NationStates

Kickin kangaroo wrote:As a side note I feel that it has become a general trend to vote in favor of a proposal because it is well written and not based on the actual issue at hand.

Not likely. Trade Enhancement Act was well-written but it was still rejected by the WA.

This statute will also likely destroy commercial telecomunications provision, since the cost of recovering redundant or damaged satelites will be too prohibitve and will make such provision completely non-cost effective.


Yours,

If this Act is passed it will ruin every nation that is attempting to reduce pollution from the environment by moving industry to space. It is an attack on human safety and progress, and has no effect except to punish people for being human.

The volume of space is such that the distribution of an entire planet throughout its system would result in no change detectable by the most sensitive instruments ever made. "Polluting" space is impossible, and anyone who uses the term is ipso facto a liar.

The passage of this Act would mean that the purpose of the WA has been corrupted, and every nation which voted against it is encouraged to resign as a matter of sheer self-defense.

Qumkent wrote:This statute will also likely destroy commercial telecomunications provision also, since the cost of recovering redundant or damaged satelites will too prohibitve and will make such provision completely non-cost effective.


Yours,

The Captain shook his head, "commerical telecommunications would be hurt as an industry if this bill isn't passed. With the accumulation of debris around the orbital paths of satellites - it would be too costly to run the industry, as you would constantly have collisions and sandblasting which would require businesses to shelf out more money to sustain their equipment. And that problem would only get worse, and worse, and eventually end the commercial telecommunications industry on a planet as the costs rise, and the consumer satisfaction decreases (from having their programs interrupted due to satellite difficulties). There exists many cost-affordable options for removing satellites, one is simply to use mathematics -- in many situations, celestial bodies are covered in more water than land, and create a large target for these satellites to land in. So long as the satellite in its reentry will not harm a resident, the reentry is acceptable. If the planet does not have water or a target to crash in 'safely', then one option would be to use a disposal unit.

As one ambassador pointed out in Capitalist Paradise, space disposal could rise as a new enterprise for the tertiary sector to compete with demands. Disposal units deactivate any nuclear reactors or electric equipment if necessary (this is a job for an astronaut), and essentially crushes the satellite like a garbage truck would to someone's trash (a specially designed vessel does this). The metal from satellites could also be sold as scrap for extra profit."

Stash Kroh wrote:

Qumkent wrote:This statute will also likely destroy commercial telecomunications provision also, since the cost of recovering redundant or damaged satelites will too prohibitve and will make such provision completely non-cost effective.


Yours,

The Captain shook his head, "commerical telecommunications would be hurt as an industry if this bill isn't passed. With the accumulation of debris around the orbital paths of satellites - it would be too costly to run the industry, as you would constantly have collisions and sandblasting which would require businesses to shelf out more money to sustain their equipment. And that problem would only get worse, and worse, and eventually end the commercial telecommunications industry on a planet as the costs rise, and the consumer satisfaction decreases (from having their programs interrupted due to satellite difficulties). There exists many cost-affordable options for removing satellites, one is simply to use mathematics -- in many situations, celestial bodies are covered in more water than land, and create a large target for these satellites to land in. So long as the satellite in its reentry will not harm a resident, the reentry is acceptable. If the planet does not have water or a target to crash in 'safely', then one option would be to use a disposal unit.

As one ambassador pointed out in Capitalist Paradise, space disposal could rise as a new enterprise for the tertiary sector to compete with demands. Disposal units deactivate any nuclear reactors or electric equipment if necessary (this is a job for an astronaut), and essentially crushes the satellite like a garbage truck would to someone's trash (a specially designed vessel does this). The metal from satellites could also be sold as scrap for extra profit."

This is poppy cock and nonsense. A tertiary sector in satelite deactivation and recovery would also not be cost effective your Excellency, indeed little enough in the waste recovery and recycling sector is in fact cost effective. The costs and environmental damage associated with such recovery and recycling are enormous and prohibitive.


Yours,

Levition supports this resolution

This resolution is pointless for the following reasons:

1) Debris is most dangerous in planetary orbit, which includes places that are not technically beyond atmosphere
2) Outer space is already littered with natural debris that makes interstellar flight at relativistic speeds extremely hazardous.
2a) The kind of debris that poses the most danger is also the smallest. Tiny bits of matter are difficult, if not impossible to detect, and when slammed into at relativistic speeds are devastating.
3) The vastness of space is such that any added debris will be negligible considering the overall mass of pre-existing debris.
3b) The vastness of space is such that if one seeks to dump their trash in it, one could do so secure that nobody would ever find out or encounter evidence of the deed

This resolution seeks to solve a pre-existing, natural problem that mankind cannot meaningfully exacerbate OR ameliorate.

OOC:

Here's something I wish to understand, will space exploration be treated realisticly or stylised?

3) Forbids the intentional atmospheric reentry of any vessel, satellite, or object of non-weaponry purpose, if its reentry presents a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the health of any resident of a nation.

It's this part that most worries me. A "substantial risk" is always present when re-entering the atmosphere, with the cosmonaut (who happens to qualify as "any resident of a nation") in extreme danger for his life if he fails to make a safe landing in the correct position. One could argue that this risk is "unjustifiable" because we didn't have to send him up there in the first place. So this would mean, some lawyers could argue, that none of our cosmonauts could ever return to Earth once they have been sent up.

So while we're free to nuke the crap out of each other from the comfort of space, the WA will stop us the moment we try to get a tired, lonely space explorer home to his wife and kids?

Archonis-Thay wrote:OOC:

Here's something I wish to understand, will space exploration be treated realisticly or stylised?

OOC: The answer is "Yes". And "No". And "Yer what?" and probably a few others too.

Space exploration will be roleplayed by the people interested in it in the way they are interested in playing it out. Given that some nations, some member nations of the WA even, are star-spanning empires already, anything could and probably will happen.

I voted against this, and I can sum up why in two words: Rouge Nations

Connar Republic wrote:I voted against this, and I can sum up why in two words: Rouge Nations

"Rouge" nations, ambassador? Are you certain that is the word you were looking for?

Eyðvør Eilifsdóttir
World Assembly Ambassador
The Republic of Glomeland

Antarctic Caledonia wrote:

3) Forbids the intentional atmospheric reentry of any vessel, satellite, or object of non-weaponry purpose, if its reentry presents a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the health of any resident of a nation.

It's this part that most worries me. A "substantial risk" is always present when re-entering the atmosphere, with the cosmonaut (who happens to qualify as "any resident of a nation") in extreme danger for his life if he fails to make a safe landing in the correct position. One could argue that this risk is "unjustifiable" because we didn't have to send him up there in the first place. So this would mean, some lawyers could argue, that none of our cosmonauts could ever return to Earth once they have been sent up.

So while we're free to nuke the crap out of each other from the comfort of space, the WA will stop us the moment we try to get a tired, lonely space explorer home to his wife and kids?

If the astronaut will die if he does not land in the correct position, then why are you arguring that this should be a fully unregulated situation?

I don't need no WA telling me how to run my science programs.

It's one thing to ban use of human test subjects (hell, I agree with that), but come on. What's the point of space exploration if we're just going for a tour? Sheesh.

I didn't read the entire topic (bad of me, yes) so I don't know if this has been addressed already, but I have a problem with this provision

3) Forbids the intentional atmospheric reentry of any vessel, satellite, or object of non-weaponry purpose, if its reentry presents a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the health of any resident of a nation.

It sounds very much like one person saying "This is harmful to my health" could shut down space programs.

Would this be a substantial, and unjustifiable risk to this hypothetical citzen's health?

Stash Kroh wrote:Would this be a substantial, and unjustifiable risk to this hypothetical citzen's health?

Maybe not, but not all of our hypothetical citizens are sane sorts of people--they might claim it's substantial and unjustifiable and get some expert to claim it as well.

Also, wouldn't it mean precluding the use of manned spacecraft? Hence my "tour guide" remark.

Joesavi is for this, as long the amount of money put into this is not unnecessarily large.

Arkinesia wrote:

Stash Kroh wrote:Would this be a substantial, and unjustifiable risk to this hypothetical citzen's health?

Maybe not, but not all of our hypothetical citizens are sane sorts of people--they might claim it's substantial and unjustifiable and get some expert to claim it as well.

Also, wouldn't it mean precluding the use of manned spacecraft? Hence my "tour guide" remark.

I'm not an expert on the WA's history, but bribing a WA official to concur with a false or illogical statement is a rare, or non-occurring event. Is it not?

Also, wouldn't it mean precluding the use of manned spacecraft? Hence my "tour guide" remark.

If we're still speaking in hypotheticals here. Might I suggest in these purely hypothetical situations not hiring astronauts that are clinically paranoid, schizophrenic or just plain barking mad if the said disability will hinder their performance on the job (so it doesn't come into violation with the C.O.C.R -- 'cause we don't want to be discriminating against crazies! ).

How about we make a big ball of trash and launch it into the sun

Finland6 wrote:How about we make a big ball of trash and launch it into the sun

"The Sun" is a star, with an atmosphere. By the definition given in this document the "big ball of trash" is not in Outer Space once it has entered into the atmosphere of the said star.

So the incineration of waste through the method you describe is totally legal.

Stash Kroh wrote:

Also, wouldn't it mean precluding the use of manned spacecraft? Hence my "tour guide" remark.

If we're still speaking in hypotheticals here. Might I suggest in these purely hypothetical situations not hiring astronauts that are clinically paranoid, schizophrenic or just plain barking mad if the said disability will hinder their performance on the job (so it doesn't come into violation with the C.O.C.R -- 'cause we don't want to be discriminating against crazies! ).

Resolution wrote:3) Forbids the intentional atmospheric reentry of any vessel, satellite, or object of non-weaponry purpose, if its reentry presents a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the health of any resident of a nation.

That seems to prohibit manned space craft...perhaps you should, say, alter it in an amendment? Since it doesn't seem like, based on what you're saying, you're trying to ban manned spaceflight.

Arkinesia wrote:

Stash Kroh wrote:

Also, wouldn't it mean precluding the use of manned spacecraft? Hence my "tour guide" remark.

If we're still speaking in hypotheticals here. Might I suggest in these purely hypothetical situations not hiring astronauts that are clinically paranoid, schizophrenic or just plain barking mad if the said disability will hinder their performance on the job (so it doesn't come into violation with the C.O.C.R -- 'cause we don't want to be discriminating against crazies! ).

Resolution wrote:3) Forbids the intentional atmospheric reentry of any vessel, satellite, or object of non-weaponry purpose, if its reentry presents a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the health of any resident of a nation.

That seems to prohibit manned space craft...perhaps you should, say, alter it in an amendment? Since it doesn't seem like, based on what you're saying, you're trying to ban manned spaceflight.

Amendments can't be done, here's why.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

"Thoug we understand and agree that we should keep the envirement clean, wheter within the atmosphere and outer-space we oppose this proposal and voted against it because as a Liberal nation we believe that the WA shouldn't interfere with 'to much' as space programs. As WA we should focus on what happens in our world and not on what happens outer-space and grant the WA more power to even decide about how we should 'explore' outer-space."

The honorable Ambassador said and he took his seat again.

Arkinesia wrote:

Stash Kroh wrote:

Also, wouldn't it mean precluding the use of manned spacecraft? Hence my "tour guide" remark.

If we're still speaking in hypotheticals here. Might I suggest in these purely hypothetical situations not hiring astronauts that are clinically paranoid, schizophrenic or just plain barking mad if the said disability will hinder their performance on the job (so it doesn't come into violation with the C.O.C.R -- 'cause we don't want to be discriminating against crazies! ).

Resolution wrote:3) Forbids the intentional atmospheric reentry of any vessel, satellite, or object of non-weaponry purpose, if its reentry presents a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the health of any resident of a nation.

That seems to prohibit manned space craft...perhaps you should, say, alter it in an amendment? Since it doesn't seem like, based on what you're saying, you're trying to ban manned spaceflight.

It would only prohibit the reentry of spacecrafts that pose an unjustifiable, and substantial risk to the health of any citizen.

Astronauts in Stash Kroh have about a four percent chance of dieing in reentry, the elected leader of Stash Kroh was also recently revealed to have about a 25% of dieing.

The reentry of spacecrafts is justifiable to the risk, 18 out of 450 astronauts dieing is less than most risks involving jobs in Stash Kroh.

Try Mining.