Slashdot Mirror
The Future of NASA
fishbonez writes "According to this article, the President's new space exploration initiative parallels his military strategy for space. The article doesn't directly say that NASA will become an integral part of the military plan but clearly that conclusion could be drawn without the need for a tinfoil hat. We have already seen that Hubble will be allowed to expire prematurely as a result of this new initiative. Is the re-allocation of funds within NASA really for getting to the Moon and Mars? Or is it just a cover for shifting toward military space applications? If true, how badly will NASA's scientific mission be effected if it becomes a conduit for giving research and development money to defense contractors?" UPI has a lengthy piece covering the development of the new space plan.
If his space strategy parallels his military strategy, then we're all in trouble...
About the Hubble, IIRC, the "official" decision to abandon it is more because of the reduced shuttle fleet (not worth risking the few shuttles left) and the upcoming better space telescope. The latest Bush space plan has little to do with the Hubble... or that's what they say.
I noticed that the X-33 was canceled in W's early days. One of the issues with it was the composite cryo tanks for the h2. The interesting thing was that W's ppl (and the military) insisted that it was to be stopped, and dismantled. Yet, they allowed the tests of the engines at stennis and they continued the work on the cryo tanks. I suspect highly that W simply moved a near working system to being under the military.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Now compare that with launching missile pads up into space. It's just not the same. I mean if I wanted to do Military stuff, I'd want to fly a fighter jet, or something...not monitor space weapons we'll never use from the ground.
NASA's recruiting potential --;
about a few issues-
(1) Whoever goes to the moon next - should find the flag left behind the astronauts (right?)
(2) It is kinda early to worry about, but how will extra-planetary real estate be organized? First come first serve? (yah, a lota land rite now - but what about the next 50 yrs or more)
Assimov comes to mind, he painted this horrific image of colonies on other planets - looking down on earth and earthlings - and finally milliniums later - refuse to believe that life originated on a single planet.....
As we plan for the future, we don't look far enough into the future (nucleur weapons and global warming being immediate examples)
|/________
|\A|ALYS|
This is a rhetorical question, right?
Of course this is just a cover for shifting towards military space applications. Bush, like any modern elected federal politican, doesn't listen to the people -- he listens to the media corporations and the corporations that bankrolled his election (that would be most of the big ones, for anyone who cares to ask).
Because of this, Bush will do whatever is in the interests of those corporations. One of those interests is to make sure the U.S. remains on top militarily, because the U.S. can't sieze the assets of other countries (e.g., Iraq) or credibly control the actions of other, smaller countries without a strong and influential military.
As difficult to defend against as the U.S. military is right now, it will be completely unstoppable if it manages to gain and retain control of space. Space-borne gun platforms simply can't be touched by anything any third-world country can produce, and producing the required equipment would probably bankrupt many of them. That makes such platforms impossible to defend against.
Now that China and India have shown some initiative in their quest for space, Bush and the corporations that back him want to make sure they can never challenge U.S. military authority. That requires that the U.S. take over and control space in Earth orbit at the very least. Hence the rush.
It goes without saying that a number of the U.S. corporations that back Bush will also benefit from the lucrative contracts that will be given to them for all of this. Contracts paid for by everyone who pays U.S. income tax. Contracts paid for at gunpoint.
If the U.S. develops a manned presence on the moon and elsewhere, it will be a military presence only, at least until corporations figure out how to make it profitable in the short term to be there.
Frankly, I don't think we'll get to Mars prior to a U.S. economic collapse due to the long term consequences of the "jobless recovery" we're currently in. That means we won't get there at all.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Easy to extract from the upper centimeter of lunar regolith. Just heat by microwaves to about 500 degrees. That drives of 90% of the He3. One space shuttle payload bay full (not the way it'll be done, but just to use a specific volume) would power America for a year, assuming you have a fusion reactor to use the He3. Check out the published articles in space conferences. Use google. Articles from Rockwell by Waldron. Articles by criswell. Dudes, it's easy. All we need is fusion reactors and a lunar infrastructure. Bush might go faster, but this would cut into Big Oil's profit. Don't expect solar power from the moon either, same reason. But that's even easier. See articles by Waldron and McCullough. McCullough worked with absernt-minded professor Jonathan Vos Post at Rockwell.
The costs of both the space station and a moon base would not be that different from one another. Though the moon base would have allowed for much larger living quarter, plant life for primary oxygen supply. Further plant life could have been that of vegtables and other garden eatery. Exercise room, A real bedroom
Plus this would have allowed for daily sampling, atmospheric tests, and a wide variety of other scientific tests that the previous short lived manned mission to the moon could not have provided due to time constraints.
With the recent issue of the space station losing air pressure due to a leak (I beleive was in the living quarters), could have been potentially deadly. While a moon base could have a stock of oxygen and food that is never touch that would last as long as they needed until help could arrived. If the space station were to lose air at a high rate or have severe structural damage.. hwo long do you think it would take to get there? Answer... Too Long!
Never try to beat a professional at his own game!
NASA technology and expertise will flow to the military. Applicable military technologies will flow to NASA. This will benefit both sides as long as both sides think clearly about what technologies and costs could beneficially be shared and what technologies and capabilities should not.
In the past, for example, shuttle development costs grew as a result of military requirements. Let's hope that this will not happen again.
The general approach should be modular. For example, much of the data architecture, flight software, crew protection, and engine technology could be designed as modular components that plug into an overall standard. The military and NASA would then assemble their own spacecraft while benefiting from shared development costs and manufacturing overhead.
Those who wish to keep the military out of space have their heads buried in the sand. Today, a vaccuum of power exists in space because no country as of yet has the capability to project its power there. It would be foolish for the US not to strive to project power into space while we have an advantage. Because wheter we do or we do not, nations that decry our military efforts today will themselves grab for power when it is within their reach tomorrow. Treaties and regulations do not pacify conflict. Historically, they have only served to codify and legitimize balance of power and pervasiveness of justice that prevents conflict. When no such balance exists, using treaties and accords to contain conflict is like trying to wrap up fire with paper. Witness, for example, the Mideaster peace process.
Looking at the history of the US, what is our ratio of keeping treaties vs breaking them? I would say that we usually break them, overall, wouldn't you? So, what about this treaty again? ;)
Yes, that's all well and good, up until the point someone is actually standing on the celestial body -- with a gun.
Have you noticed, per chance, that virtually all earthly nations were formed by some sort of violent appropriation and/or occupation?
Well, how on, ummmmmm, earth, do you think the future nations of the solar system are going to be formed?
Or do you expect that in all the human universe only the earth will have nations and conflict and all the rest of it will be one, big, happy, rainbow coalition commune?
KFG
Okay, so the US space program should become militarized because of China being a military threat.
Perhaps I am missing something. (Namely, ignorant of a huge modernized navy China has been hiding somewhere or something.)
I'm trying to imagine a war with China happening realistically. (Which seems unlikely unless one or both countries end up with idiots/nutcases in charge.)
I'm trying to imagine the US and China getting into a full balls-to-the-wall war, and the rest of the world just standing back and not getting involved. That's really hard.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where China tries to invade the US, somehow transporting troops over the Pacific Ocean without getting picked off by US forces en masse. Where China doesn't have to worry about Japan sitting off its coast, India, Pakistan, Taiwan breaking away, internal rebellion happening while troops are diverted, Islamic rebels in the western provinces, even Russia and former Soviet states along its north border. Unless China has a magically unsinkable troop transport capable of carrying a few dozen million troops, I have problems seeing this happening.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where the US invades China successfully. I keep imagining China just shrugging and saying, "We surrender -- make us part of the US!" and, a decade later when the US goes bankrupt from struggling with dealing with a population five times its size over seas, a multiplicity of languages and ethnic groups, etc., China quietly return to what it had been doing.
I can't see either side waging a war and succeeding (they might 'win', but that's different from being able to survive a victory.) The economic impacts, both local and globally, would be immense. Now, I can see a nuclear exchange, or a mutual destruction potentially happening (successfully, for certain definitions of success), but I can't see a conventional war working out.
This doesn't mean that military defenses aren't needed -- the scenarios above presupposes neither side has become easy pickings, but as is, the cost in waging a war seems far, far more than any unlikely gain.
The battlefield seems more likely to be in the economic arena at this point than the military. Yah, we need a strong arm to keep the cost of any military action high, but outside of stupidity or insanity, I'm not sure why fear is necessary.
Maybe someone can explain to me how China is a threat, militarily? (Outside of a nuclear exchange, which even then I am pretty sure the US holds a noticeable fire power edge. I've not heard a damned thing about any Chinese subs with nuclear missiles. I guess they have some(?)) Is there some battle plan by which they can just pop over on this side of the Pacific without worrying about Japan, India, Russia, Australia, the Pacific Fleet, and much of the rest of the world? I mean, I'd assume they would have to give the US some warning by taking out Japan, South Korea, etc. etc. first.
It just doesn't seem to make sense. Some amount of caution seems reasonable, but fearing China militarily seems to be overstating things. Regardless of the size, I just haven't heard anything about their ability to get their forces anywhere outside their borders.
Actually, if the current administration was serious about making space more accessible, while not build a space elevator. According to one study the cost is $10 billion and it takes 15 years to build it. More economical than a traditional trip to the moon, which cost was estimated to be closer to $400 billion by the previous Bush'es administration.
A religious war is an adult version of a fight over who has the best imaginary friend
So, I'm not surprised that this would be another attempt to militarize space. However, it is not inevitable. Maybe the spy satellites are inevitable, maybe conventional weapons proliferation is inevitable, but there's nothing predetermined about putting offensive weaponry in space. An offensive satellite isn't something that happens without a huge amount of infrastructure. It's not something that happens in secret -- even if the US wants to do it, we still have to make up a story (this case in point).
I did a back of the napkin based upon the He3 info posted on space.com.
0 06 30.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_0
They said there is about 70 tons He3 per million tons of regolith.
That comes in at concentrations that would be a nice gold or platinum deposit on earth (about 1.75 oz/ton He3), but is a very low concentration for anything other than a precious metal. The extraction temp quoted in the article is 800C (1470F) and would require a lot of energy. This would require very large solar panels and MANY trips to get them up there.
No, you are not going to fabricate solar panels on the moon.
Then there is the distribution of He3 in regolith. If it only occurs in the top few inches of regolith, you need the kind of equipment that can mine only that portion. Otherwise you dilute the ore feed and end up treating material devoid of the resource at great cost.
Then you have to deal with removing the gasses that come off in addition to H3. Water and O2 woudl be useful, but F, Cl and the other volatiles typically found in rocks and regolith would be a problem.
Assuming we come up with a feasible fusion reactor, it looks like it will be cheaper to deal with neutrons than import a clean fuel from the moon.
I'm surprised there has been no mention of asteroid threat. It's pretty much a given that it's just a matter of time before we face possible annhilation from an asteroid. If the current Administration wants to spend big on a space program why not jump start technology presently suggested as a means to meet with the threat of a killer asteroid? Are asteroid/comet threats considered to be outside of NASA's bailiwick?
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Let's face it: China's successful launch of a man into orbit and ambitions to go to the moon have caused a stir among the current Administration. In this administration, most budgetary increases are going towards military or security applications, thus it was inevitable that NASA be asked to perform dual-use or even exclusively military research and development projects. Between the threat of China potentially capitalizing lunar/martian resources before we do and the need to win the elction, NASA got a kick in the pants to show that America is still able to explore space. While I thoroughly disagree with how the funding is being handled (cutting homeland security's budget in half and giving it to NASA would be a start), it is clear that the future of NASA is a dual mission.
First, NASA is to become more of a publicity tool whose true merits are sidelined by the need for good press. We've already seen this in the failure of NASA management to save Columbia by having it dock with the ISS until another shuttle could launch and with the failure of NASA management to prevent the Challenger launch to gain reputability with then-president Reagan. Perhaps the whole show should be run by engineers and the head of NASA made a 20-year Congressional appointment as a way to solve the problem. If nothing else, the shuttle should be either overhauled or replaced outright over the next 20 years as it was never able to live up to its original promises anyway.
Second, NASA will be the place for the military to test new high-altitude and orbital equipment. Air Force personnel are already working on a shuttle capable of deploying teams of people anywhere in the world inside of 12 hours while the "Star Wars" project or an equivalent will be deployed against potential threats from nations possessing limited quantities of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Other exotic military technologies and observation/communication equipment will be deployed using NASA to get around the existing military treaties or just to replace outmoded technology.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Knocking out satellites may not require access to space.
Back in the 80s, the USSR is thought to have tested a laser system designed to blind the US spy sats.
An operational laser system would not be easy or cheap, but it might be within the resources of smaller countries than space launches are. It would probably be much easier to conceal this type of satellite killing capability from outsiders, too.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
The trick is that we have switched to a war of Financial interdependance, where no nation can destroy another nation because if they did, a large part of their financal empire would collapse as well. we've reached sort of an economic equilibrium with countries like china and india, but they, and we, are always trying for the financial upper hand, so that we could actually go back to old fashion style of war and take over their countries. the scary part is I can't figure out if this is a good thing or a bad thing. sure, its a dull homogoneous world now, but were aren't killing each other, which way is better?
-and occasionaly a giant moose.
In fact, it is in the US 'pressing national interest' not to break the treaty. Because if the US breaks it or discards it, the treshold for others, like Russia and China, to do likewise is severly redused.
Article IV
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.
The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortification, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.
Read the first paragrah again - the treaty forbids the deployment of nukes in space. If this treaty don't hold, what is to stop the Ruskis and the chinks to launch several satelites with huge nukes and have them in orbits putting them right over the US? Think EMP, virtually zero reaction time attacks and blackmail... do the US goverment want that to happen? I seriously don't think so. Despite all the stupid stuff politicans do all over the world, they are usually good at not putting themself in a situation where they are at the mercy of someone else.
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
He said that we need to establish a profit motive for exploring space. He likened the situation to the impetus given to the European exploration and colonization of the world in the 15th-19th centuries by the promise of wealth.
When asked about the X-Prize, however, he said that he thought that the exploration of space was too dangerous for private corporations and individuals, and that it should be left up to governments who could be expected to take "proper safety precautions".
He also praised dubya for clarifying the path to space and said that he hoped that things would move along sharply now that a "popular and well-respected president" had shown us the way.
Sounded to me like a recipe for empire building.
I do not know about nukes, but I do know that we have trained a number of ppl on the use of germ and chemical warfare. Back in the early 80's, we had Iraqis at my university; From what I understood at the time, Texas and Missouri were the big schools where most Iraqis went for biochem and microbio degrees. Apparently they went much further than what we did. We only had Anthrax, Botulism, etc.
There was a very good reason why W insisted that the inspectors check all the universities. It is where they bulk of our dod research occurs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You're making as much sense as a japanese vcr instruction manual. How on earth (or moon, for that matter) is a base on the moon cheaper? The distance is bigger, so that shipments there for replacement parts etc. are much more expensive, and you can't as easily direct your telescope on something because that stupid rock keeps on rotating. It's not only less cost-effective, it's just stupid. And btw, I doubt they'll do it anyway (a telescope on the moon). They appear to have abandoned all scientifically interesting goals and go straight for the "look everyone we're going places so lets forget our domestic problems" approach.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Why not make solar panels on the moon? I refer to those articles by Waldron and McCullough. Plenty of silicon in the regolith. Silicon dioxide's the main constituant. Amorphous silicon solar cells. And why not have a nuclear fission reactor to extract the He-3?
Not a problem with Cl and F given off in the heating. They are tightly bound to other ions of opposite charge. The He-3 is NOT bound, being inert. Easy to separate He=3 from anything else, anyway.
Mining is not the image. Think of rolling over the lunar surface, heating just the upper few millimeters in situ. No digging. No drilling. No beneficiating.
I've seen a few articles mention plans to build solar-cell production factories on the moon, lay out a few square miles and beam the power back to Earth orbit via microwave, then relay down to the surface...
Seems this is about new energy sources.
The WOT was about wresting control of dwindling oil reserves (check 'Peak Oil' on google)
First Afghanistan to get access to central Asia reserves, then Iraq to start things off in the MidEast (Syria looks like a follow-up)
There is an energy crisis coming, and we can't avoid it with biodiesel, solar/wind/hydro or reducing usage. The population density & rate of increase of our species is only sustainable because we've tapped stored bio-energy in the form of oil. Super-concentrated plant energy...
What happens when it runs out?
Yes, I know about switching to shale oil, coal, etc etc etc. Won't last 5 years at our current rate of consumption.
And China? They want to industrialize too.
Once that country picks up the pace, we'll see a face-off just like you'd see at a drying-up watering hole in Africa, two packs of lions fighting to the death over a 2-foot puddle of mud.
The US is clueing into the fact that if we get off this rock in the next 10-15, there's a chance to sustain our rate-of-growth. Simple as that.
Further arguments on why abolishing limited liability is the Right Answer
In a nutshell: companies are taking too many risks in areas like biotech, handling of toxic chemicals, and consumer safely. They're using the unlimited protection afforded them by the government in ways which harm us all.
Abraham Lincoln on Corporations
"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
Now, does this sound familiar to you? It is modern America. Yes, we've got very used to the economic benefits of limited liability. However, the policital cost - individual voters losing control of the political process to big money is simply unacceptable.
It's time to rein in corporate power and put people back in the driver's seat.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
I find it funny that his a father, a real hero, was not in a hurry to sacrafice lives. Yet, he was a total coward for 'nam, but goes to war for just some oil.
The explanation is that bush jr. trying to find a way to prove to his daddy that he's a real man. Since he couldn't accomplish that during nam, and had to get spirited into the safety of the national guard instead, he sends hundreds to die in Iraq. Thus proving by proxy that he has what it takes.
He has to prove to his daddy that, in spite of the fact that he is a closeted homosexual with a "beard" wife, he's worthy of the love that has been denied. He's trying to earn his dad's approbation and invading a country, flexing muscle, makes the most sense to him.
it also happens to fit perfectly in line with neoconservative policy, but that's really a happy accident. Bush Sr. had the stones to keep the neocons in their place, but jr, being a spineless wimp who no longer wants to be loooked down on as sort of a simpleton, has surrounded himself with a cadre of yes-men who can confirm for him at each morning's intel briefing that he is doing the right thing, the poll numbers are good, and that he's demonstrating real leadership. Now mr president if you could just agree to this, and sign this, we'll let you get back to your month-long vacation.
that's my take anyway. Lots of it is hypothesis, but it's the most rational explanation i've been able to cobble together from the few facts we do have.
To read all the details...
s um .pdf
http://www.au.af.mil/Spacecast/monographs/exec-
scary stuff.
Of course this won't happen, which to me boggles the mind, as the boon to the economy and the world would be tremendous.
www.enthea.org
Why not make space, or at least the space around the earth, the same as the air: the space above a particular country belongs to that country
Because the first satellites were launched by the superpowers, and other countries didn't want to argue with them. There was actually some talk of dividing space up like this at the time, but when the USSR launched Sputnik, the US decided not to complain about it flying over. After all, the US wanted to fly its satellites over the USSR too.
Technically, some geostationary orbital slots do belong to the countries below, but that's a bit different: a permanent position, not just overflight.
"We don't hear much about China's space program because they're ~20 years behind us"
This maybe the case, but,
1. Can you remember the moment when Japan stopped building nasty horrible automobiles and started producing some of the worlds finest?
2. It's been 30 years since any of you boys went to the moon, so, by your calculation, they're already well capable of getting there on their own
I've never shoed a horse, but I once told a donkey to piss off!
Hmmm, where to begin. For starters, Iraq WAS its own sovereign country before we invaded it.
America doesn't "imply" that enemies are evil, they go ahead and put them in the Axis of Evil.
Capitalism: It's not profit at any legal cost, it's profit at any cost so long as you can get away with it. Enron for example. Not that this is anything new; Machiavelli spelled it out explicity about half a millenia ago.
Being opposed to the neoconservative doctrine doesn't make you a socialist. Neocons are mostly about foreign policy anyways; not about how to run the country internally. Their whole thing is about how to keep America on top now that the USSR is gone, and Europe is no longer beholden to us for protection, and naturally will directy compete with us economically. With the euro at about $1.26, they're doing pretty well.
That's also the reason for the war; to keep OPEC on the dollar. It creates an incredible demand for the dollar when the only way you can buy oil, the lifebood of industry, is with dollars. If has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Saddam is, in fact, Eeevil.
The US military did not have a vested interest in the Venturestar project. Had it made it to production, it would have, but until then, the military was an "interested observer". A LOT had gone wrong. You really need to read the history. For example, the Clipper Graham test vehicle was destroyed on July 31, 1996 when it slammed into the ground. It's composite outer-shell failed in a crash-landing. The fuel tanks then blew. The only recoverable items were the RL-10 engines and the auxiliary propulsion system. Also, the military did not make the announcement, Arthur Stephenson, director of Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama did. The money was an issue. 1.25 billion is not enough for a Single-Stage to Orbit Program. Heck, the development program cost over 2.5 billion dollars, and ONE Space Shuttle cost over 2 billion dollars a piece (and we built 6 of them)
Bush DID NOT CANCEL IT. It was an administrative decision through Goldin and the other NASA heads. (now mostly replaced). Moreover, Lockheed even decided that a SSTO program was too difficult right now, and that we need at least 2 stages to launch a manned shuttle-type craft into space. We learned a lot. Expect the next shuttle (Bush said that there will be a next one) to reflect the lessons of the X-33/Venturestar project.
My country (Venezuela) put something like that at the constitutional level. We claim sovereignty over the "ultraterrestial space" covering our national territories up to the limits of national legislation and international treaties.
Not everyone is proud of that touch of legal genius.
Legislation has no meaning without enforceability. That is a fact of politics and a fact of life.
Aerial space can be legislated because it is both enforceable and has a direct reason to be enforced:
- It is clearly viable that someone directly above you can drop something on your head and you want to keep them off that space.
- It is clearly viable that, with the proper technology, you can get them off that space.
I don't think orbit legislation is that easy to enforce, or to justify their enforcement:
Up to which extension are we supposed to claim sovereignty? 200 km? 500 km? 20000 km? Indefinitely?
From which projection? How can we handle overlaps?
That's not even counting the irony where, for some countries, their "ultraterrenal" frontier could be larger than their terrenal extension.
Is it really enough to ensure safety? Does it have a legitimate safety purpose in the first place? Or can we park a ballistics launcher clearly off the contested space and let the payload travel into it when necessary? Aerial legislation is not very effective against missiles.
Geostationary intelligence satellites that require constant invasion of space may offend a country. But this begs the enforceability aspect: how, and when would sovereignty be enforced? What do we do with the far more numerous, beneficial and important private satellites (GPS, TV, radio, data, comm, etc). What do we do with the spy satellites that are NOT geostationary (do we chase them?). What do we do with satellites out of control?
Requesting an airplane to correct its course is easy, cheap, and pretty normal. We risk international incidents whenever a boat crosses over a tense frontier, and it's not that difficult to turn them around.
What do we do with a satellite where:
a) Fuel is very limited and expensive
b) Maneuverability is limited and very delicate
c) The damn artifact is, one-way trip considered, VERY expensive
d) Has no one to answer questions and take responsabilites on board
e) Is probably just as expensive for you to shoot down
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
Do you know why nobody does anything, it is because Antrartica holds no strategic importance. Scientific, yes, but politically and militarily it is not worth it.
Space on the other hand is a whole different ball game, militarily, it has more strategic importance than any military base on earth.
For example, if a CIA spy is caught in China, it results in a huge political crisis, but there is no reaction to a US spy satellite overlooking Chinese territory. So the job is done without any negative political effect.
The same goes for a Chinese or Russian spy satellite overlooking US territory. Space technology will represent the next arms race.
I remember a non-fiction book on this subject when I was a young adult back in the cold war. Reagan's SDI stuff was in the news and Gorbachev was the new saviour. The book explained what the possibilities of future combat in space would be, including things as space based lasers, anti-satellite missiles, communication systems and electronic counter measures.
Everybody knew that, in a traditional conventional war, controlling space would be one of the keys to controlling the battlefield down on earth. Of course everybody thought about putting nuclear missiles into orbit, even as early as kruschev's days, because orbital missiles would be almost impossible to provide early warning against. But, apart from many science fiction stories based on that premise, no one ever did it. The danger of said missiles falling out of orbit by accident was very real, apart from which such missiles would be be very vulnerable to first strike counter measures from the other side.
However, the Bush administration has seen the obvious direction of China's space effort, and to a certain extent India's as well. China's space agency is fully integrated with the military, much the same as NASA is (although neither nation advertises this fact). China has stated that they plan to put a man on the moon in the 2015 to 2020 time period and China's military has expressed interest in developing methods of destroying satellites in order to deny the enemy the advantage of communications and navigation in time of war.
In terms of national prestige it would be an obviously huge boost to China's image to be able to land on the moon, and I cannot a nationalistic US President such as Bush allowing such a feat to take place without the US getting there first. However the the budget allocated for this endevour is almost certainly too small, and will stretch the US economy if a permanent manned moon base is implemented. Apart from the national prestige there is no real benefit to the national economy and given that a future US government might just see this as a waste of money and resources.
But I can see the US and China getting involved in a ridiculous race in space in both arms and to the moon that will benefit neither in the long run as the modern Chinese government is obviously not given to costly foreign military adventures and will simply go at a pace that it can afford as opposed to the US tendency to want it all and now.
Not only this but presumably, given that Russia unexpectedly recently renewed the lease on its Baikonur launch base in Kazakhstan, it could very well be that a nationalistic Russia under Putin might want to get in on the act. And what about a future nationalistic India?
I find it both sad and a testimony to nationalistic stupidity that only the military and nationalistic pipe dreams get such priority in an area which could finally break down the barriers of space.
"Likewise we should develop a method for dividing up the moon, mars etc. that is not based on present capabilities but on the likelihood that one day any nation will be capable of utilising these resources. Or better yet put them all under the total control of the UN, as things too big for one nation to claim for itself."
*visions of the line of demarcation*
How can we possibly anticipate the situation of future generations when they begin exploiting space resources? Will the UN even still exist?
The real story is that the brilliant minds that figured Guantanamo would be outside the writ of the US Courts decided the moon would be even better. Beyond the UN too. No pesky reporters, lawyers or hooman rites ativists either. Go ahead and serve a habeus corpus, bring it on.