9 ms·

Space isn't ours.

82 points by hebejebelus 14y ago

jcnnghm 14y ago
As long as America is paying for the vast majority of space exploration, the achievements belong to us. We spend almost 3 times the entire rest of the world combined, about $60 billion to $22 billion a year. Global achievement requires global contribution. Leveled for GDP, the rest of the world would need to spend about $160 billion a year more than they are. Editing in more details from posts I've made before: The total 2010 US Space budget was $64.6B. The entire rest of the world combined spent only $22.5B. NASA's 2010 budget was $18.7B, 83% of the spending for the rest of the world. The entire ESA budget is a paltry $4.6B, while the EU has a higher GDP than the US. Not all US space spending is through NASA. For example, the GPS system is not included in NASA's budget, it's spearheaded by the Air Force Space Command, and comes out of the Defense budget. And before anyone says that Defense space spending should not be included, keep in mind that will dramatically reduce the overall global space budget which does include defense spending. For example, the European Galileo satellite navigation system, which has cost some €20B, is included in the ESA budget, so it would have to be taken out in order to compare with NASA, our civilian space program. If the rest of the world spent as much as the United States on space exploration by GDP, global space spending would be 4.1 times higher than it is today. $267B instead of $87.1B.
- knowtheory 14y ago
  I agree with you completely with regard to the (unfortunately paltry) funding situation. There is still a difference between that inequity that should be rectified, and the jingoism that we hear about our country. The US and our partners are definitely doing things that have never been done before, and as everyone keeps noting, for pretty freaking cheap! I just wish we were using that as an invitation for participation from others, rather than just as an opportunity to beat the drums of nationalism.
- vhf 14y ago
  I think you missed the point. This links does not say the achievement does not belong to USA. It says space does not belong to USA. Just like discovering America is Colombus' achievement, we can't say America belongs to Colombus.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
    - vhf 14y ago
      [EDIT] Well, this comment is in response to a comment which has just been deleted. [/EDIT] > Sort of a meaningless statement, Columbus never claimed America for himself. Of course he didn't. > Kind of like the article itself: how could space even belong to a country? What is the meaning in that? Well, it wasn't so long ago, when american colonists could discover a land or territory and claim it for themselves. After all, it is the way USA became what it is today : U.S. -- A., kind of. You nailed it : how could space (or a planet, or part of a planet) could belong to a country ? What if USA claimed Mars ? Of course they won't. Of course if they did, the UN would say they can't. But ultimately, space is like anything else, it belongs to whoever controls it. >jcnnghm is on the point. To add to his point, the US continues to innovate in space exploration, and the pride in doing so fuels that exploration. Of course the pride is for the US. But still, it's a mankind achievement, one for which we all thank US.
- sysk 14y ago
  Here's my take on who the achievement really belongs to (in ascending order): DNA based life < Mammals < Primates < Homo Sapiens < Countries involved in space exploration < Taxpayers of the USA < Rich tax payers of the USA (they contributed more proportionally right?) < People working at NASA < People actually working on the Curiosity project
- siphr 14y ago
  I think a lot of people have already corrected you on your arrogance but I will still say that regardless of however much usa spent you need to question where that money came from in the first place. That is all.
- Joakal 14y ago
  They already belong to USA with a cold war protectionist law: ITAR. That's why Russia, China, Europe, Copenhagen suborbitals, etc, are all going into space without USA's help. To put it in perspective, it's illegal for any American to explain to a foreigner how to build the necessary means to get into space. That said, it shouldn't be an us vs them game with progressing the knowledge.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    Wait, if that's illegal, how on earth can the US reasonably co-operate on such things as the ISS?
    - TeMPOraL 14y ago
      It's illegal for citizens, probably not for official cooperations between branches of different governments.
- andrewfelix 14y ago
  >As long as America is paying for the vast majority of space exploration, the achievements belong to us. Well next time you can wait 12hrs until your own receivers get the signal from the rover. Or perhaps the achievements belong to Australia as well? As an Australian your post really rubbed me the wrong way. We've been helping NASA with our specialised equipment and expertise for decades (at the Australian taxpayers expense). Australia was integral in Curiosity's success.
- Le_SDT 14y ago
  While the USA puts lots of money into space projects, it also invest in cheap labor from other countries. There are poor countries that could never afford to pay for a space project but, in the other hand, if they weren't there, USA (and many other countries) would not be what they are today.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  > As long as America is paying for the vast majority of space exploration No. The achievement doesn't belong to politicians who sign the bills granting the funding nor to taxpayers who provide the money for the politicians to give. The achievement belongs to engineers and scientists who do the impossible (one of the impossible things they do is to convince politicians to give the money in the first place). Also, keep in mind military spending by the US ended up tying a lot of money in the Soviet Union and China (who, quite reasonably, had to spend a lot building military to defend them against the US) that could have been directed at making the world a better place.
GuiA 14y ago
You say space isn't ours if ours=Americans but space is ours for ours=humans. I disagree. Space is there, and it's fine for us to explore it (although space garbage is an issue), but claiming it is just typical human pettiness.
- derleth 14y ago
  It really depends on what you mean by 'claiming', doesn't it? If 'claiming' means "We have exclusive rights to it and ET better just watch out", then that's insane. I've also never heard anyone make that argument.
  - GuiA 14y ago
    From OP's article: "It will belong to us. It will belong to humans." It's a slippery slope. Replace "space" by "Palestine" and you will have a perfect example of what happens when different groups have different notions of how ownership of physical space is defined.
    - derleth 14y ago
      > "It will belong to us. It will belong to humans." We haven't found anyone else. Unless and until we do, we're not taking it from anyone. We're just gradually expanding our use of a resource that is currently not in use.
hnriot 14y ago
What an utterly pointless article capitalizing on the success of the NASA team. Nobody is saying space is America's, what they were saying was that this was a big day for the American space program, because it was NASA, not the Chinese space agency, or the Russians or anyone else that put Curiosity on mars. And I'm not even an American. I will be just as happy next time any other nation does something like this too, but this one belongs to the Americans.
- zerohp 14y ago
  Agreed. Specifically, they were very clear that the entry, decent, and landing are the American victory. Curiosity carries instruments from multiple countries and was designed through international cooperation.
- qxcv 14y ago
  > Nobody is saying space is America's Really? [0] rings a bell from a few years back, but I'm not sure if it's still current. If denying access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests" isn't "ownership" (or maybe "guardianship", if you prefer that term), I'm not sure what is. [0]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701484.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10...
redwood 14y ago
Nasa needs to play politics a bit: after all it competes with everything else for funding. More power to them. Something to be proud to spend tax money on...
- saraid216 14y ago
  This, basically. We do not have a happy situation in America by any measure and this is being leveraged to bring in more money to work with. While I twinge a little every time they talk about "American ingenuity" or "This is an American achievement", I do recognize what they're doing and they're by no means denigrating other countries in saying this.
dfc 14y ago
There were a number of times during the live stream that NASA people followed up "a great day for america" with "and a great day for humankind/the-world." It happened frequently enough that I'm confident that any NASA list of talking points included "a great day for us and a great day for humankind."
losethos 14y ago
God, what's Yer favorite country... at the moment? God says... it's_hopeless completely game_over United_States honestly
fosk 14y ago
You're right, space hasn't a property. Even the world, maybe, shouldn't have it as it belongs to space. Property is a human invention. Yes, it is a great day for everyone, but it is exceptionally more great for those people who financed the NASA program by paying more taxes for it. Maybe sooner or later we'll see a joint cooperation between different countries to discover farther worlds. PS: I'm not american.
olalonde 14y ago
Pretty much every player in the space industry gets their funding through government (directly or indirectly). It's not so surprising that they often try to frame space exploration as an "us vs them" thing like the Cold War wasn't over. Personally, I find this attitude pretty annoying but well, I am not American either.
- Ogre 14y ago
  When people talk about SpaceX being a private company, I have to wonder how different it really is from a government run space program when every single dollar of income they have comes from the US government (via NASA. I'd be happy to to be wrong on this, let me know if I am) I am not complaining about this, I'm a big fan of SpaceX, but it doesn't seem to me that they're actually a "private space company." in a meaningful way when their funding is just as prone to political whims as NASA's. I guess the difference is that as a private company, they're free to go find funding from other countries' governments too. But have they? And is anyone other than a government going to buy their services? P.S. I don't really know what I'm talking about, those are actual questions, not sarcasm.
  - olalonde 14y ago
    Yes, that's actually why I mentioned some of them get their funding indirectly. Hopefully, SpaceX will be able to diversify its sources of revenues and get some more contracts from the private sector. I'd be really surprised however if they are allowed to take funding from foreign governments despite being a private company.
    - NoPiece 14y ago
      Their second launch was a Malaysian satellite, and they are scheduled to launch satellites for Intelsat and AsiaSat, so they have private customers providing income, and foreign governments as well.
  - crusso 14y ago
    Because SpaceX is private, it creates a proven market for selling space exploration vehicle use to the government. Other players will be able to join them. The government will then have options in which space companies to use. That creates competition. Competition fosters innovation. Eventually, space exploitation will become economically feasible to be funded by private interests. Once that happens, the real "space race" will be on. As an example of the value of privatization, look at the history of the Internet [1]. The protocols and useful infrastructure were worked out and available in the 70s. When I was in college in the 80s, we had internet connections. I played games with it, read usenet, traded files with people around the world, etc. I thought it was really cool, but couldn't imagine how my mom would ever get a chance to use it. Then around 1995, the Internet was opened up to private interests. Growth exploded. Billions of extra dollars from all sectors of the economy were willingly poured into expanding the internet so that everyone's mom could access it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
elorant 14y ago
I'm not an American but I don't feel offended in any way by the statement that this is a great day for Americans. It is both a great day for humanity and USA. The latter will ripe the technological benefits of such a milestone. The rest of us will enjoy a triumph of human spirit.
37prime 14y ago
The last time I checked, in about 1000 years Mars would be pretty much owned by Leo and Inez Wong.
SCdF 14y ago
The achievement doesn't belong to the world. It doesn't belong to Americans either. It belongs to the people who actually goddamn contributed to the project. The people who coded it, who built it, who put in the hard effort. Yes, American people funded it, via taxes, but they didn't actually pick to fund it, their government decided it was a good idea. A random person in the states flipping burgers is no more responsible for NASA's achievements than someone flipping burgers in France, or in China, or in Ireland. I don't say this to be negative, or to put a downer on this fantastic event: I was watching the live-stream with my heart in my mouth, and it's an amazing achievement. But, if we're going to bring this kind of thing up, I felt like I might as well voice my criticism of this 'couch-achieving' that seems to be to popular. My country (NZ) currently has the most gold medals in the Olympics of any nation on Earth... provided to measure them per capita. Some people are proud of this achievement. That's fair, you could argue that some of a countries success in the games are based around the logistics of simply sourcing good people, and so the more people you have the better your chances. What doesn't make sense is when people I know talk as if they themselves achieved something. Sorry if this is a rant, but I really wish people would just be proud of whgat they themselves have achieved, and be proud of other people when they achieve great things, instead of trying to live through other people.
- archgoon 14y ago
  One does not need to paint the Mona Lisa to appreciate and be enriched by it.
- D_Alex 14y ago
  I prefer the view that this achievement does belong to the world. I work in the oil and gas industry. We supply the world with energy, it gets used up about as quickly as it gets produced. In a sense, I will have nothing concrete to show for my work say 30 years from now... apart for the fact that the world continued to function. Same goes for farmers, dentists, parking attendants and in fact for the vast majority of professions. The people who product the truly lasting products are scientists (and arguably artists, politicians and lawyers... but science is special because it is so consistently worthwhile). But I do feel a part of society's successes, I was one of those millions of little cogs that are a part of the whole machine.
dbbolton 14y ago
>We need to take it This was one of the main themes in Lem's Solaris (ignore the subpar George Clooney knock-off). Really a great read for sci-fi fans.
rickdangerous1 14y ago
"Take" is a strange choice of words for space. Take implies possession. Possessing something as vast as the "sky" is ridiculous. Its debatable whether humanity even possesses the world we inhabit...some might say we're temporary interlopers (on a geological timescale human history is less than a eye blink) and there is no guarantee of our long term survival. And if humanity flames out in a blaze of biological armageddon, some other evolutionary species will end up "possessing" earth.
noonespecial 14y ago
Space is like all frontiers. It doesn't matter how loudly anyone argues back at home. It belongs to the people who go there. Space is different than our other frontiers because as a proportion of its size to ours, its unprecedented. It belongs to everyone who wants to go, and will for a very long time. "take my love, take my land, take me where I cannot stand, I don't care, I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me"
- ChrisNorstrom 14y ago
  This is a whole new frontier though... It requires constant capital, sustenance, help, support, and funding from money back home. This would be the equivalent of living off your parents and telling them you're independent and don't have to follow their rules.
fakelvis 14y ago
A lot of the arguments here, whether for or against the idea that this achievement 'belongs' to the U.S., miss an important point. Not everyone working on past, current and future Mars Exploration Programs is an American citizen. The funding may be from the U.S., but the individual contributions at NASA come from all over the world. To name just three, there's Fernando Abilleira, Spain (trajectory analyst); Nathalie Cabrol, France (planetary geologist); and Firouz Naderi, Iran (manager of the Mars Exploration Program). There's a huge list of people, you should check it out: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/programmissions/people/ http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/programmissions/people/
ChrisNorstrom 14y ago
Futile and very foolish. Space MUST be owned. Humans do not invest in, nor do they take care of or clean up things they cannot own. Case-in-point: Great Pacific Garbage Patch (along with the other 4 oceanic garbage patches). The inability to own property is devastating to a civilization. Property ownership is a form of democracy that is necessary in human societies. Too much ownership can be devastating due to human greed (The Amazon) and no ownership can be devistating due to lack of desire to protect something that isn't yours (Earth's Oceans, African Tribal Lands). Examples: 1) I also do volunteer environmental cleanup. So far I've bagged 523 pounds of garbage from forested areas and some abandoned private properties. Garbage pollution happens in forested areas and land where neither party knows exactly who owns what. Land without ownership is allowed to accumulate garbage which flows into the storm drains, into the rivers, and into the oceans. Without ownership, one cannot be accountable. Without ownership there can be no consequences or rule of law. People don't take care of things they don't own (or realize they own). 2) Many African countries are still on the "communal lands" system. Where no one owns any land and individuals simply have a right to live on it. This lack of land rights and ownership is one of the main reasons why so many Africans live in poverty, are behind, cannot build wealth, and resulted in the 2010 Great African Land Grab. Fertile Land the size of France was taken away from numerous African nations at only 23 cents per hectare. That's 23 cents. The normal rate can be $1,000 per hectare. Natives are forced off the land by force. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/mar/02/african-governments-land-deals http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y05fzp0YSrw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y05fzp0YSrw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxFTGq94dXs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxFTGq94dXs http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/special-investigation-two-land-deals-africa http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/special-investigation-two-la...
- olalonde 14y ago
  > Property ownership is a form of democracy that is necessary in human societies. I smell applause lights. Property ownership and democracy are entirely different concepts. Also, the things you mention, while being true on Earth, aren't necessarily true in Space (at the moment). Pollution isn't an issue except possibly in Earth's orbit. "Protecting the environment" is another way of saying "keeping the environment friendly to humans". There is no human friendly environment in Space to protect (within our reach). I'm all for land ownership on Moon or Mars but we should probably have this discussion in a few decades when some people actually live there permanently (at which point they will most likely form their own independent government anyways).
treelovinhippie 14y ago
NASA does this ALLLLL the time. And as an Australian it pisses me off. Particularly when they throw in "God bless America" at the end. Such a primitive tagline to a scientific endeavour. What we need is an International space exploration program where countries can be involved provided they commit a certain percentage of their GDP.
- theorique 14y ago
  And since lots of your Australian tax dollars go to NASA ... oh, never mind.
beaker52 14y ago
Space will not be ours. The earth is not ours. The portion of earth that you and your neighbours inhabit is not yours, nor mine nor my neighbours. Your possessions are not yours. They are simply in your presence for a brief period of time and you cling to them, believing they are forever yours. The illusion of ownership is a facet of much suffering of, and is caused by humans (and other sentient beings, for we are all animals) under the idea that they own things, collectively or individually. How can things external of a being be owned by it, when the being, as well as that it considers itself to own, are transient, impermanent and microscopic in the long game? Especially when we consider that this illusion causes suffering to ourselves (through loss) and others (through the opportunity to grasp that which is denied).
- siphr 14y ago
  Very well written Sir.
- kinleyd 14y ago
  Very well put. And to complement your point, when we eventually meet extra-terrestrials who also subscribe to the illusion that space can be owned, and that it is theirs, we will have come full circle. Might will likely be the determinant of the outcome, and at that point I suppose we'll all have to root for humanity. Sadly, the battle of the species and of domination will continue as it always has.
- Wintamute 14y ago
  It depends on how you define ownership. In the context of the linked article the concept of "ours" is obviously defined as our ability to exploit space, to colonise it and expand our influence into it. We're not talking about sitting at home wringing our hands with misplaced glee over our new found shiny possession, we're talking about physically making this new frontier work for us as a new medium that we're able to use and inhabit. Your Buddhist philosophy while possibly relevant to our personal lives has been misapplied here. This is industry, this is commerce, this is the business of expansion and survival.
  - beaker52 14y ago
rogerchucker 14y ago
Nobody in the media or in NASA claimed that the space belongs to one country (i.e. US). The author is simply inventing an issue to promote some kumbaya BS. No country invests in space exploration if there is no direct benefit to that country first.
theorique 14y ago
Good (?) thing this wasn't the Russian space program. In America, you own space. In Soviet Russia, space own you!
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
dhechols 14y ago
And when we find another alien civilization, then we have a whole 'nother set of things to deal with.
shrikant 14y ago
Interestingly, there actually exists an Outer Space Treaty. [1] [2] (aka "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies") It was initially promulgated by the USA, UK and [then] USSR in 1967, a 100 countries are currently party to it (with a further 26 signatories pending ratification], and it explicitly says, "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". All this is under the ambit of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. Personally, the cynic in me can't help but believe that the USA was an eager initial party to this because they were terrified that the Soviet Union would pip them to the Moon-post. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty [2] http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html
- JackpotDen 14y ago
  That turned out so well last time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company
synor 14y ago
I watched the beginning of the NASA JPL press conference and the overt patriotism was unbearable (at least for me as an European citizen). They not only coarsely described as an American victory, but also patronized foreign Mars projects – the successful ones apparently being a result of "American leadership".
startupfounder 14y ago
Earthlings!

82 points by hebejebelus 14y ago

As long as America is paying for the vast majority of space exploration, the achievements belong to us. We spend almost 3 times the entire rest of the world combined, about $60 billion to $22 billion a year. Global achievement requires global contribution. Leveled for GDP, the rest of the world would need to spend about $160 billion a year more than they are. Editing in more details from posts I've made before: The total 2010 US Space budget was $64.6B. The entire rest of the world combined spent only $22.5B. NASA's 2010 budget was $18.7B, 83% of the spending for the rest of the world. The entire ESA budget is a paltry $4.6B, while the EU has a higher GDP than the US. Not all US space spending is through NASA. For example, the GPS system is not included in NASA's budget, it's spearheaded by the Air Force Space Command, and comes out of the Defense budget. And before anyone says that Defense space spending should not be included, keep in mind that will dramatically reduce the overall global space budget which does include defense spending. For example, the European Galileo satellite navigation system, which has cost some €20B, is included in the ESA budget, so it would have to be taken out in order to compare with NASA, our civilian space program. If the rest of the world spent as much as the United States on space exploration by GDP, global space spending would be 4.1 times higher than it is today. $267B instead of $87.1B.

knowtheory 14y ago
I agree with you completely with regard to the (unfortunately paltry) funding situation. There is still a difference between that inequity that should be rectified, and the jingoism that we hear about our country. The US and our partners are definitely doing things that have never been done before, and as everyone keeps noting, for pretty freaking cheap! I just wish we were using that as an invitation for participation from others, rather than just as an opportunity to beat the drums of nationalism.
vhf 14y ago
I think you missed the point. This links does not say the achievement does not belong to USA. It says space does not belong to USA. Just like discovering America is Colombus' achievement, we can't say America belongs to Colombus.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - vhf 14y ago
    [EDIT] Well, this comment is in response to a comment which has just been deleted. [/EDIT] > Sort of a meaningless statement, Columbus never claimed America for himself. Of course he didn't. > Kind of like the article itself: how could space even belong to a country? What is the meaning in that? Well, it wasn't so long ago, when american colonists could discover a land or territory and claim it for themselves. After all, it is the way USA became what it is today : U.S. -- A., kind of. You nailed it : how could space (or a planet, or part of a planet) could belong to a country ? What if USA claimed Mars ? Of course they won't. Of course if they did, the UN would say they can't. But ultimately, space is like anything else, it belongs to whoever controls it. >jcnnghm is on the point. To add to his point, the US continues to innovate in space exploration, and the pride in doing so fuels that exploration. Of course the pride is for the US. But still, it's a mankind achievement, one for which we all thank US.
sysk 14y ago
Here's my take on who the achievement really belongs to (in ascending order): DNA based life < Mammals < Primates < Homo Sapiens < Countries involved in space exploration < Taxpayers of the USA < Rich tax payers of the USA (they contributed more proportionally right?) < People working at NASA < People actually working on the Curiosity project
siphr 14y ago
I think a lot of people have already corrected you on your arrogance but I will still say that regardless of however much usa spent you need to question where that money came from in the first place. That is all.
Joakal 14y ago
They already belong to USA with a cold war protectionist law: ITAR. That's why Russia, China, Europe, Copenhagen suborbitals, etc, are all going into space without USA's help. To put it in perspective, it's illegal for any American to explain to a foreigner how to build the necessary means to get into space. That said, it shouldn't be an us vs them game with progressing the knowledge.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  Wait, if that's illegal, how on earth can the US reasonably co-operate on such things as the ISS?
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    It's illegal for citizens, probably not for official cooperations between branches of different governments.
andrewfelix 14y ago
>As long as America is paying for the vast majority of space exploration, the achievements belong to us. Well next time you can wait 12hrs until your own receivers get the signal from the rover. Or perhaps the achievements belong to Australia as well? As an Australian your post really rubbed me the wrong way. We've been helping NASA with our specialised equipment and expertise for decades (at the Australian taxpayers expense). Australia was integral in Curiosity's success.
Le_SDT 14y ago
While the USA puts lots of money into space projects, it also invest in cheap labor from other countries. There are poor countries that could never afford to pay for a space project but, in the other hand, if they weren't there, USA (and many other countries) would not be what they are today.
rbanffy 14y ago
> As long as America is paying for the vast majority of space exploration No. The achievement doesn't belong to politicians who sign the bills granting the funding nor to taxpayers who provide the money for the politicians to give. The achievement belongs to engineers and scientists who do the impossible (one of the impossible things they do is to convince politicians to give the money in the first place). Also, keep in mind military spending by the US ended up tying a lot of money in the Soviet Union and China (who, quite reasonably, had to spend a lot building military to defend them against the US) that could have been directed at making the world a better place.

GuiA 14y ago

You say space isn't ours if ours=Americans but space is ours for ours=humans. I disagree. Space is there, and it's fine for us to explore it (although space garbage is an issue), but claiming it is just typical human pettiness.

derleth 14y ago
It really depends on what you mean by 'claiming', doesn't it? If 'claiming' means "We have exclusive rights to it and ET better just watch out", then that's insane. I've also never heard anyone make that argument.
- GuiA 14y ago
  From OP's article: "It will belong to us. It will belong to humans." It's a slippery slope. Replace "space" by "Palestine" and you will have a perfect example of what happens when different groups have different notions of how ownership of physical space is defined.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > "It will belong to us. It will belong to humans." We haven't found anyone else. Unless and until we do, we're not taking it from anyone. We're just gradually expanding our use of a resource that is currently not in use.

hnriot 14y ago

What an utterly pointless article capitalizing on the success of the NASA team. Nobody is saying space is America's, what they were saying was that this was a big day for the American space program, because it was NASA, not the Chinese space agency, or the Russians or anyone else that put Curiosity on mars. And I'm not even an American. I will be just as happy next time any other nation does something like this too, but this one belongs to the Americans.

zerohp 14y ago
Agreed. Specifically, they were very clear that the entry, decent, and landing are the American victory. Curiosity carries instruments from multiple countries and was designed through international cooperation.
qxcv 14y ago
> Nobody is saying space is America's Really? [0] rings a bell from a few years back, but I'm not sure if it's still current. If denying access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests" isn't "ownership" (or maybe "guardianship", if you prefer that term), I'm not sure what is. [0]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701484.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10...

redwood 14y ago

Nasa needs to play politics a bit: after all it competes with everything else for funding. More power to them. Something to be proud to spend tax money on...

saraid216 14y ago
This, basically. We do not have a happy situation in America by any measure and this is being leveraged to bring in more money to work with. While I twinge a little every time they talk about "American ingenuity" or "This is an American achievement", I do recognize what they're doing and they're by no means denigrating other countries in saying this.

dfc 14y ago

There were a number of times during the live stream that NASA people followed up "a great day for america" with "and a great day for humankind/the-world." It happened frequently enough that I'm confident that any NASA list of talking points included "a great day for us and a great day for humankind."

losethos 14y ago

God, what's Yer favorite country... at the moment? God says... it's_hopeless completely game_over United_States honestly

fosk 14y ago

You're right, space hasn't a property. Even the world, maybe, shouldn't have it as it belongs to space. Property is a human invention. Yes, it is a great day for everyone, but it is exceptionally more great for those people who financed the NASA program by paying more taxes for it. Maybe sooner or later we'll see a joint cooperation between different countries to discover farther worlds. PS: I'm not american.

olalonde 14y ago

Pretty much every player in the space industry gets their funding through government (directly or indirectly). It's not so surprising that they often try to frame space exploration as an "us vs them" thing like the Cold War wasn't over. Personally, I find this attitude pretty annoying but well, I am not American either.

Ogre 14y ago
When people talk about SpaceX being a private company, I have to wonder how different it really is from a government run space program when every single dollar of income they have comes from the US government (via NASA. I'd be happy to to be wrong on this, let me know if I am) I am not complaining about this, I'm a big fan of SpaceX, but it doesn't seem to me that they're actually a "private space company." in a meaningful way when their funding is just as prone to political whims as NASA's. I guess the difference is that as a private company, they're free to go find funding from other countries' governments too. But have they? And is anyone other than a government going to buy their services? P.S. I don't really know what I'm talking about, those are actual questions, not sarcasm.
- olalonde 14y ago
  Yes, that's actually why I mentioned some of them get their funding indirectly. Hopefully, SpaceX will be able to diversify its sources of revenues and get some more contracts from the private sector. I'd be really surprised however if they are allowed to take funding from foreign governments despite being a private company.
  - NoPiece 14y ago
    Their second launch was a Malaysian satellite, and they are scheduled to launch satellites for Intelsat and AsiaSat, so they have private customers providing income, and foreign governments as well.
- crusso 14y ago
  Because SpaceX is private, it creates a proven market for selling space exploration vehicle use to the government. Other players will be able to join them. The government will then have options in which space companies to use. That creates competition. Competition fosters innovation. Eventually, space exploitation will become economically feasible to be funded by private interests. Once that happens, the real "space race" will be on. As an example of the value of privatization, look at the history of the Internet [1]. The protocols and useful infrastructure were worked out and available in the 70s. When I was in college in the 80s, we had internet connections. I played games with it, read usenet, traded files with people around the world, etc. I thought it was really cool, but couldn't imagine how my mom would ever get a chance to use it. Then around 1995, the Internet was opened up to private interests. Growth exploded. Billions of extra dollars from all sectors of the economy were willingly poured into expanding the internet so that everyone's mom could access it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

elorant 14y ago

I'm not an American but I don't feel offended in any way by the statement that this is a great day for Americans. It is both a great day for humanity and USA. The latter will ripe the technological benefits of such a milestone. The rest of us will enjoy a triumph of human spirit.

37prime 14y ago

The last time I checked, in about 1000 years Mars would be pretty much owned by Leo and Inez Wong.

SCdF 14y ago

The achievement doesn't belong to the world. It doesn't belong to Americans either. It belongs to the people who actually goddamn contributed to the project. The people who coded it, who built it, who put in the hard effort. Yes, American people funded it, via taxes, but they didn't actually pick to fund it, their government decided it was a good idea. A random person in the states flipping burgers is no more responsible for NASA's achievements than someone flipping burgers in France, or in China, or in Ireland. I don't say this to be negative, or to put a downer on this fantastic event: I was watching the live-stream with my heart in my mouth, and it's an amazing achievement. But, if we're going to bring this kind of thing up, I felt like I might as well voice my criticism of this 'couch-achieving' that seems to be to popular. My country (NZ) currently has the most gold medals in the Olympics of any nation on Earth... provided to measure them per capita. Some people are proud of this achievement. That's fair, you could argue that some of a countries success in the games are based around the logistics of simply sourcing good people, and so the more people you have the better your chances. What doesn't make sense is when people I know talk as if they themselves achieved something. Sorry if this is a rant, but I really wish people would just be proud of whgat they themselves have achieved, and be proud of other people when they achieve great things, instead of trying to live through other people.

archgoon 14y ago
One does not need to paint the Mona Lisa to appreciate and be enriched by it.
D_Alex 14y ago
I prefer the view that this achievement does belong to the world. I work in the oil and gas industry. We supply the world with energy, it gets used up about as quickly as it gets produced. In a sense, I will have nothing concrete to show for my work say 30 years from now... apart for the fact that the world continued to function. Same goes for farmers, dentists, parking attendants and in fact for the vast majority of professions. The people who product the truly lasting products are scientists (and arguably artists, politicians and lawyers... but science is special because it is so consistently worthwhile). But I do feel a part of society's successes, I was one of those millions of little cogs that are a part of the whole machine.

dbbolton 14y ago

>We need to take it This was one of the main themes in Lem's Solaris (ignore the subpar George Clooney knock-off). Really a great read for sci-fi fans.

rickdangerous1 14y ago

"Take" is a strange choice of words for space. Take implies possession. Possessing something as vast as the "sky" is ridiculous. Its debatable whether humanity even possesses the world we inhabit...some might say we're temporary interlopers (on a geological timescale human history is less than a eye blink) and there is no guarantee of our long term survival. And if humanity flames out in a blaze of biological armageddon, some other evolutionary species will end up "possessing" earth.

noonespecial 14y ago

Space is like all frontiers. It doesn't matter how loudly anyone argues back at home. It belongs to the people who go there. Space is different than our other frontiers because as a proportion of its size to ours, its unprecedented. It belongs to everyone who wants to go, and will for a very long time. "take my love, take my land, take me where I cannot stand, I don't care, I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me"

ChrisNorstrom 14y ago
This is a whole new frontier though... It requires constant capital, sustenance, help, support, and funding from money back home. This would be the equivalent of living off your parents and telling them you're independent and don't have to follow their rules.

fakelvis 14y ago

A lot of the arguments here, whether for or against the idea that this achievement 'belongs' to the U.S., miss an important point. Not everyone working on past, current and future Mars Exploration Programs is an American citizen. The funding may be from the U.S., but the individual contributions at NASA come from all over the world. To name just three, there's Fernando Abilleira, Spain (trajectory analyst); Nathalie Cabrol, France (planetary geologist); and Firouz Naderi, Iran (manager of the Mars Exploration Program). There's a huge list of people, you should check it out: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/programmissions/people/ http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/programmissions/people/

ChrisNorstrom 14y ago

Futile and very foolish. Space MUST be owned. Humans do not invest in, nor do they take care of or clean up things they cannot own. Case-in-point: Great Pacific Garbage Patch (along with the other 4 oceanic garbage patches). The inability to own property is devastating to a civilization. Property ownership is a form of democracy that is necessary in human societies. Too much ownership can be devastating due to human greed (The Amazon) and no ownership can be devistating due to lack of desire to protect something that isn't yours (Earth's Oceans, African Tribal Lands). Examples: 1) I also do volunteer environmental cleanup. So far I've bagged 523 pounds of garbage from forested areas and some abandoned private properties. Garbage pollution happens in forested areas and land where neither party knows exactly who owns what. Land without ownership is allowed to accumulate garbage which flows into the storm drains, into the rivers, and into the oceans. Without ownership, one cannot be accountable. Without ownership there can be no consequences or rule of law. People don't take care of things they don't own (or realize they own). 2) Many African countries are still on the "communal lands" system. Where no one owns any land and individuals simply have a right to live on it. This lack of land rights and ownership is one of the main reasons why so many Africans live in poverty, are behind, cannot build wealth, and resulted in the 2010 Great African Land Grab. Fertile Land the size of France was taken away from numerous African nations at only 23 cents per hectare. That's 23 cents. The normal rate can be $1,000 per hectare. Natives are forced off the land by force. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/mar/02/african-governments-land-deals http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y05fzp0YSrw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y05fzp0YSrw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxFTGq94dXs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxFTGq94dXs http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/special-investigation-two-land-deals-africa http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/special-investigation-two-la...

olalonde 14y ago
> Property ownership is a form of democracy that is necessary in human societies. I smell applause lights. Property ownership and democracy are entirely different concepts. Also, the things you mention, while being true on Earth, aren't necessarily true in Space (at the moment). Pollution isn't an issue except possibly in Earth's orbit. "Protecting the environment" is another way of saying "keeping the environment friendly to humans". There is no human friendly environment in Space to protect (within our reach). I'm all for land ownership on Moon or Mars but we should probably have this discussion in a few decades when some people actually live there permanently (at which point they will most likely form their own independent government anyways).

treelovinhippie 14y ago

NASA does this ALLLLL the time. And as an Australian it pisses me off. Particularly when they throw in "God bless America" at the end. Such a primitive tagline to a scientific endeavour. What we need is an International space exploration program where countries can be involved provided they commit a certain percentage of their GDP.

theorique 14y ago
And since lots of your Australian tax dollars go to NASA ... oh, never mind.

beaker52 14y ago

Space will not be ours. The earth is not ours. The portion of earth that you and your neighbours inhabit is not yours, nor mine nor my neighbours. Your possessions are not yours. They are simply in your presence for a brief period of time and you cling to them, believing they are forever yours. The illusion of ownership is a facet of much suffering of, and is caused by humans (and other sentient beings, for we are all animals) under the idea that they own things, collectively or individually. How can things external of a being be owned by it, when the being, as well as that it considers itself to own, are transient, impermanent and microscopic in the long game? Especially when we consider that this illusion causes suffering to ourselves (through loss) and others (through the opportunity to grasp that which is denied).

siphr 14y ago
Very well written Sir.
kinleyd 14y ago
Very well put. And to complement your point, when we eventually meet extra-terrestrials who also subscribe to the illusion that space can be owned, and that it is theirs, we will have come full circle. Might will likely be the determinant of the outcome, and at that point I suppose we'll all have to root for humanity. Sadly, the battle of the species and of domination will continue as it always has.
Wintamute 14y ago
It depends on how you define ownership. In the context of the linked article the concept of "ours" is obviously defined as our ability to exploit space, to colonise it and expand our influence into it. We're not talking about sitting at home wringing our hands with misplaced glee over our new found shiny possession, we're talking about physically making this new frontier work for us as a new medium that we're able to use and inhabit. Your Buddhist philosophy while possibly relevant to our personal lives has been misapplied here. This is industry, this is commerce, this is the business of expansion and survival.
- beaker52 14y ago

rogerchucker 14y ago

Nobody in the media or in NASA claimed that the space belongs to one country (i.e. US). The author is simply inventing an issue to promote some kumbaya BS. No country invests in space exploration if there is no direct benefit to that country first.

theorique 14y ago

Good (?) thing this wasn't the Russian space program. In America, you own space. In Soviet Russia, space own you!

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

dhechols 14y ago

And when we find another alien civilization, then we have a whole 'nother set of things to deal with.

shrikant 14y ago

Interestingly, there actually exists an Outer Space Treaty. [1] [2] (aka "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies") It was initially promulgated by the USA, UK and [then] USSR in 1967, a 100 countries are currently party to it (with a further 26 signatories pending ratification], and it explicitly says, "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". All this is under the ambit of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. Personally, the cynic in me can't help but believe that the USA was an eager initial party to this because they were terrified that the Soviet Union would pip them to the Moon-post. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty [2] http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html

JackpotDen 14y ago
That turned out so well last time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company

synor 14y ago

I watched the beginning of the NASA JPL press conference and the overt patriotism was unbearable (at least for me as an European citizen). They not only coarsely described as an American victory, but also patronized foreign Mars projects – the successful ones apparently being a result of "American leadership".

startupfounder 14y ago

Earthlings!