Francos Spain
Our Blessed and Chosen Leader of the Pacific
Posts: 496
|
Post by Francos Spain on Feb 26, 2004 22:08:55 GMT -5
UN Space Consortium
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Rixtex
Description: Whereas the nations of the world wish to unify their efforts at space exploration, and
Whereas, no nation can claim title to the Moon,
Let it be resolved, that an agency to be named the United Nations Space Consortium (hereafter referred to as “U.N.S.C.”) is hereby created. The purpose of the U.N.S.C. shall be to establish a permanent Lunar Base capable of furthering the exploration of space for knowledge and resources.
The U.N.S.C. shall be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations and entirely funded through the sale of stock to any desiring nation, regardless of their affiliation to the United Nations. Non-participating nations are free to pursue their own space objectives, but would not reap the rewards of the investors. No taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution.
A Provisional Board of Directors (“Provisional Board”) shall be composed of a representative from each nation participating in the U.N.S.C. immediately following the passage of this resolution. The Provisional Board will then proceed to elect a permanent Board of Directors (“Board”). No sale of stock shall occur before the seating of the Board.
Full operational control, design, development, priorities, and administration will be assigned to the Board whose service will remain subject to the will of the stockholders, as provided for in the Articles of Incorporation.
Let the nations of the world move forward together to a new frontier.
|
|
Piophilia
Liege
Let's get those missiles ready to destroy the universe!
Posts: 48
|
Post by Piophilia on Feb 27, 2004 1:02:38 GMT -5
I find it unclear as to what the very first line: "A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce." has to do with the rest of the proposition. Sending space ships to dominate the fertile soil of the moon and what-not is just jim-dandy to me, but this first statement leaves me a bit wary.
|
|
|
Post by BertramStantrous on Feb 27, 2004 1:47:38 GMT -5
UN Resolutions are RETARDED.
|
|
Ukroatia
Liege
Governor of Province "K"
Posts: 12
|
Post by Ukroatia on Feb 27, 2004 2:03:05 GMT -5
The first line regarding free trade has to do with which topic it goes under and space exploration fits under free trade better than any other topic. I'm new to the NPO, but Ive been on Nation States for a while now. I am actually for this resolution, and it looks like the few who have view this particular forum arent, and I have my own proposal which takes the current resolution a little further. My proposal is called Further than the Moon and its up for debate at the UN forum if anyone wants to check it out.
|
|
Ukroatia
Liege
Governor of Province "K"
Posts: 12
|
Post by Ukroatia on Feb 27, 2004 3:26:44 GMT -5
Countries need to view and take part in world events. Some of the government officals here think Pacific region only. Space travel will advance all of mankind. It is monumental event that should have nations interested.
|
|
|
Post by Warrior Thorin on Feb 27, 2004 12:05:22 GMT -5
I think I would rather develop my own space program rather than work together in the UN. I mean, some nations who aren't exactly working hard at developing their own space program will simply ride the work of those nations who are working at it. It's like when you have a group project in school and you are the one who worked your ass off and everyone else rode your work for the grade. All a nation has to do is sign up for the UNSC and buy some stock and get a free ride on the hard work of others. Of course, the UNSC could also result in developing a "lemon" of a program. I would rather my nation develop a proper space program that I can control. Thus, I vote a resounding "NO" to this UN Resolution.
|
|
Ukroatia
Liege
Governor of Province "K"
Posts: 12
|
Post by Ukroatia on Feb 27, 2004 13:02:09 GMT -5
That is a good point
|
|
|
Post by Lomazzo on Feb 27, 2004 18:53:50 GMT -5
As I pound my shoe against the podium......I have voted against in this pole, and I have already cast my vote against concerning the UN Space Proposal. My reasons are simple. The wealthiest of nations will carve up the moon under the smokescreen of buying stock in an ambitious scientific experiment. All that will end up happening is that those that hold the most stock (i.e. the wealthiest) will control the new, endless terriory with all eyes eventually on the whole pie, smiling the whole time because they are under the wing of the UN....what will happen to the smaller countries such as mine? What always ends up happening. We will have to pay astronomical prices for scientific knowledge thats 3rd rate at best. This is a rouse. I don't denounce the idea, infact I'm for it as long as the stock issue is eleminated. King Lomazzo
|
|
|
Post by Praetor on Feb 27, 2004 19:02:31 GMT -5
I saw you put that same post in a new thread, Lomazzo. I have removed it, for simplicity's sake of having only one thread regarding the current UN resolution. Perhaps you posted it accidentally? If not, I suppose you can recreate the thread.
|
|
Sir Paul
Senator / Director of the Pacific Press
This is PNN
Posts: 617
|
Post by Sir Paul on Feb 27, 2004 19:27:51 GMT -5
The moon should be the property of the NPO, not the UN.
|
|
|
Post by Tar A on Feb 27, 2004 23:14:32 GMT -5
Countries need to view and take part in world events. Some of the government officals here think Pacific region only. Space travel will advance all of mankind. It is monumental event that should have nations interested. Actually, I disagree. The stupid, retarded, and completely annoying UN resolutions have no effect on our region. I don't pay much attention to the UN but to lodge an against vote every now and then. It's completely unimportant to how I play the game. UN resolutions are all role-playing, I could care less about that aspect of the game. "Monumental event" in terms of role playing, perhaps, but we honestly don't need it for the practical good of the region. I can understand that you might enjoy role play concerning the UN, but in the end, it accomplishes nothing.
|
|
|
Post by SuuKyi on Mar 8, 2004 14:25:39 GMT -5
I think I would rather develop my own space program rather than work together in the UN. I mean, some nations who aren't exactly working hard at developing their own space program will simply ride the work of those nations who are working at it. It's like when you have a group project in school and you are the one who worked your ass off and everyone else rode your work for the grade. All a nation has to do is sign up for the UNSC and buy some stock and get a free ride on the hard work of others. Of course, the UNSC could also result in developing a "lemon" of a program. I would rather my nation develop a proper space program that I can control. Thus, I vote a resounding "NO" to this UN Resolution. This has to a degree resulted for the International Space Station project. These things sound wonderful as well as warm and fuzzy but the historical reality shows that both the Russian and American Space programmes have accomplished much more seperately than they have together. Back in the early 90's Space Station "Freedom" was killed off by congress for the umpteenth time and the Space Shuttle system kept itself as busy as possible trying to look busy but it's real only purpose was to service a space station. The Space Shuttle itself suffered by being a compromise between competing interests and we ended up with an oversized, "one size fits all", hard to maintain and expensive ship with no way off in the event of a major failure. Still a semi reliable system formed around the Shuttle and the Americans held a nice monopoly in the area of onsite "service" of orbital platforms such as the Hubble Space Telescope. American experience with space construction techniques as well as rendezvous and retrieval became by far the best the world had to offer. The Russians built one like it as an orbital bomber (they feared ours to have that capability) but abandoned it when they realized that it could have no such application and would, as ours was, prove to be prohibitively expensive to operate. The Russians accomplished a great deal of Space Science with a series of Salyut stations followed by the really well performing Mir station which suffered in the press because it outlived it's design lifetime by 10 years and finally started to have problems. (These same Russians also conducted one hell of a lot of military research on their Salyut stations and these were armed with machine guns and lasers.) Their Cosmonauts logged many more hours and the Russian Space biology programme acquired a huge amount of long term human space experience to study and unlike NASA, was not so prudish to neglect study of the long term psychological effects of keeping two guys locked up in a can for a year or of having one woman visit these guys for a week or two every few months. (My guess is that drugs to calm the temperment as well as the sex drive are part of the daily diet but I digress.) Sometime during the Clinton Administration some people came up with the idea of resurrecting Space Station Freedom and of doing this in cooperation with the Russians so as to prime the funding pump for our programme and keep them safely occupied in a project that was just barely beyond their means and "out of trouble." The Mir Shuttle exchanges were worth doing however and these highlighted some surprising conflicts of "culture" in the way the Russians do space and the way we do space. The first couple of astronauts such as Norm Thaggard had a really rough go of it in that they were not up to par on the Russian language and the Cosmonauts were rather authoritarian with their guests and then Russian Ground Control was very authoritarian with the station crew. Astronauts Jerry Lineager, Michael Foale and Shannon Lucid had better experiences but all have alluded to really having to "adjust" to a different way of thinking and reacting up there. NASA meanwhile, started to downsize mission control in Houston, laying off thousands of workers and mothballed various modules already built for Freedom and contracted with the Russians to build counterparts which resulted in a couple of years delay in the joining of the first ISS modules. Under pressure from America, Russia dropped Mir into the Pacific Ocean and both sides were commited to the project. The effect on our programme was devastating as more and more jobs were lost to this (Including me who was to start in May 2001 as a mission controller. The saddest letdown of my life.) The orbit of ISS is itself a grand compromise to allow for servicing from both the US and Russia but this highly inclined orbit makes the platform totally useless to support missions to the Moon and Mars. It also made the ISS inaccessible to the heavier and older Columbia had that crew discovered their plight before de-orbit. The problems of cultural clash between the Station crew and Russian ground control which runs the ISS, continue and there have been several incidents of misunderstanding or procedural error as well as lots of swearing between the crew and the ground. The control module machinery is loud to the point of inflicting hearing damage on the crew long term and the station can barely stay aloft with a crew of three and now two since the Shuttle fleet is grounded. No science is done on the station as it remains underpowered and understaffed. It has indeed performed one aspect of the sinister motives of the people who wanted to tie up the Russians with a white elephant; it has done that well but it tied up NASA's money and support as well which is why the Bush Administration has decided to get out of it by 2010 and ditch the aging shuttle. I write all this as a cautionary tale that pie in the dreams of developing the Moon as an international consortium might suffer a similar fate. True there needs to be international cooperation but perhaps the elements of that cooperation need to be more modular and capable of indepedent function. Anyone with an interest in this subject should read anything written by James Oberg, arguably the most informed and knowledgable western writer on the Russian Space Programme. The Russians under the founding tutelage of Sergei Korolyev have performed some truly astounding feats in aerospace development and his Soyuz (Union) spacecraft which remains the worlds longest working and safest orbital personnel carrier, is further honoured by being successfully copied and launched by the Chinese just last Fall. They have learned a lot the hard way just as we have and we do need to share information better, but at the same time, not suffocate each others programmes by getting too close. The miserable planet allocated to intergalactic development in the equally miserable fifth Star Trek movie comes to mind with these grand quests to internationalize the Space effort. We do need to respect each other in the coming colonization of other worlds but at the same time we need to not do it a manner which destroys the objective for everyone.
|
|