NationStates

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:At this point, it seems like the future of this proposal is pretty bleak.

So honestly, and I will go with the majority, should I abandon this?

Yes or no?

(OOC: Abandoning the proposal seems quite drastic st this stage. The fundamental idea of this piece of legislation makes senses, which is a good reason to continue with it. However, there are some problems with the draft that need to be addressed. It all depends on whether you think you can make the draft work, which itself varies based on your interpretation of the draft.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:At this point, it seems like the future of this proposal is pretty bleak.

So honestly, and I will go with the majority, should I abandon this?

Yes or no?

(OOC: Abandoning the proposal seems quite drastic st this stage. The fundamental idea of this piece of legislation makes senses, which is a good reason to continue with it. However, there are some problems with the draft that need to be addressed. It all depends on whether you think you can make the draft work, which itself varies based on your interpretation of the draft.)

Well, the problem is, I feel a little overwhelmed. A list of problems to mat out before it is widely accepted as good before I submit it would go a long way in terms of making things feel a little more graspable.

I was pretty much inspired by the IASA resolution to join the WA in the first place, because I wanted to see more space infrastructure built, and more resolutions related to space to pass - so the main purpose for my resolution would be to further the infrastructure any and every nation has to access in space. How does that interpretation work?

OOC
The GA passed an earlier resolution creating a space station: It was repealed quiet quickly. I suggest that you look at in the 'Passed Resolutions' thread for details, and maybe at the archived debates as well.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
The GA passed an earlier resolution creating a space station: It was repealed quiet quickly. I suggest that you look at in the 'Passed Resolutions' thread for details, and maybe at the archived debates as well.

Well that is certainly news. Maybe I can use it to get ideas on how to fix this one

My hope is that mine will ring to a different tune - one of more infrastructure in space for the good of everyone, and not "ooh, pretty space station".

Lets take a look

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:one of more infrastructure in space for the good of everyone, and not "ooh, pretty space station".

OOC: Hence me harping about the "why" part so much. Because in Real Life it wasn't the United Nations that had ISS built (not to mention mandating that nations spend money on building a space station), it was a voluntary coalition of nations. And I think that would indeed be a better approach for you too. Encourage nations to work together, to build or share existing space stations that are reachable to them and their neighbours, but not actually mandate it, because if a nation is unwilling to spend any money on space research, it's usually because of wanting to put money in keeping its own people safe and healthy and whatnot. If you have to choose between being able to feed everyone for a year or to send a couple of people into orbit for a month, reasonable nations would choose to feed everyone for a year.

If you really are intending the whole "scientific advancements" angle (you'll still have to justify the Educational AoE, though), then I would start from encouraging sharing of the data from microgravity experiements done by others (but be aware of the patents mess), because, like, if there are two WA nations who would both have access to the station, and one nation sends peeps up there to do the experiments - there's no need for the other to send people there too to do the same experiments, if the first nation is willing to share all the data. Space flights are expensive for MT nations, and putting people into space and keeping them alive and bringing them back to ground alive, too, is even more expensive. Which is why you shouldn't mandate the data is shared for free, mind you. And also require that any nation wanting to use a station built by someone else, needs permission from its builders to use it, and also needs to partake the upkeep and maintenance costs.

I would also drop all the "jumping point for more exploration" or "refueling" or whatever, because not only are those going to be unlikely functions for a scientific station (which is what ISS in RL is), the "refueling" especially is... kinda impossible, considering that you'll need to get the fuel from somewhere, and that rocket fuel is notoriously dangerous to deal with. In comparison, dousing yourself in gasoline and then dancing through a house on fire is much safer than dealing with refueling rockets in microgravity.

Heads up: This isn't abandoned - just on hold.

RL has gotten in the way of my NS...

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:Heads up: This isn't abandoned - just on hold.

RL has gotten in the way of my NS...

OOC: I suggest you change "REDRAFT" to "ON HOLD", then.

Okay! The drafting for this is back online!

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:Okay! The drafting for this is back online!

OOC: What does "with the number of stations in accordance with such" mean?

Also, you make IASA build the stations (clause 1) yet mandate nations to do so in 2.d.

2.c. Would still mandate that nations like, say, USA, would have to pay for the IASA station, despite them already being funders of and having access to the ISS. It would also still force a nation with FTL capabilities to fund all space stations within their reach, whether or not they had any intention to (or indeed capability to, considering tech level differences) use such stations. Shouldn't the nations that actually intend to use the stations, fund them?

Clause 3 still refers to "the station", a singular one.

Clause 4 still mentions refueling. What if the other nations using it don't want to have antimatter (a fuel often cited with various FTL systems) onboard?

Clause 6 should be moved to preamble, and a better explanation given on what it means by "value".

“Clause 2a still mandates that member nations must fund the space station even if they are never going to use it. This needs to be changed, as it just makes very little sense for a completely uninvolved nation that never wants to go to space, despite having the capability, to have to fund a space station.”

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 2a still mandates that member nations must fund the space station even if they are never going to use it. This needs to be changed, as it just makes very little sense for a completely uninvolved nation that never wants to go to space, despite having the capability, to have to fund a space station.”

IC: "Or a nation that already is involved with an international space station and has no intention or need to fund another one," Johan Milkus muttered, trying to catch up with the notes the intern had made while he was away somewhere that let him get a nice tan.

Still very against. Let's not taint the well for better space proposals like the WSA did.