

Space isn't ours. - hebejebelus
http://carl.flax.ie/spaceisntours.html

======
noonespecial
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
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.

------
SCdF
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.

~~~
psylence519
How exactly would NASA exist without American citizens? I'm sure those
engineers would happily work for free in a shed, right?

That doesn't mean we get significant credit, but to ignore the realities of
how this stuff works is silly.

~~~
SCdF
I imagine this is just an unresolvable difference of opinion, but I don't
believe in taking credit (any credit) for things I didn't _actively_ take part
in.

The sum contribution of your average American citizen to NASA's amazing
success was to fulfil their legal obligation to pay tax. Congratulations, you
didn't break the law :-P

My country has a fairly decent healthcare system, funded by taxes, including
my own. It would be idiotic for me to somehow claim credit for this healthcare
system, simply because I didn't actively take part in tax evasion. I can take
a _tiny_ bit credit for our ambulances though, because I actively and
voluntarily donate my money to help keep them running, but even then any
credit is minuscule to the point of not being worth mentioning (except to
contrast the previous example).

------
GuiA
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
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
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
> "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.

------
fakelvis
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/>

------
redwood
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
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.

------
hnriot
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.

~~~
qxcv
> 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...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701484.html)

------
elorant
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.

------
shrikant
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>

[2] <http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html>

~~~
JackpotDen
That turned out so well last time.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company>

------
ChrisNorstrom
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...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-
matters/2012/mar/02/african-governments-land-deals)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y05fzp0YSrw>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxFTGq94dXs>

[http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/special-investigation-two-
la...](http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/special-investigation-two-land-deals-
africa)

~~~
olalonde
> 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).

~~~
pavel_lishin
Pollution will eventually be a problem in any given orbit, which is a shame,
because orbits tend to happen around interesting places we want to go.

~~~
sammyo
Once we have a society that lives, works and builds in orbit there will likely
be active recycling.

~~~
crusso
Or really powerful lasers for vaporizing debris in orbit. :)

------
jcnnghm
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.

~~~
vhf
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.

------
olalonde
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
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
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
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.

------
beaker52
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).

~~~
Wintamute
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
"Ours" - Used to refer to a thing or things belonging to or associated with
the speaker and one or more other people previously mentioned.

I do hope we are guests to what we call space as well as other planets.
Exploitation should certainly not be to the detriment of others.

I'm alarmed that your statement about industry, commerce and business, as if
to make it OK to do whatever necessary using these devices, despite the
suffering they cause, because it's about survival. If the reason for space
exploration is about survival, it shouldn't be an industry or commercial. It
should be philanthropy.

I'm sure Apple are making iPads to put the technology at the fingertips of
everyone right? If that were the case, they'd give them away.

I see the connection you made between Buddhist teachings and my post. I like
this. But I don't believe the essance of my post was in any way limited in
relevance to 'personal' lives. What kind of life isn't personal?

~~~
Wintamute
There's a distinction between ownership of (or attachment to) physical items,
dogmatic belief, relationships, whatever vs. opening up new frontiers within
which we can conduct commerce and expand into. One is to do with our personal
mental states, the other is to do with the very real physicality of our
situation as a species. They seem two quite different notions to me.

------
rickdangerous1
"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.

------
dbbolton
>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.

------
fosk
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.

------
treelovinhippie
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
And since lots of your Australian tax dollars go to NASA ... oh, never mind.

------
synor
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".

------
dfc
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."

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

------
37prime
The last time I checked, in about 1000 years Mars would be pretty much owned
by Leo and Inez Wong.

------
startupfounder
Earthlings!

------
rogerchucker
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
Good (?) thing this wasn't the Russian space program.

In America, you own space.

In Soviet Russia, _space own you!_

