotiate with the blood enemy (the French). The British told Washington to also listen to his Native American allies, and Washington hated the Native Americans. So Washington did not listen to his allies, did not abandon a fort during the winter, and got trapped inside of it because of the mud. The French c
Re:Chokepoints?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Especially when you realize that if you're transferring cargo, you're almost guaranteed to use the IPS transfers, it's pretty much a given that when humanity starts actively mining asteroids, we're going to need something at almost all of the Lagrange points - both the Earth/Moon and the Earth/Sun ones. Except the Earth/Sun L3. That one sucks.
In fact, by far the most intelligent thing is what was suggested a bit ago by Jerome Pearson. Two lunar space elevators. Since (lunar) L1/L2 are stationary points, and the Moon is rotationally locked, you can build elevators to them (and it'd only take Kevlar, not nanotubes). It's so ridiculously obvious, that I can't imagine that it won't happen, unless there's a dynamic instability someone hasn't thought of.
Completely avoids the entire stability problem.
Re:Be prepared (Score:3, Interesting)
Why dont you ever show me some respect ThreeE
You are the one who said Russian prostitutes need to turn more tricks to fund the Russian space program, in one sentance proving you are sexist, racist, petty, immature and have no credibility discussing the Russian space program because you have no respect for them. Having no respect for the Russians is dumb because they do some good work, and the do whole projects on what NASA wastes on a single shuttle launch. They could build Kliper on what NASA wastes on a few Shuttle launchs
"I could just as easily say that the US is the ONLY nation with a proven track record of operating outside of LEO."
Cuz the Russians are the only ones who have built permenantly manned space stations RECENTLY. The U.S. has completely lost the capacity to build Saturn's, LEM's etc. You can deduce this because its going to take NASA 10 years and billions of dollars to build CEV, a weak attempt to just Xerox Apollo in the case of Boeing or build a mini-me Space shuttle in the case of Lockheed that would be an insane vehicle for going to the Moon or the Lagrange points.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
And while I could take time to respond to most, if not all, of your assertions, I think it is only necessary to respond to one:
Ben Franklin. Great guy. He was the North American Colonies agent in London. Dealt with the King. Was liked by the Court. He even had his son made the Royal Governor of New Jersey. The Court thought he was an honest representative, but the man changed sides. When his son refused to change sides, Franklin had his own son locked up in prison. After the war, Franklin's son moved to England. They never spoke again. Franklin left his son out of his will.
When a "great guy" who is "liked by the court" and considered to be an "honest representative" decides to "change sides" and believes so strongly in that decision that he refuses to ever talk to his son again, perhaps you should ask yourself why? If the English were such great people given the total shaft by a bunch of smuggling, radical colinists, why would such an honest and respected man "change sides?"
I suspect the truth is somewhere between the two extremes, but "your" extreme is certainly no closer to the truth than the one taught in K-12.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
When and to whom?
I can't find confimation of this anywhere. You don't see a trace of parlimentary reform in Britain until 1832.
Re:Yes (Score:1, Interesting)
I wasn't allowed into the States last year to visit my sister because I'd organised an anti-war protest outside a US embassy in Europe. I was held for two days questioning at an unknown location and deported on the grounds that my peaceful expression (12 months previously) of my views with american policies was enough to put me on some kind of list of terrorist suspects.
Anyone who disagrees with US government policy is considerned a terrorist now.
US Enemies with Industrial Bases (Score:3, Interesting)
Russia's still a big country with a lot of natural resources, but its industrial base was collapsing before the Soviet Union fell, and while it still has nuclear weapons and the totalitarians are starting to get some control back, it's basically a basket case run by a variety of Mafias. It might be able to damage Poland, and cause a lot of trouble, but it can't even really control Chechnya. It's not a serious player.
A few years ago the Republicans were totally pleased with themselves when they remembered that the Chinese government still called themselves Communists, because they hadn't seen any Commies in years except at Berkeley and Harvard and a few mayors in Italy and France. And China does have an industrial base and an army - but it's not really Communist any more, and the army's more concerned with making money running the industrial base and winning infighting between competing factions of the military for economic power than they are about actually fighting anybody. Sure, it's less liberal politically than Singapore, and it occasionally goes "booga booga booga" about Taiwan just for fun, but basically the Chinese leadership are neo-capitalists and Not Stupid. However, as military competitors go, there's nobody else out there.
Sure, there's North Korea, who might be able to make a bomb, but can't feed their own people, and would totally fail if they were to invade South Korea again. There's Pan-Arab Nationalism, but that's not a united political movement any more, and unless the House of Saud falls, the important parts are mostly supported politically and militarily by the US, even if there are economic squabbles about the price of oil - and they're certainly not putting anything into Space at the scale of colonizing the Lagrange points. India's running a small space program for reasons of national pride, but as satellites have been superseded by undersea fiber for telecommunications, and television satellites are easy enough to put up with commercial launch services from the US or Russians.
Clarke is absolutely right (Score:4, Interesting)
To prepare for national and military rivalry that does not yet exist out there, except for friendly competition, is to create those rivalries.
Here I was, hoping that maybe space exploration will be one thing that will finally bring us together in peace, for all humankind... Sometimes I think people *want* conflicts and rivalry. If the USA decides to take over and claim certain parts of the solar system, that's just going to make people lose whatever little respect they had for that nation.
Instead, why not set a good example, by bringing together all nations to some conference where you agree not to bring archaic national rivalry into space?
No military presence in space, please! We've had lots of it on this planet, and let me tell you, it's not bringing a whole lot of joy.
Re:Sorry, you again are making a relative judgemen (Score:2, Interesting)
The risk of terrorism has not increased in the US -- it has decreased. What has increased is the FUD about terrorism abroad. The US didn't "invite" 9/11 -- it was cold blooded mass murder. Terrorism isn't about casualties -- it's very ineffective at that. It's about FUD -- and you have bought in hook, line, and sinker.
I care about Iraq because it was/is a security threat to the US and its allies. It no longer is -- mission accomplished. Eliminating a dictator and freeing the country were nice side-effects.
Oh please ... do you realize how BIG space is? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hurry up (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, Europeans colonized the americas, which formed into their own countries over a realitively short time.
Regardless, we don't really have the tech to make this real anyway, look at the international space station. sure, weightlessness is ok for a space station, but I think gravity might be just a little more important for an entire colony. All we could really do now is put some beacon there to prove its stable, and have it constantly transmit "Future site of another wal-mart" or something to that nature.
I do think that we need to hurry this up though so I can have more room for my epic battles in my Gundam. My neighbors are starting to get pissy about all the mass destruction I've been doing lately, fighting the Earth Alliance and all, plus it does look alittle out of place in my driveway
Re:Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
They offered more than two. The point was, the radicals rejected the offer because they rejected the concept that Parliament had any right to make laws outside of England/Scotland. They also thought the King would rally to their side as well. When he didn't, they began to call him a "tyrant."
Re:Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
The colonial legislatures never offered to pay their portion of the debt the British ran up during the 7 Years War to protect the North American Colonies from the French. Never. Because of that, Parliament had to find a way to pay that debt off without bankrupting the treasury. Since the Colonials failed to do so, Parliament had to raise taxes. The problem was the Colonials refused to pay any form of taxation. And the level of taxation argument is ridiculous. All of the proposed British taxes on the Colonies amounted to 1% of income per capita. Compare that to the British public who were paying far higher taxation rates on lots of different goods. In London, they were paying taxes on glass windows to make up for the failed tax collection in the Colonies. Ireland also suffered higher taxation to make up for the Colonial losses. Which is ironic, considering how many Americans later tried funding armed Irish rebellion against the Crown when had they actually paid their taxes, their wouldn't have been a need for an Irish rebellion. Your point about "corrupt" British agents collecting the taxes also applies to fellow Colonials who were granted that job as well.