Let's try a different maritime analogy. If your vessel is being approached by another, it is perfectly reasonable to demand a declaration of intentions, and defend yourself in the absence of a satisfactory response. Why would it not be the same with a lunar facility?
I read her piece and also looked at her organization’s website, such as it is. Unimpressive in both cases.
The article makes, perhaps, some small analytical framework contributions.
But much of it comes across as fuzzy-minded crypto-Marxist special pleading for the perpetual communization of the cosmos. As her organization seems to have been stood up by people from the open source “software wants to be free” movement, I suppose it is unsurprising that a rejection of intellectual property rights should also be found, cheek-by-jowl, with a rejection of physical property rights.
She seems especially concerned that the Trump administration’s Artemis Accords initiative might – as it was clearly intended to – succeed in cutting out all the UN chair polishers, remittance men and Grasshutistani grandees who have done such splendid work in rendering the earthly sea floor a defacto capitalism-free zone.
I left a comment on the piece pretty much to this effect.
The only country likely to enable the putting of fresh bootprints on the Moon in this decade is the U.S. It will do so mainly – perhaps even exclusively – via the work of SpaceX and the other HLS contractor teams. Some, or perhaps all, corporate members of these teams are likely to establish their own lunar operations apart from those of NASA and allied foreign space agencies. SpaceX and Blue Origin seem certain to do so.
In the next decade, the Indians and Chinese may also manage to get to the Moon on their own. Anent lunar access autarky, that is likely to be it for a long time.
We will certainly bring along personnel from the formally allied nations with which we already share ISS. Personnel from non-ISS-partner Artemis Accords signatories could also be accommodated, over time. If the Indians want to do some assisted scouting before their own self-developed capabilities are complete, we should cheerfully accommodate them.
The Russians, having rejected the Artemis Accords, should have no role in lunar settlement. They will, I sincerely hope, be cut loose from U.S.-led space efforts entirely once ISS is decommissioned.
The Chinese, if and when they arrive, will likely remain a token lunar presence for a long time. So long as the Chinese are there under the auspices of the PRC regime, we should minimize contact with them except for response to any calls for the rendering of emergency aid.
With the Russians absent, the Chinese a corporal’s guard, if that, and the rest of the lunar settler population from the U.S. and de jure and defacto allied nations, the Artemis Accords are unlikely to be put to much of a test anytime soon.
Which does not at all mean we should not pursue their formalization and spread with vigor and dispatch.
Not all that interesting.
I read her piece and also looked at her organization’s website, such as it is. Unimpressive in both cases.
The article makes, perhaps, some small analytical framework contributions.
But much of it comes across as fuzzy-minded crypto-Marxist special pleading for the perpetual communization of the cosmos. As her organization seems to have been stood up by people from the open source “software wants to be free” movement, I suppose it is unsurprising that a rejection of intellectual property rights should also be found, cheek-by-jowl, with a rejection of physical property rights.
She seems especially concerned that the Trump administration’s Artemis Accords initiative might – as it was clearly intended to – succeed in cutting out all the UN chair polishers, remittance men and Grasshutistani grandees who have done such splendid work in rendering the earthly sea floor a defacto capitalism-free zone.
I left a comment on the piece pretty much to this effect.
The only country likely to enable the putting of fresh bootprints on the Moon in this decade is the U.S. It will do so mainly – perhaps even exclusively – via the work of SpaceX and the other HLS contractor teams. Some, or perhaps all, corporate members of these teams are likely to establish their own lunar operations apart from those of NASA and allied foreign space agencies. SpaceX and Blue Origin seem certain to do so.
In the next decade, the Indians and Chinese may also manage to get to the Moon on their own. Anent lunar access autarky, that is likely to be it for a long time.
We will certainly bring along personnel from the formally allied nations with which we already share ISS. Personnel from non-ISS-partner Artemis Accords signatories could also be accommodated, over time. If the Indians want to do some assisted scouting before their own self-developed capabilities are complete, we should cheerfully accommodate them.
The Russians, having rejected the Artemis Accords, should have no role in lunar settlement. They will, I sincerely hope, be cut loose from U.S.-led space efforts entirely once ISS is decommissioned.
The Chinese, if and when they arrive, will likely remain a token lunar presence for a long time. So long as the Chinese are there under the auspices of the PRC regime, we should minimize contact with them except for response to any calls for the rendering of emergency aid.
With the Russians absent, the Chinese a corporal’s guard, if that, and the rest of the lunar settler population from the U.S. and de jure and defacto allied nations, the Artemis Accords are unlikely to be put to much of a test anytime soon.
Which does not at all mean we should not pursue their formalization and spread with vigor and dispatch.