Conquering the LaGrange Points?

3laws_safe writes "For decades, people have dreamed about building colonies at the five LaGrange points, intersections in space where gravitational and centrifugal forces balance out to provide orbital stability. But now, the official magazine of the U.S. Space Command advocates seizing control of the LaGrange points before other nations do it. From the article: 'We face the need to control the chokepoints of the solar system.' Arthur C. Clarke, who depicted a LaGrange colony in his classic 1961 novel A Fall of Moondust, is not very happy about this. He argues we should not 'export national rivalries beyond the atmosphere.' Is he right? Or should we prepare for the fact that such rivalries are inevitable, even in space?"

Comments

yes

[stoolpigeon]

Or should we prepare for the fact that such rivalries are inevitable, even in space?

Re:Yes

[stoolpigeon]

they're equivalent to saying that we shouldn't even be having these rivalries here on the ground

Which is a point made a couple posts down in this thread. But we all know about wishes. And you are right. Rather than look at it as space vs. earth -- think about it as human beings engaged in group activities. Then you realize that conflict is not just likely, it is inevitable.

Not to mention the paper linked here is talking about space dominance to insure dominance on the ground.

Re:yes

[Spy der Mann]

Or should we prepare for the fact that such rivalries are inevitable, even in space?

Long Answer:
Look, if we keep fighting for first posts (see above) in a website, where we gain nothing but make such morons of ourselves, what moral authority do we have to stop the nations from fighting for the LaGrange points? "-1, greedy"?

Short Answer:
Yes, such rivalries are inevitable.

Re:yes

[dillon_rinker]

History suggests otherwise. When ancient civilizations discovered other civilizations, did internal feuding stop? Consider the frist century of the USA: the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War come to mind. Or consider 19th-century Europe. Did the existence of external enemies cause all German-speaking peoples to unite? Not until late in the 19th century (and the result was the Holocaust uniting is not always good). Italy was similar. Or consider 20th century Africa. The existence of more militarily powerful civilizations outside of Africa in the 20th century had the effect of increasing the intensity and deadliness of war in Africa.

In short, you have a nice theory about human beings doesn't withstand scrutiny unless you believe that human beings will magically change and will no longer behave as they have throughout history.

Eventually, though...if you're willing to concede that it won't happen except on a multi-millenial timescale, then I'll buy it. Yes, eventually, the tendency for war may be bred out of human beings.

Re:Yes

[banuk]

This is history. Prepare to repeat it.

especially when slashdot will dupe the article in a day or two

Re:Yes

[Sparohok]

Space colonization is going to be like any other form of colonization in history, only with less killing of the natives.

Humans From Earth
T-Bone Burnett

We come from a blue planet light-years away
Where everything multiplies at an amazing rate
We're out here in the universe buying real estate
Hope we haven't gotten here too late

chorus:
We're humans from earth
We're humans from earth
You have nothing at all to fear
I think we're gonna like it here

We're looking for a planet with atmosphere
Where the air is fresh and the water clear
With lots of sun like you have here
Three or four hundred days a year

chorus

Bought Manhatten for a string of beads
Brought along some gadgets for you to see
Heres a crazy little thing we call TV
Do you have electricity?

chorus

I know we may seem pretty strange to you
But we got know-how and a golden rule
We're here to see manifest destiny through
Ain't nothing we can't get used to

We're humans from earth
We're humans from earth

Re:Yes

[Wylfing]

It's going to be a chance for each country's "Way of Life" to be exported abroad

Aha! See, while it's easy to feel like we shouldn't be having such petty conflicts, what you've hit on is the magic of it. We'll have a lot of different strategies going outward. A lot of different motivators. It's evolution in action, keeping us viable into the stars.

On the surface, it's seems unfortunate. But in the long run it will mean we survive.

Re:Yes

[poopdeville]

... think about it as human beings engaged in group activities. Then you realize that conflict is not just likely, it is inevitable.

No it's not, asshole.

;-)

Re:Yes

[DrCode]

Conflict is inevitable, but war isn't.

Re:yes

[karstux]

"Humans in space are still humans just like the one on this blue ball."

Actually, I'm not too sure of that. Numerous astronauts report that the trip into space changes a man - and I think I can understand that, sort of.

It's a radical change of perspective. Viewed from down here, our earth seems rather huge, and if you try to get the "big picture", the only way to do so is via maps. Conveniently, all those maps come equipped with fat, red, obvious national borders, making it easy to divide the earth in "us" and "them".

From space, it's totally different. Not only will you suddenly have a very hard time pinpointing your hometown, let alone your country. Also, it becomes hard to think of the planet as "big" when you buzz around it in less than two hour's time (the orbital period of the ISS is ~90min) and when the atmosphere is just a sliver over the sphere's mass. Or when you watch the earth shrink to the size of a ping-pong ball when making the minutest of celestial excursions, for example to our moon.

I find it very understandable that humans will act less crazy and childish in such an environment, and it's this hope for the betterment of mankind which made me an enthusiast of manned space travel.

Re:Yes

[bobcat7677]

I disagree. As long as humans are invovled, war is also inevitible. The last war will be the one where the basic conflicting nature of mankind is eliminated.

Re:yes

[cowboy76Spain]

Get ready for a redefinition of "democratic countries" to fit the US needs, then... : "The US forces, along with their democratic Chinese allies have gained control of G1 over the tyrannical forces of the UK"...

Re:yes

[stoolpigeon]

This has been an interesting thread to me as you get to see pretty quickly how there are a lot of people who are very optomistic about humanity and those who take a less hopeful view. (Sorry that sentence seems kind of loaded -- but I'm just too tired to think on it too hard)

I personally think human beings are born pretty nasty and all in all stay that way. I think the folks sent to space thus far haven't been really representative of the group as a whole. And this whole article revolved around needing control of those points to be succesful in fighting on the ground. The two are tied together.

We'll see how it all works out, well somebody will. I am not opposed to your view point being correct, just doubtful.

Re:yes

[Clock Nova]

It's probably not a coincidence that the utopian society presented by Gene Rodenberry in "Star Trek" was made possible only after much of human civilization was destroyed by nuclear holocaust. There are many (including myself) who believe it will take the near total destruction of existing civilization to achieve anything close to what we're talking about, here.

Of course, I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Feel free to tell me why I am.

Re:yes

[stoolpigeon]

I think humans can accomplish the most in large groups. These large groups will involve politics and will come into conflict with one another. I don't think humans will be able to get along well enough to form one single large group any time soon.

So one can label these sub-groups whatever they want. It is my opinion that they will fight for control of one another and that as technology improves this will include fighting for what the linked pdf calls the 'high ground'

Many other nations don't display aggressive nationalism as commonly seen in the 'Western world'.

I truly don't believe that this statement can be supported by facts - current or historical. But then again it is somewhat nebulous. What is many? What is 'aggressive' nationalism? What kind of time frame are we looking at? I can immediately think of some of the most ruthless empire building the world has seen and it did not take place in the west. Nor was it instigated by western nations. Again I propose that this is a human problem.

Re:Yes

[TopSpin]

...saying that we shouldn't even be having these rivalries here on the ground. He is correct...

Can you provide any evidence to support that assertion? At the heart of this "story" is rivalry. Inevitably, rivalry will be the very reason our species manages to get beyond this planet.

Space colonization is going to be like any other form of colonization in history, only with less killing of the natives.

You're not thinking long term here. The great great great grandchild of Hyatt will probably figure some sparsely populated rock would be a nice place to terra-form into a resort. Shortly thereafter we'll have mass graves, bombings and all the rest. "Sparsely" will probably be measured in tens of millions.

...and for each country to seize resources for themselves so that they can dominate their rivals close to home. The fact that it's in space instead of across the sea is irrelevant.

Napoleon understood this; the only motivation of man is self interest. When individuals believe that their self interest is best served by participating is some collective you get nations, wars, etc. Space isn't going to change this.

As for seizing resources; our space faring descendents will eventually decide they'd rather be independent and they'll have to fight for it. They'll eventually win, because they'll have the knowledge, resources and will.

One "day" someplace far, far away a human will be born, live a long life we fools can not even fathom, and die. It will have never even been aware of the existence of a "Bible", "Quran" or Arthur C. Clarke. The warmongers in the "U.S. Space Command" that contributed to making such a thing possible won't be credited for this.

Will there be churches on Mars?

Re:Yes

[The Lynxpro]

"Yes, well, if you thought the American Revolution was a bloody war, just wait until our space Colonies get tired of the lack of representation and flaming death falls from the sky?"

Learn your history. The British Parliament offered seats to the Colonies. The radicals, members of the Sons of Liberty (who would be classified as terrorists today) put pressure on the colonial assemblies to reject the offer because the Sons of Liberty from the outset wanted independence. They especially did not want to pay the monies owed to Britain for finally dispatching the one true threat in North America to all of the colonies, that being the French, during the Seven Years War/French & Indian War.

Some other misnomers taught to us through our *great* K-12 educational system about the American Revolution.

*Quartering of soldiers. Did not happen. The Loyalist families volunteered to house some of the soldiers. The majority of the soldiers were housed in Inns. The British made the colonial legislatures pay the innkeepers for the soldiers staying. The Legislatures and some of the members did not appreciate this. But people were not forced to take soldiers into their homes as we are inaccurately taught in schools.

*Standing army a tyranny. The British soldiers stayed in the North American colonies to not only keep the peace between the colonials and the Native Americans, but also to keep the French from trying to regain Canada or assault the North American colonies. Some colonial morons, some of which became our "Founding Fathers" declared that such a move was to stomp on their liberty and curtail democracy, which was not the case at all. The British troops were also there because the colonial militias proved to be completely ineffective in the 7 Years War. The brunt of the fighting was left to the British Army.

*Tea tax. The stupidest thing of all the American Revolutionary history. The British East India Company was going bankrupt and essentially controlled India. The British needed a means to pay for it, as well as repaying the huge debt run up beating the French and protecting the North American Colonies during the 7 Years War. So they gave a monopoly to the East India Company to sell tea in the Colonies. This pissed off the smugglers, who violated British trade laws (as well as Naval laws) by importing inferior Dutch tea. The tea was then handled by wholesalers, distributors, and stores. The East India Monopoly threatened to destroy this black market trade, whose headquarters was in, ta da, Boston. Only select merchants would sell the East India tea. So what happened? Smugglers, merchants, and wholesalers protested, *disguised* themselves as "Indians," and dumped the British tea into Boston Harbor. This led to the closing of Boston Harbor by the British. Even Ben Franklin at the time thought it was fair for Boston to pay up for the damage before the harbor was re-opened.

*Trial-by-peers. The problems of Boston continued escalating. Even a British Naval vessel was burnt by colonial radicals. Since trial-by-jury - a standard Right of Englishmen - meant a "trial by peers," the British were unsuccessful in getting a conviction against smugglers, because the jury was made up of smugglers. So the British decided to send the smugglers to London for conviction. Of course, the radicals were pissed off by this trampling of their liberty.

*George Washington. We think of him as a great general, but he proved otherwise in the earlier 7 Years War, which started when his hat was shot off his head while riding horseback. The general could not speak French, which is required of a leading officer in the British Army at the time because you had to sometimes negotiate with the blood enemy (the French). The British told Washington to also listen to his Native American allies, and Washington hated the Native Americans. So Washington did not listen to his allies, did not abandon a fort during the winter, and got trapped inside of it because of the mud. The French c

Re:Yes

[Tumbleweed]

Come up here to L5 and say that, punk! :)

Re:Yes

[KaptNKrunchy]

"The British Parliament offered seats to the Colonies" Sure they offered a seat or two, but not enough to make a fucking difference.

Re:Yes

[MyLongNickName]

You're browsing the web on your way home?!?! Crap, I thought cell phone drivers were dangerous!

(no, I don't know there are other ways to get hom besides automobile)

Re:Yes

[mpthompson]

They especially did not want to pay the monies owed to Britain for finally dispatching the one true threat in North America to all of the colonies, that being the French, during the Seven Years War/French & Indian War.

The mistake made by the British government was to impose socially unpopular taxes (sugar, stamp, tea, etc...) on the colonist to raise money which undercut the authority of the colonial legislatures. They then sent corrupt (from the colonist point of view) tax collectors to enforce the taxes further undermining local governance. The issue wasn't so much as 'why' the taxes needed to be levied, but rather the 'how'. If the British government instead had relied on the colonial legislatures levy their own local taxes for continued protection of the British army and help pay off the war debt the revolutionary war would potentially have been avoided.

By most measurements, the 13 colonies had the highest standard of living in the world at the time and truly did prosper under protection of the British crown. However, the failure of the British to understand the sensitivities of the colonists planted the seeds of discontentment and revolution.

A lesson that may be appropriate as people on Earth attempt to govern colonies in space.

Re:Yes

[Mingco]

Hahaha. Nice try with your Tory lies.

Next you're going to tell me that "Father, I cannot tell a lie. I chopped down the cherry tree" story was all made up.

'Scuse me while I wipe my tears from laughing so hard.

Re:Yes

[letxa2000]

Some other misnomers taught to us through our *great* K-12 educational system about the American Revolution.... I could go on and on.

And while I could take time to respond to most, if not all, of your assertions, I think it is only necessary to respond to one:

Ben Franklin. Great guy. He was the North American Colonies agent in London. Dealt with the King. Was liked by the Court. He even had his son made the Royal Governor of New Jersey. The Court thought he was an honest representative, but the man changed sides. When his son refused to change sides, Franklin had his own son locked up in prison. After the war, Franklin's son moved to England. They never spoke again. Franklin left his son out of his will.

When a "great guy" who is "liked by the court" and considered to be an "honest representative" decides to "change sides" and believes so strongly in that decision that he refuses to ever talk to his son again, perhaps you should ask yourself why? If the English were such great people given the total shaft by a bunch of smuggling, radical colinists, why would such an honest and respected man "change sides?"

I suspect the truth is somewhere between the two extremes, but "your" extreme is certainly no closer to the truth than the one taught in K-12.

Re:yes

[Rorschach1]

Sailing across the ocean changes a man. Spending a year in a foreign country changes a man. Having children changes a man.

Lots of experiences change us. But look back at the last three thousand years of human history, and you'll see that despite it all, people are still driven by the same basic needs and desires, have the same faults and flaws.

Don't think for a minute that the view out a window, however breathtaking, is going to fundamentally change the nature of the human race.

Re:Yes

[InvalidError]

To have a war, you need two armies. The USA and most countries only have one federally-owned/funded/operated army.

150 years ago, the people had access to most of the same arms as the military, not even remotely so today. This makes revolutions practically unthinkable. So if something happens, it would have to be a coup d'etat, assuming the bureaucrats are still sufficiently vulnerable for that to work and enough people get sufficiently fed up with votes making things right or any sort of measurable difference.

A democracy should put the people's rights first but election funding ensures that politicians/parties have to sell out before they can enter the game.

Re:yes

[CptNerd]

PWI. Just say no, kids!

The Lagrange points are orbits, they just happen to be fixed in relation to the orbits of the other two bodies. L4 and L5 are also called "Trojan points" (Google is your friend). They are 60 degrees ahead and 60 degrees behind the Moon, in this case, and orbiting the earth at the same orbital radius and speed as the Moon. What effectively happens is, the gravitational pull of the Earth and the Moon are equal at that distance, so anything in orbit in either of those places never catches up to the Moon, nor does the Moon catch up to the other. If you were in orbit around the Earth at the same distance as the Moon, eventually either the Earth or the Moon's gravity would pull you out of the stable orbit towards one or the other, whichever was closer.

Well, anyway, go sober up, drink lots of water, and read this in the afternoon.

Re:Yes

[xSauronx]

thats all very interesting...but i was taught, as you mentioned, something very different in school. now, ive since realized that i got taught alot of bullshit in school....and as such, to be skeptical.

and since im skeptical and youre claiming facts that you say none of us learned in our general education, could you cite some sources so at least *I* could look them up and know the truth?

thanks.

Re:Yes

[learn fast]

Sons of Liberty (who would be classified as terrorists today)

They threw tea overboard. This isn't terrorism, this is somewhere between performance art and anti-globalization protestor. I sincerely wish Hamas and Al Qaeda were throwing tea into harbors rather than blowing people up.

Re:Yes

[westlake]

Learn your history. The British Parliament offered seats to the Colonies

When and to whom?
I can't find confimation of this anywhere. You don't see a trace of parlimentary reform in Britain until 1832.

Re:Yes

[lawpoop]

Remember that modern states depend on people living their day-to-day lives, not protesting in the streets. It might be difficult to have an armed rebellion these days, but governments are regularly overthrown and leaders are ousted in Central and South America by street protests that shut down cities (and yes, sometimes by military coups).

Revolutions need not be violent. They can happen by civil disobedience.

Re:Yes

[mi]

150 years ago, the people had access to most of the same arms as the military, not even remotely so today.

FARC? Nepalese Maoists? Granted, both have foreign helpers, but this was also true in the past.

On the other hand, over 200 years ago, young Napolean Bonaparte defeated a crowd in Paris by using canons. His forces were severely outnumbered and both sides had guns, but only he had canons and liked to use them (being an artillery officer)...

(NRA, anyone?)

This makes revolutions practically unthinkable.

Georgia 2003, Ukraine 2004? Entirely peaceful, though...

A democracy should put the people's rights first but election funding ensures that politicians/parties have to sell out before they can enter the game.

"Sell out" to whom? To machines? Any sell out is to people, and the fact, that people will wield more influence than others was always an accepted attribute of Democracy.

An optimist might even add, that a good Democracy will try to ensure, that better people have more influence. How exactly this better is defined is what differenciates different regimes.

Finally, wondering even further off-topic, ensuring the "people's rights" is trivial -- the majority can still take its rights. What a Democracy should most concern itself with, is the rights of the individual, however unpopular she/he may be umong the people...

Re:Yes

[TopSpin]

Why do you assume that humans will stop recording and being interested in history?

I assume no such thing. Humans don't need anything as profound as astronomical distances or geologic time scales to forget. Cement is a good example; the West rediscovered cement by examining Roman structures. It had been forgotten for hundreds of years. People with the ability to read Egyptian hieroglyphs did not exist for more than 1300 years. That's a lot of human generations that had absolutely no means of understanding the written record of an entire civilization.

The universe places no upper-bound on our species. Consider the probabilities involved when hundreds of thousands of years pass. Imagine the possibilities of loss and regression that could occur when pockets of humans are separated by tens or hundreds of light years. Aside from the radio emissions we've recently broadcast into the universe, today, one large rock is all that would be necessary to obliterate nearly all evidence that we exist.

Seems like an illogical position for you to take.

Given enough time and space in which to invent new tragedies and triumphs, it seems to me that the only "logical position" is to assume that eventually some of our progeny will not remember from whence they came. To fill in the gaps they, like us, will invent a history. Occasionally a Rosetta stone will appear and they will stand in awe as they consider what has been lost.

Re:Yes

[Charles W Griswold]

I agree with everything you say about people, except for the inevitablity of war. Within the U.S, we certainly have conflicts, violence, and power-hungry people... but there hasn't been a war between the states for 150 years. Britain and France fought for hundreds of years, and I'm sure they still have conflicts; but what are the chances that they'll have another war, knowing that both sides would lose?

No, there hasn't been a civil war within the U.S. for the last 150 years. Nevertheless there has, for the last 150 years, and for most (if not all) of recorded history been war somewhere in the world. Quite often, these wars involved nations that think of themselves as being "civilised". The U.S. itself has been involved in armed conflict (war) for entirely too much of it's history.

Going by humanity's track record so far, I believe that war is inevitable unless something drastic happens to the entire human race. Nothing short of a total transformation of human nature will eliminate war.

Re:Yes

[stephenbooth]

Maybe someone should pitch that to Dubbya and imply that the "Evildoers" (tm) are planning to do just that. Within minutes NASA would have more money that they could possibly spend and a mandate to get back into space.

Stephen

Re:Yes

[Guppy06]

" The USA and most countries only have one federally-owned/funded/operated army."

Most of the military forces in the US today are federally funded (there are actually exceptions), but a good chunk of them fall under a dual command structure, and I'd say we're only some new state tax laws away from changing the "federally funded" bit if the need arises.

Also, part of having an Eighteenth Century constitution means having Eighteenth Century ideas about federalism and statehood. As such, the states are constitutionally allowed to go so far as to raise armies and prosecute a war on their own if they're "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

There's also the issue of our soldiers and militiamen taking an oath to the constitution itself and not to the government. Sure, the oath will be taken more seriously by some more than others, but there will probably be a non-negligible number of them unwilling to carry out any orders they see as unconstitutional, and some of those might even jump the fence.

So just because you can't have a "classical" civil war in the US tomorrow, it'd require quite a bit of constitutional amendment (which would require the consent of the states) to keep one from being possible in, say, 50 years.

Re:Yes

[Froobly]

Except for the fact that most advanced weaponry couldn't be used on one's own people without severe political consequences. If a rebellion had a single compound out in the middle of nowhere, it would be trivial for the government to suppress it. But that's not how it is. We all live together, and if you use highly destructive weapons (not WMDs, even a simple one-ton bomb would be enough) in an urban setting, you risk killing lots of innocents in the process.

It's bad enough in Iraq, where a good percentage of Americans don't even care if civilians are killed. Imagine doing it at home! A bunch of people spread out across a state in groups of 12 or so, armed with Columbine-style weaponry, could be a real problem for the government, and draw it out into an uphill battle with people growing rapidly more sympathetic to their cause as the government inadvertantly kills more and more innocents.

Make no mistake, even in the nuclear age, violent upheaval is still possible.

Re:Yes

[The Lynxpro]

"Sure they offered a seat or two, but not enough to make a fucking difference."

They offered more than two. The point was, the radicals rejected the offer because they rejected the concept that Parliament had any right to make laws outside of England/Scotland. They also thought the King would rally to their side as well. When he didn't, they began to call him a "tyrant."

Re:Yes

[The Lynxpro]

"The mistake made by the British government was to impose socially unpopular taxes (sugar, stamp, tea, etc...) on the colonist to raise money which undercut the authority of the colonial legislatures. They then sent corrupt (from the colonist point of view) tax collectors to enforce the taxes further undermining local governance. The issue wasn't so much as 'why' the taxes needed to be levied, but rather the 'how'. If the British government instead had relied on the colonial legislatures levy their own local taxes for continued protection of the British army and help pay off the war debt the revolutionary war would potentially have been avoided."

The colonial legislatures never offered to pay their portion of the debt the British ran up during the 7 Years War to protect the North American Colonies from the French. Never. Because of that, Parliament had to find a way to pay that debt off without bankrupting the treasury. Since the Colonials failed to do so, Parliament had to raise taxes. The problem was the Colonials refused to pay any form of taxation. And the level of taxation argument is ridiculous. All of the proposed British taxes on the Colonies amounted to 1% of income per capita. Compare that to the British public who were paying far higher taxation rates on lots of different goods. In London, they were paying taxes on glass windows to make up for the failed tax collection in the Colonies. Ireland also suffered higher taxation to make up for the Colonial losses. Which is ironic, considering how many Americans later tried funding armed Irish rebellion against the Crown when had they actually paid their taxes, their wouldn't have been a need for an Irish rebellion. Your point about "corrupt" British agents collecting the taxes also applies to fellow Colonials who were granted that job as well.

Seize for military or commercical.

[team99parody]

Personally I think it'd be saddest if those points got claimed to be some military base of any type; as opposed to the ideal launching point for space tourism.

I'd do more for my kids's personal futures if Virgin Galactic (and I don't even know what country they're in) owned one of them than if any particular company's military base were put there.

Be prepared

[nenya]

It's gonna be finders keepers with the LaGrange points. Those who wish to get them should get while the getting is good. I'd much rather the US take control of them than China, who seems to be the only other power with something like the capability.
Do I entirely trust the US government to be altruistic? No, not really. But I'd rather them be in control than the Chinese, Indians, or Russians. If you had to pick - and you probably do - which would you go for? That's really the question here.

Re:Be prepared

[Seumas]

All your lagrange points are belong to U.S.

Re:Be prepared

[Locke2005]

What's the difference? The US will just outsource control of the LaGrange points to the Chinese, Indians, or Russians anyway!

Re:Be prepared

[xactuary]

It's gonna be finders keepers...

Then we must be prepared to give America back to the indians.

Re:Be prepared

[Epistax]

I'd pick cuba. Won't someone PLEASE think of the cigars.

Re:Be prepared

[crabpeople]

"Those who wish to get them should get while the getting is good. I'd much rather the US take control of them than China, who seems to be the only other power with something like the capability."

Mr President! we cannot afford a LaGrange point gap!

Re:Be prepared

[howman]

What you are failing to see is that none of the other countries you mentioned give a shit about LaGrange points, let alone will sink their countries curency just to posses something.
Despite the propaganda coming from the US since the 30's, not everyone feels that they have to own everything in order to be fulfilled or have a rich full life.
As they grew up with the ideas presented to them by a much more socialist propeganda machine, over the last 70 years, it only makes sence that now as leaders of countries outside of the NH and EU, their values and ideologies of need and value would remain ouside the influence of modern corporate bullshit.
So tell you what, you go ahead and grab those LaGrange Points for yourselves, and when your national debt runs so high that a dollar is worth less than a Pesso and your military has to sell parts just to buy gasoline to drive your president around, I will go to the Live 28 concert with Sir Bob and Sir Bono to feed the starving Americans.

Re:Be prepared

[Angst Badger]

There really isn't much choice between the Americans, Chinese, Russians, or Indians if you're not a citizen of one of them, with the possible exception that, if you're not Pakistani, you don't have to be worried about being subject to attack by the Indians. All that is irrelevant, anyway.

The real question here is how the hell do you defend a LaGrange point? They're known positions with no cover. The amount of money and energy required to build an installation at a LaGrange point is vastly more than it would take to overwhelm its defenses with numerous small impactors or beam weapons.

The idea that the LaGrange points represent some kind of interplanetary chokepoint is plainly being advanced by military officials who are used to operating at low velocities on a more or less two-dimensional surface. In space, the only position that matters is not being near the position you were in when the enemy targeted his fire. Big stationary fortresses don't even make sense on the ground any more; they never made sense in space.

Re:Be prepared

[demachina]

" I'd much rather the US take control of them than China, who seems to be the only other power with something like the capability."

It depends on how you define "take control" and "capability". If it means putting an unmanned satellite in them then there are a bunch of nations that could do it.

If you mean put a permenent manned station there, the Russians are the ONLY nation with a proven track record of building and long term manning a space station. The Chinese are pretty much at the Mercury stage in their space progream, they can barely get one or 2 people in orbit. The U.S. has been grounded for 2 1/2 years and the ISS would have been abandoned were it not for the Russians. The Russians built Mir and the core of the ISS. The U.S. hasn't managed to build a space station since Skylab, and then it was only manned for 90 days at a time. Though in 10 or 20 years who knows.

That said I doubt ANYONE outside the U.S. military would be insane enough to squander the vast sums needed to put military outposts at all the Lagrange points. I guess the U.S. has developed a collective mental illness that they can almost justify squandering hundreds of billions of dollars on in the name of "security" and "national defense", at a time their current account deficit indicates the U.S. is borrowing $800-900 billion dollars a year and the biggest threat to the "national security" is eventual financial collapse if they stay on the current course. You really can't borrow a trillion dollars year after year and think you wont eventually have to face the reaper.

"But I'd rather them be in control than the Chinese, Indians, or Russians"

If you are worried about the Chinese or Indians you should be more concerned about the fact that they are going to destroy the U.S. with economic competition long before we need to worry about putting weapons at LaGrange points or fighting a war with them. While the U.S. is squandering vast sums siezing control of the Lagrange points, the Chinese are going to sieze control of all the things that matter:

- All the worlds manufacturing capacity
- All the worlds high tech capacity
- All the worlds oil they can lay their hands on

Leading to the Chinese having all the jobs and all the wealth. Once the U.S. is bankrupt and unemployed I guess there is comfort in knowing we have tin cans at the Lagrange points.

Only approach I can see the U.S. angling for is borrowing and spending its way to bankrupty and then using its vast military superiority to take back all the wealth from the rest of the world. Its not exactly a free market approach though ;)

The people in Space Command are long range thinkers bordering on psychotic. They need to think of stuff like this to justify their existence and their budgets. It must be tough for them to be the only armed force that for the most part can't even get to their battlefield because the worlds manned launch capability is so weak that they can't really do the "Starfighter" thing.

Space command does need to worry about protecting all the GPS, comm and spy satellite assets they are so dependent on. Anything beyond that is mostly fantasy, instanity or propaganda. Maybe they are trying to sucker China and Russia in to squandering hundreds of billions on a race to the LaGrange points while they kick back and laugh.

Not having read the article but the only use Space command could make of the lagrange points or a moon base it put big beam weapons there. They are to far away to be useful for anything else, other than maybe "last strike" nuclear weapons. You aren't going to spend the vast energy and money needed to get conventional weapons to them and back. They are to far away to be much good for spying. I for one shudder at the idea of spending hundreds of billions of dollars putting beam weapons in space, or that the U.S. could or should have the capacity to instantly vaporize people from space.

All in all this is just another case of the wacko'

Re:Be prepared

[demachina]

Yawn....

Why dont you ever show me some respect ThreeE ...... LOL.

You are the one who said Russian prostitutes need to turn more tricks to fund the Russian space program, in one sentance proving you are sexist, racist, petty, immature and have no credibility discussing the Russian space program because you have no respect for them. Having no respect for the Russians is dumb because they do some good work, and the do whole projects on what NASA wastes on a single shuttle launch. They could build Kliper on what NASA wastes on a few Shuttle launchs

"I could just as easily say that the US is the ONLY nation with a proven track record of operating outside of LEO."

Cuz the Russians are the only ones who have built permenantly manned space stations RECENTLY. The U.S. has completely lost the capacity to build Saturn's, LEM's etc. You can deduce this because its going to take NASA 10 years and billions of dollars to build CEV, a weak attempt to just Xerox Apollo in the case of Boeing or build a mini-me Space shuttle in the case of Lockheed that would be an insane vehicle for going to the Moon or the Lagrange points.

Yes

[Valdrax]

While Clark sentiments are noble, they're equivalent to saying that we shouldn't even be having these rivalries here on the ground. He is correct, but wishing does not make reality so.

Space colonization is going to be like any other form of colonization in history, only with less killing of the natives. It's going to be a chance for each country's "Way of Life" to be exported abroad and for each country to seize resources for themselves so that they can dominate their rivals close to home. The fact that it's in space instead of across the sea is irrelevant.

This is history. Prepare to repeat it.

Dream on...

[14erCleaner]

You don't need a stable solar orbit when you can't even get to low-earth orbit reliably. Let's see how tomorrow's shuttle launch goes, then go back to dreaming about the military domination of the solar system later. Or maybe we can just the the &%$#* international space station finished, ferchrissake...

Re:Dream on...

[Tanmi-Daiow]

You can hardly compare low-earth orbit to stable solar orbit. The environment between the two are completely different. It is harder to get to low-earth because the atmosphere (yes, there still is atmosphere up there) causes insane amounts of friction. Friction, more often than not, causes damage, making low-earth a comparatively high-maintenance venture. Where, if you look at extra-orbital space flight records. They are quite good. We rarely have problems with getting out of the atmosphere and such related activities. I think it's perfectly acceptable and monetarily feasible to puruse this rather than low-earth orbit operations.

Slashdot...

[Null_Packet]

...Linking to horrible html since 1996.

Maybe

[ch-chuck]

What if we just chip in and buy the Space Command Generals a few star registry names - maybe that will keep them happy.

yes

[igotmybfg]

Clearly. I would rather the US control those points than someone frankly and overtly evil.

Dimensions

[paiute]

Discussions assume that the LP is a tiny patch of ground that can be taken and defended. Really, how large a volume of space does the usable portion of the LP occupy?

Re:Dimensions

[Benm78]

Strictly speaking, a LP does not occupy any space at all, that's why its called a 'point' in the first place.

If you are slightly off in any direction, you'd 'fall' further in that direction, it is more like the top of a mountain than like the bottom of a valley.

In practice, any craft or station placed on such a point would need thrusters to stay in place, unpowered it would drift (due to solar wind, particle impact, air leaks and what not) and start 'falling'.

I guess the region where you can reasonably compensate against falling would be quite large, depening on thruster output, weight and fuel reserves. Even if it were a sphere with a radius of 10 km, this would be a huge volume of space, and could hold many ISS-sized stations and or comsats.

Re:Dimensions

[Anonymous Coward]

That is only the case for L1, 2, and 3. L4 and L5 are stable, they are like being in a valley. You can park something there forever.

Re:Dimensions

[Locke2005]

You don't need "thrusters" at all. Just a large loop of wire with electrical current produced from photovoltaics running through it. Add the earth's magnetic field, and you've got a big electric motor that can be used to reposition the station without throwing off any mass.

Re:Dimensions

[meckardt]

Haven't followed the space colonization subject very closely for the last 20 years or so, but the subject was discussed in detail as early as the late 1960's.

The L4 & L5 points are 60 degrees plus and minus along the moons orbit around the sun. Due to the perturbations caused by the sun and other objects, the precise points are not stable. However, they forces on an object there would be fairly regular, so that it would fall in a kidney shaped orbit on the order of 80,000 miles long around the point.

Re:Dimensions

[barawn]

L1 and L2 are unstable on the timescale of 23 days.

L3 is unstable on a timescale of 150 years. That is, it's pretty stable for satellites, just not for planetary bodies. Of course, it also happens to be a friggin' useless orbit, as it never has line of sight visibility with Earth.

L4 and L5 are stable, so long as the mass of the larger object is greater than 24.96 times the mass of the smaller object. (Yes, it's really that odd number: it's actually 25*((1+sqrt(1-4/625))/2) ).

L4 and L5 are actually strange. They don't act like classical stability points, like most people think. If you push something away from L4/L5, it doesn't come back to L4/L5. It does, however, begin to orbit L4/L5, and those orbits are stable.

Re:Dimensions

[AnotherBlackHat]

How would you use a motor to reposition an object in space?

It's usually called a tether not a motor, and it pushes againsts the earth's magnetic field to generate lift.
Not a huge amount of lift, but more than enough to maintain or even increase a low earth orbit.

Here's a link - http://www.tethers.com/EDTethers.html

-- Should you believe authority without question?

Re:Dimensions

[barawn]

The derivations are linked on a page off of Wikipedia.

It's a little too technical. Though it is interesting that they don't have the timescales - I might add those. It's also interesting that one of the pages Wiki links to screws up days and years (http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/la grange.html) for L3's timescale.

Re:Dimensions

[Keebler71]

Actually, you can put a spacecraft at any of the L points and get it to stay there... it may just require a small amount of propellant. For instance, while the L1, L2 and L3 point are all unstable to varying degrees, there are periodic and quasi-periodic (Lissajous) orbits that exist around each of these unstable points. The radii of these halo-like orbits are quite small (at least compared with the distance between the two massive bodies) so they may as well be stationary at the respective L-point (from a mission utility point of view).

Peaceful use of Space just a temporary phase...

[dtolman]

Even if the conflicts in space are just the diplomatic/political kind (ie - we built a base here first - this section of Mars/Moon/Space is ours), and not the military kind - they are inevitable. The only reason they haven't happened is because there is no reason to claim territory in space - yet. But once it starts, every nation that can will start planting flags... its not a matter of if - its when.

Re:Peaceful use of Space just a temporary phase...

[fyoder]

Check out this Wikipedia article on the Antarctic Treaty System . If it works for one cold, barren, place, perhaps it could work for another.

I'd be more pessimistic if there was easy to get/exploit resources at the LaGrange points, but where costs are high and profits low, I think cooperation is more likely than conflict, or most likely no action at all.

Re:Peaceful use of Space just a temporary phase...

[dtolman]

The Antarctic Treaty is usually cited as a model for how space can be... but the big difference is that the treaty for Anarctica was created after the nations of Earth pretty much had full access.

But forgetting about natural resources - the big difference is that Antartica isn't a security threat - space is - its the ultimate high ground. An engine attached to a boulder makes it into a space to surface bombardment system. You don't need nukes or lasers to threaten from above - just being up there is threat enough...

But who knows? Maybe we'll suprise ourselves, and the ISS and McMurdo stations will be the models of our future (well - maybe not the ISS).

Which rivalries, commercial or military.

[team99parody]

The commercial rivalries (should United Airlines or Disney or Virgin Galactic or WalMart own them) or the political ones (should the US military or the Chinese military occupy them).

Seems it'd be best for the US if WalMart owned one of the lagrange points, just like WalMart owns much of manufacturing in China and Exxon owns much of the oil in the mideast. If it's siezed as a military base it'll just sit there with lots of cost and little benefit to anyone; but if it's purchased as a commercial facility, it'll be a tax on everyone going into space. To rephrase the distinction in more concrete terms; China is WalMart's biggest ally, but China is also the US military's largest competitor for space domination.

I agree that the US corporations should race to control commercially the Lagrange points (as we do buying up oil in the mideast); but I think it'd be stupid if we decided to occupy them at great cost to ourselves (as we do to certain countries in the mideast).

Re:Which rivalries, commercial or military.

[promethean_spark]

There's no military use for lagrange points, so I wouldn't expect a military satelite to be put there. However, they're great for telescopes and communication satelites. If you can get some national security impetus behind a telescape at an L point so that we can complain if someone else tries to horn in on that spot, so much the better for those that like the idea of L-spot telescopes.

Re:France

[terrymr]

I don't think the french have a monopoly on bureaucracy. Take a look at the paperwork requirements to make a commercial space flight from the US and then consider that you as a US citizen are prohibited from launching from another country to dodge said paperwork requirement.

Attention, US Americans:

[FFFish]

It's stupid shit like this that makes other nations despise you.

I think most American citizens are fine people. It's time for you citizens to wrest control back from the evil scum who run your country.

If you do not, the inevitable outcome will be further degradation of your personal safety. You can not afford to let this happen.

Re:Not Enough Oil

[jonthegm]

Obviously, you're not thinking either. Where are we going to get enough hydrogen if all the consumers are using it up? It's not like there's huge reservoirs of H just lying around and falling from the sky.

Re:Chokepoints??

[AKAImBatman]

Haha, the great thing about space is that there aren't any choke points.

Try studying orbital mechanics sometime, then repeat that for us.

You can't just fly around any direction you like in space. Your path is determined by the bodies of which you're orbiting. Chose one orbit and you'll get there faster, again at the cost of fuel. Chose another orbit and you'll get there slower but with more fuel. Chose the wrong orbit, and you won't get there at all.

When the predictions of "space can't be militarized" were made, powerful computers did not yet exist. No one considered that every possible orbit could be computed in real time with a gizmo that can fit in your pocket.

Squid For Breakfast again? Tastes like Troll to me

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

[ ] Establish "branding" with new, LaGrange salad cream.

[ ] Create confusion by referring to Intel's CPU isolation and privilege strategy as LaGrange

[ ] Suggest renaming these imaginary, 3D coordinates the "Delarge" points - in honor of Alex from "A Clockwork Orange"

[ ] Mmmmmmm! Tasty fairy-cake!

[ ] Bend over, and kiss your asteroid goodbye.

Re:France

[Mars2020]

Damn those French!! And "Lagrange points"??? I say we call them "Freedom Points". PS: Btw, dude's name was Lagrange not LaGrange.

Re:Interesting... error though

[skubeedooo]

I guess you will hate me for this...but so you know there is no such thing as a force.

Actually - already satellites there...

[dtolman]

SOHO, a (joint US/EU project) is in a halo orbit around L1 (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/mission/page1.html ) and WMAP, a US satellite, is in a halo orbit around L2 - according to their official explanation (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/ob_techorbit1.html)

The WMAP page also explains that the L1 and L2 points aren't as stable as the article implies...

Re:Of course he's right...

[Eightyford]

Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too...

Rumor spreadin' round...

[Tackhead]

Rumor spreadin' round, Colorado town,
'Bout that chokepoint at Lagrange,
(Burt knows what I'm talkin' about)

Just let me know - if you wanna go,
To that station on the range
(Branson gotta hotel fulla nice girls there)

A-hmm, how, how, ho--*CLANG*owww!

"Gawddamn, Billy, ah know our guitars look fuzzier in zero-G, an' ah know we can grow us beards longer without trippin' on 'em alla time like back on Earth, but howinnahell's we s'posed to play guitar like this?"

"Hey Dusty, get the beard outa yer guitar while I sing a verse of Home on LaGrange!"

Home, home on Lagrange,
Where the space debris always collects,
We possess, so it seems, two of Man's greatest dreams:
Solar power and zero-gee sex.

(screeching of guitars and shifting of gears as Billy breaks into the next track and Frank figures out how to use drums in zero-G...)

Clean slate, O2
Past low-earth orbit's where I'm goin' to,
Space suit, peroxide,
Got Allen's funding and my reason why,
They're buyin' tickets just as fast as they can,
'Cause every geek's crazy 'bout an L-5 man...

Top coat, top hat,
An overfunded NASA's budget fat.
Black tiles, white knight,
Lookin' sharp, ready for flight,
They're buyin' tickets just as fast as they can,
'Cause every geek's crazy 'bout an L-5 man...

Analogy

[Locke2005]

While we're at it, let's grab military control of Antarctica too, 'cause this shit about "sharing" as called for in the Antarctic Treaty just ain't workin' out!

By 1996, 41 nations, representing more than 80 per cent of the earth's population, had signed the treaty. Of these, 27 nations were full voting members of the treaty organisation.

Provisions of the treaty can be changed only by unanimous agreement of the voting members.

The treaty also bans any military operations, use of nuclear weapons, or disposal of radioactive waste in Antarctica; encourages the free exchange of information from scientific research conducted there; and forbids nations from making any new territorial claims on the continent.

It, however, made no ruling on existing territorial claims.

Why isn't this a viable model for control of the LaGrange points? Seems like there is a lot less resources to exploit in the LaGrange points than in the antarctic... hell, there aren't even any penguins living in the LaGrange points!

No Such Thing As Centrifugal Force

[JohnPerkins]

There is no such thing as centrifugal source. There is, however, centripetal force.

Face it.

[hobotron]

We need competition.

If there was one thing that drives space exploration its competition, not your starry-eyed dreams of free society, or the wonder to know and explore. There is a reason it was called the "Space Race". For the better part of 35 years we have done mostly nothing in our national space initative, sure we have mars rovers, comet impacting probes, and other devices we have yet to fully understand. But where have WE gone?

We have sat in the comfort of earth and lower earth orbit for more than 35 years. We have sat here because space has turned from something to have national pride for, to something that really only makes the news with its failures.

Everyone wants to find fault with NASA, the Administration, some scape goat, (And I will not argue with their faults), but no one wants to see the real reason why we are stuck at home.

We have no competition. None. No country to upstage us for a long time. There are people who remember why we went to space, and those people wrote this article. Competition is coming though, and we will be hard pressed to catch up, because that is what we will have to do, Catch up.

Yes we are technologically superior, and probably will be for the forseeable future, but if you can believe, space is not captured by technology, it is captured by the human spirit, the will, the drive that is in all of us, but we have somehow learned to ignore this with our endless safety and budget meetings. Space has been turned into routine.

Competition will come from China, yes, everyone would like to call them at least somewhat backwards, but that is a dangerous interpratation.

They are not backwards, but merely held back. Their genetic and social expansion has been curtailed by a government for the better part of thousands of years. Im not just talking about their recent communist regime. They will find their drive one day, and when they do, they will not be stopped. The fatal flaw that our space program has suffered, the degeneration into routine, will not be a factor for a population long held back.

We as a nation must see this, we must see this coming competition, and thrive on it as we always have. LaGrange Points, Mars, Asteriod Belt, these are places humans can learn to use for our benifit, they are above and beyond critical to our long term survival, and competition will get us there, one way or another.

The exact name is Lagrange

[Linzer]

I don't know where this CamelCase spelling comes from, but I bet poor ol' Lagrange would be surprised.

Don't believe the hype

[L-Train8]

Because one general in an obscure military journal tossed out the idea doesn't mean that the US supports this position, is working towards achieving this goal, or really much else.

Colonizing, or capturing, or whatever exactly the military wants to do with the LaGrange points is decades if not centuries away, and decades if not centuries away from being militarily significant. It is in no way feasable right now, given the ballooning US budget deficit. Our current national debt could not take the strain that the financial burden of such an endeavor would entail. This is nothing more than one soldier's wet dream.

Re:Don't believe the hype

[rm999]

A little off topic, but I can think of a few things wrong with a trade deficit:

-money from the US is going to other countries. This often means that an american company could have sold the product, but instead a foreign company got the business. For example, everytime someone buys a toyota, ford and gm lost a potential customer.
-You are right that a large deficit means less people working. But people not working is often a bad thing for an economy.
-A trade deficit means we are dependant on another nation for something. Relationships among nations are not always stable. For example, if we went to war with china tomorrow, walmart would suddenly be screwed because they would not be able to import like 75% of their inventory.

This sounds familiar...

[Sheepdot]

...probably because it is.

What about all the British, French, Spanish, Dutch colonies in the Americas? They are all happy independent nations now (for the most part) that fought wars, not necessarily with each other, but against their home nations for independence.

What in the name of God or science makes you think space is going to be any different?

Think about who would move to a space colony: a pot-smoker wanting to get away from unjust laws on his lifestyle, a Falun Dafa group seeking asylum from persecution, and a libertarian trying to get away from taxes.

Nations can do their best to try to expand into state out of fear of other nations doing so first, but it's going to be the colonists that end up fighting the wars for these nations, and eventually, wars of independence a few generations later.

Maybe not every colonist would take up arms, but my assumption is that even of the ones that don't, they will most likely achieve independence anyway (Canada), so why would the US want to be the first?

Because it's not a body

[PsiPsiStar]

Bodies in outer space are not supposed to be used for millitary purposes. Interesting that this is essentially a 'territory' which is not a physical body.

http://www.islandone.org/Treaties/BH766.html
http://www.spacelawstation.com/international.html

I always thought that outer space would at least prevent people from contesting territory, since area, particularly off of the major planets, seemed so vast relative to the cost of putting things up there. I figured scarcity wouldn't be a problem and the territorial boundaries that nations are based on might be partially undermined.

I figured space would be libertarian.

I guess this just re-emphasizes that even in space there are scarce resources which people are going to end up fighting over, and which will necessitate extending national power into outer space, in order to enforce any claims on territoriality.

Re:Because it's not a body

[cpghost]

[...] which will necessitate extending national power into outer space, in order to enforce any claims on territoriality.

It is also worth noting, that it is extremely hard to enforce anything in space. Any space station (at a Lagrange point or anywhere else) can be knocked off with a minimum amount of effort and energy by a determined nation anyway. Space is such a hard environment that everything but cooperation would result in inevitable casualties.

We didn't fight the sovjets in space (nor did they fight us there) even when the Cold War reached its hottest phase. A physical confrontation in space would be just plain ridiculous...

... though we can't ignore human nature either.

The ultimate TAX HEAVEN....

[da5idnetlimit.com]

Dear Mr IRS,

You are welcome to come and collect !

Here are my coordinates :
Lagrange Point N.3

You cannot miss it, it's just beind the mine field, to the left of the laser battery.

Best Regards....

Re:For the unaware

[Ponder]

Hmm No. If you read the pdf they seem to be refering to the Earth-Moon Lagrange points. The Earth-Sun ones would be rather too distant to provide much of a base for weapons or refueling form moon missions.

If I've learned anything...

[vicgolgo13]

I like to think of it as how movies and video games taught me.

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Civilization taught me that the first into space will be the only civilization that lives and even then we will inevitably fight amongst ourselves for supremacy of land and space. And regardless of what country we come from, there will be an intellectual divide that separates each faction of thought, whether it be a hive mind, militaristic, eco-friendly, or religion based mindset.

The Terminator Movie Series taught me that mankind is destined to destroy itself.

And Highlander taught me that there can be only one.

So ultimately, no matter where we go, we will want to be the first to claim our stake, and if there is a dispute, we will battle it out until all others are ultimately destroyed for that is our destiny until there is only one left.

Re:Only FIVE such points?

[doj8]

Two words: Orbital mechanics.

There are exactly and only five Lagrange points in any pair of orbiting bodies. Three are unstable and two are stable.

http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lag range.html

Democratic countries?

[katharsis83]

What does a country being democratic have to do with it?

I seem to recall the US removing several democratically elected heads of state in South/Central America just because they saw them as threats to US economic/polic interests...

Let's also not forget the Iranian coup, (from Wikipedia):

"By the 20th century Iranians were longing for a change and thus followed the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905/1911. In 1953 Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who had been elected to parliament in 1923 and again in 1944 and who had been prime minister since 1951, was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies ("Operation Ajax").

Many scholars suspect that this ouster was motivated by British-US opposition to Mossadeq's attempt to nationalize Iran's oil. Following Mossadeq's fall, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) grew increasingly dictatorial... His autocratic rule, including systematic torture and other human rights violations, led to the Iranian revolution and overthrow of his regime in 1979."

Re:Democratic countries?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that the USA is not a democracy - it is a Republic.

Thats like saying "My bike is not blue; it's pedal powered."

'A democracy' and 'a republic' are two orthogonal concepts. A republic may be democratic, or it might not be democratic. The USA is democratic republic.

Silly Question

[Orphaze]

This entire question is ridiculous. Although L4 and L5 are points in space, there is a HUGE area of space both circumferance wise and on either side of the actual points to occupy. We're not talking ten square feet here. I imagine every craft and station ever built could easily fit nicely. Perhaps even that number times a thousand. Space is big.

In theory any craft not exactly in the middle will drift over time, but considering the forces involved here and other logistics, small thruster adjustments could easily compensate.

POTD (Pointless Question of the Day)

C'mon, spell it right

[barawn]

I'd be much happier if we conquered the Lagrange points first.

It's not capitalized oddly. It's just spelled Lagrange. As in, Joseph Louis Lagrange.

Finders keepers? Why not hands off?

[Chris Burke]

Who says anyone must hold absolute control of the LaGrange points?

I mean, the same argument could be said for Antarctica -- if we don't turn it into a U.S. controlled territory, the Chinese will! Well, maybe if they were trying to monopolize access to Antarctica, we would care enough to do it first. In the meantime, many countries can conduct their own business on Antarctica and there are no problems.

Why treat space differently? Why would you, in anticipation of a conflict in the future, create one now? If you treat control of LaGrange as a binary choice -- either us or the Chinese have 100% control with no access at all for the other -- then you will bring that situation about. If you say that we will fight over LaGrange and thus we must claim it now and prevent the Chinese from doing so, then you only give them an incentive to take it for themselves, whether before or after we do.

I am fully aware that with history as our guide we can predict conflicts in space. Why assume that all such conflicts are unavoidable and that the only choice is preemptive action? History doesn't bear that out at all. History does say that when one side believes war is innevitable, then it is.

We don't have to go to war with China, over the LaGrange points or anything else. We don't. And only by believing that this is the case will it ever be possible.

So I say we treat it like Antarctica. Nobody claims it, nobody prevents others from accesing it, everybody benefits. If this model of peaceful coexistence breaks down, well hopefully we're not fools and are prepared. But let's not go creating conflicts where none exist yet, okay?

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Is he right? Or should we prepare for the fact that such rivalries are inevitable, even in space?

I know it's habitual but the US needs to stop, think and ask some questions before shooting.

The US seems to love taking the initiative. So do so in a manner which involves the international community. Not in a way which creates further division.

This just seems like a good opportunity to do something right.

apparently, there is already a whorehouse there.

[geekd]

or so ZZ Top says:

Rumour spreadin' a-'round in that texas town
'bout that shack outside la grange
And you know what I'm talkin' about.
Just let me know if you wanna go
To that home out on the range.
They gotta lotta nice girls.

Have mercy.
A haw, haw, haw, haw, a haw.
A haw, haw, haw.

Well, I hear it's fine if you got the time
And the ten to get yourself in.
A hmm, hmm.
And I hear it's tight most ev'ry night,
But now I might be mistaken.
Hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm.

Have mercy.

- billy gibbons, dusty hill & frank beard

George Orwell massively disagrees with you

[kalamazoo904]

http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/ OrwellGeorge/essay/England/england.html

An illusion can become a half-truth, a mask can alter the expression of a face. The familiar arguments to the effect that democracy is 'just the same as' or 'just as bad as' totalitarianism never take account of this fact. All such arguments boil down to saying that half a loaf is the same as no bread. In England such concepts as justice, liberty and objective truth are still believed in. They may be illusions, but they are very powerful illusions.The belief in them influences conduct, national life is different because of them. In proof of which, look about you. Where are the rubber truncheons, where is the castor oil? The sword is still in the scabbard, and while it stays there corruption cannot go beyond a certain point. The English electoral system, for instance, is an all but open fraud. In a dozen obvious ways it is gerrymandered in the interest of the moneyed class. But until some deep change has occurred in the public mind, it cannot become completely corrupt. You do not arrive at the polling booth to find men with revolvers telling you which way to vote, nor are the votes miscounted, nor is there any direct bribery. Even hypocrisy is a powerful safeguard. The hanging judge, that evil old man in scarlet robe and horse-hair wig, whom nothing short of dynamite will ever teach what century he is living in, but who will at any rate interpret the law according to the books and will in no circumstances take a money bribe, is one of the symbolic figures of England. He is a symbol of the strange mixture of reality and illusion, democracy and privilege, humbug and decency, the subtle network of compromises, by which the nation keeps itself in its familiar shape.

Re:Chokepoints??

[barawn]

Actually, the Lagrange points are terribly huge chokepoints - the (apparently) lowest-energy transfers (the Interplanetary Superhighway) all pass through Lagrange points.

This makes the Lagrange points ridiculously useful for future cargo transit through the Solar System. Transfers on the Interplanetary Superhighway cost almost no energy whatsoever. So you could easily imagine staging points at the Lagrange points of several major bodies, holding probes or cargo until a proper path opens up, and then sending something off.

The Genesis mission was one of the first to take an Interplanetary Superhighway path. (Honestly, those orbits drive me nuts. I understood Hohmann transfer orbits. I liked the fact that they were lowest energy. It was obvious. And then while I was still in classes, someone had to come along and prove the whole thing wrong.)

Other L points! Re:Actually -.

[Rik van Riel]

The Lagrange points you mention are those of the sun/earth system. The article refers to the earth/moon Lagrange points...

The moon L1 point is useful for something else - you can build a space elevator from the moon, past the L1 point and with a big weight on the earth side of the L1 point as a counterbalance to the cable itself. This is needed since the moon is tidally locked to earth, which means there's no luna-stable orbit around the moon.

Rumsfeld Doctrine on space

[TrueJim]

The Rumsfeld Doctrine on space already promotes its militarization and has now for a while. It's not surprising that U.S. Space Command would agree with the U.S. Secretary of Defense.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon.asp? print

L1 is occupied

[gkwok]

The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory is currently in orbit at L1.

Re:L1 is occupied

[barawn]

None of the Lagrange points can really be "occupied". None of them are stable in the classical sense (i.e. a fixed point in space that everything falls down to). SOHO, WMAP (and in the future, JWST) will all be in orbits about the Lagrange points.

Just because there's one thing there doesn't mean there can't be others. Plus, the ones we're mentioning here are just the solar Lagrange points. The lunar Lagrange points are all unoccupied (as far as I know...). The lunar L1/L2 are terrific places for a cheap, easy to build space elevator.

swore I'd never do this...*flagellates self*

[mbius]

I, for one, welcome our new Ur-Quan masters.

Re:Chokepoints??

[barawn]

The "actually" was because I didn't think you stressed it quite enough. It's more than just "most orbits". It's all the lowest energy ones.

Especially when you realize that if you're transferring cargo, you're almost guaranteed to use the IPS transfers, it's pretty much a given that when humanity starts actively mining asteroids, we're going to need something at almost all of the Lagrange points - both the Earth/Moon and the Earth/Sun ones. Except the Earth/Sun L3. That one sucks.

In fact, by far the most intelligent thing is what was suggested a bit ago by Jerome Pearson. Two lunar space elevators. Since (lunar) L1/L2 are stationary points, and the Moon is rotationally locked, you can build elevators to them (and it'd only take Kevlar, not nanotubes). It's so ridiculously obvious, that I can't imagine that it won't happen, unless there's a dynamic instability someone hasn't thought of.

Completely avoids the entire stability problem.

As well as L2

[gkwok]

L2 is occupied by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, and in the future, a telescope is planned to occupy that location.

Re:For God's sake!!

[cujo_1111]

Yeah, the dictator has been replaced by DU debris too...

As a conservative ...

[Cyryathorn]

As a conservative, I favor the policy that ensures maximum violence.

Actually, 10, and they're not points

[apsmith]

In addition to the Earth-Moon Lagrange points (in geometric relation to the Moon's orbit), there are similar Earth-Sun Lagrange points. The Earth-Sun L-4 and L-5 points are pretty far away of course - 60 degrees ahead of and behind Earth's orbit around the sun. So probably not terribly useful. But Earth-Sun L1 and L2 are definitely useful - only a couple of million miles away.

Also, while at any instant there are points that geometrically correspond to the Lagrange criteria, in practice a body near one of these points would follow a stable "halo" orbit near the point (with minor adjustments to maintain that orbit near the unstable L-1 and L-2 points). These stable halos can occupy a lot of space - 20-30% of the otherwise smallest dimensions involved (Moon-L1/L2 or Earth-L1/L2 distances for L1/L2).

Also note the old L5 society turned into the National Space Society some time ago.

Re:France

[QuickFox]

Damn those French!! And "Lagrange points"??? I say we call them "Freedom Points".

"Freedom" fries, "freedom" toast, "freedom" points, "frogs" -- so much effort to avoid the word "French".

Well, don't be shy! Don't be hesitant! Go the whole way. Call the country "Freedom".

-- The price of eternal vigilance is a dollar a day and half an hour of your time.
Carefully choose a responsible newspaper. Support it, read it, write to it.

Get a clue yourself.

[expro]

First, your assertions do nothing to salvage the original claim that these countries somehow attacked America.

America tried to defend South Vietnam against North Vietnam.

When did they join the Union?

America successfully defended Kuwait against Iraq in the Gulf War. The current Iraq war is supposedly due to violations of the treaty ending the Gulf War.

The key word here here being "supposedly", yet even if it were true, which it is not, it was not an attack on America, and the WMD claims were lies by the Bush administration that were nearly as transparent at the time as they were now. The US was far more responsible than Iraq for kicking out weapons inspectors by infiltrating them with spies, which was never part of the deal, telling them they had to leave because the US was going to attack again, and forbidding them from ever reentering to resecure the real weapons sites that they had secured much more effectively than the Americans did (demonstrating that that was never the real intent of the American aggression). As incompetent as the UN was, it was not nearly as incompetent or vicious towards civilians as American operations there are today and Kofi Annan correctly judged the war as an unfounded, illegal war by the US.

I'm not a big fan of the current conflict, BTW. As an aside, claiming any dictator has the right to rule a country by force, which is what you did by talking about Iraq's sovereignty, is a strange belief.

Claiming that Sadaam had a right to rule by force was what the US administrations did repeatedly when Sadaam was still weak enough that he might have been overthown, but the US loved him because he was so good at slaughtering Iranians and we were helping him keep power and even target his chemical attacks.

If he had been universally opposed, he would have easily been overthrown and there would not be such a large opposing the US rule. Now, the US is the one ruling by force, responsible for at least a hundred thousand deaths and much more maiming, etc. You cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun. Taking sides in civil wars is silly. Disarming and declaring war on one army which basically had terrorism under control just to train a whole other set of army troops for the other side and hand victory to the Iranians is silly and has nothing to do with Democracy. Sadaam was our dictator, just as Bin Laden was our man in Afghanistan and most of the new, improved trained police there are just another dimension for another civil religious war and they are turning loose the same type of death squads that Sadaam had, initiated by American action which has not generally advanced rights at all, as many now-oppressed groups will readily tell you.

Bush is also a dictator over those who oppose his illegal immoral actions taken in the name of America. Just because the political process allows him to take power in an election where there were no credible alternatives does not mean he and his party should have absolute power to lie, cheat, steal, etc. as they do, without fear of any responsibility. Iran is also a democracy, which Bush ironically finds to be illegitimate for similar reasons. There is not as much a difference as you would like to pretend.

Re:Get a clue yourself.

[SolemnDwarf]

...declaring war on one army which basically had terrorism under control

lollercoaster

Now, the US is the one ruling by force, responsible for at least a hundred thousand deaths and much more maiming, etc.

I didn't realize it was the U.S. troops setting off those bombs at crowded intersections and recruiting lines. I should have known that the insurgents (read:terrorists) would never harm an innocent.

Claiming that Sadaam had a right to rule by force was what the US administrations did repeatedly when Sadaam was still weak enough that he might have been overthown, but the US loved him because he was so good at slaughtering Iranians and we were helping him keep power and even target his chemical attacks.

The first true statement you've made. Big mistake on the U.S.'s part. The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" tactic was not a good idea.

You cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun.

Sure you can! You just have to work on your aim a bit. You'll get the hang of it.

Re:France

[QuickFox]

If I had a choice [...] I'll pick personal hygiene every time.

You must be new here.

-- The price of eternal vigilance is a dollar a day and half an hour of your time.
Carefully choose a responsible newspaper. Support it, read it, write to it.

Already done

[kcurtis]

We already control Antarctica. How do you think we fought off that Goa'uld attack?

L3 isn't useless...

[Darlantan]

...you just need a relay at L4 or L5. Not sure about the early human habitation prospects, but once L4 or L5 are occupied, it seems that it would make a pretty good place for unmanned sattelites.

Yes, it is asshole

[CarrionBird]

Conflict and war are the natural state of humanity. Nobody has to be taught to hit or hit back or to hate. People do have to be taught how not to do those things, and that obviously does not work well.

For evidence see all of human history.

People are the problem.

Re:Yes, it is asshole

[evershade]

interestingly, the majority of the time the majority of people actually get along with each other and treat each other well enough that they can get on with their lives. those who don't, do it very loud and so violently that we notice it more. i once read about a study that claimed to prove that there had been more war over the last so many thousand years than there had been peace. of course the whole idea is bunk because war is localized and peace is the general state of things after coming to rest. they are not opposites as is so they are often misinterpreted. even when a war is going on the majority of space is taken up by peaceful people coexisting. it's just that war gets in the head to the point that someone living in a country that is at war in a foreign land, thinks of themselves as being at war. that is, the violence committed abroad lives in the minds of the people at home who are actually experiencing little to no violence. if you question this assertion, take stock of your day and estimate how much of it is actually taken up by you being violent to others or them being violent to you. the rest is just the stories we tell ourselves and others.

Re:Finders keepers? Why not hands off?

[Chris Burke]

Peace has been found between untrustworthy adversaries in the past. Your implication of naivete is misplaced. Treaties are made, and treaties are broken. The point is that at all times peace should be the goal, and abandoned only when peace is no longer feasible. Asserting that peace is impossible before it is tried and starting a war is the height of foolishness.

Practically, the best thing the U.S. and China have going for them is their economic co-dependence. It is utterly stupid for the U.S. to have outsourced its fundamental production capacity to China -- if war did break out, and China decided to stop shipping us steel, what would we make war machines with? Our Intellectual Property? Nevertheless, it becomes increasingly undesireable for the U.S. and China to escalate things. Of course this means we're forced to tolerate China's miserable human rights record (which unsurprisingly hasn't been difficult for our business sector). We may have little choice but to let Taiwan sink or swim on its own.

In the worst case, we've still got MAD. It sucks, but it works.

Re:Global demilitarization

[unitron]

"...the next Hitler will be President Bush III.

Jenna or Barbara?

Re:Depends what you mean by natives

[Grishnakh]

Accidents never kill very many people in the grand scheme of things. A few space accidents will be totally insignificant compared to the wholesale slaughter that was done by colonizers in other eras.

Re:For God's sake!!

[Grishnakh]

You gotta look at where Iraq was when you say that. Yeah, Iraq isn't a paradise right now -- in fact it is a very dangerous place. But at least a dictator has been replaced by hope.

So why did we prop up this dictator back in the 80's, and help him gas the Kurds which we now claim is somehow bad? If he's a horrible dictator, why did we install him there? It's the exact same thing that happened in their neighbor Iran: they had a nice, stable democracy, so we overthrew it and installed the Shah. The place has been a mess ever since.

Sorry, you again are making a relative judgement

[expro]

I am not from India. I just have met and talked extensively with people from many corners of the globe, including Iraq, Pakistan, and India. I am born and raised in the USA as were my ancestors for many generations. The actions in the middle east have not prevented terrorism by any stretch (and now a majority even of Americans believe they have increased the risk, not reduced it). By every reasonable analysis, they have greatly increased the risk of terrorism, lost us all sympathy of most of the world, etc. It is far scarier to fly internationally now than following 9/11 because the world holds us accountable for much evil when we use to have their sympathy and good will. Now they will start treating us like we treat them.

Your references to Pakistan are just the same thing people said about Iraq when the US supported dictator Hussein or even Russia in the second world war. Did you know that Pakistan has greater population than Russia? You suddenly care about Iraq because the neocons suddenly care to make another war. No principles, just stumbling blindly from one war to another, creating lots of terrorists along the way by our own terrorizing actions, arming more and more militias to attack us later and making more populations hate us. Its is great for those who profit from war, but not for civilizations.

US Enemies with Industrial Bases

[billstewart]

The US Military-Industrial Complex has really not known what to do since the Soviet Empire fell, because they don't have a significant enemy that could actually invade us, and nobody's going to put significant military capacity in space unless they've got a big industrial base and a big military. Sure, they went and invaded Iraq (who they'd just been supporting through 8 years of Iran-Iraq war) to remind everybody that we've still got a Military-Industrial Complex, and while Saddam was no prize, he wasn't really any worse than the Indonesians (who the US continued to provide military aid to, in spite of their treatment of East Timor), or than many of the Latin American military governments they supported. And they left that war unfinished for a decade until they needed it again, because it was politically useful to keep stringing them along in spite of the enemies it created in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

Russia's still a big country with a lot of natural resources, but its industrial base was collapsing before the Soviet Union fell, and while it still has nuclear weapons and the totalitarians are starting to get some control back, it's basically a basket case run by a variety of Mafias. It might be able to damage Poland, and cause a lot of trouble, but it can't even really control Chechnya. It's not a serious player.

A few years ago the Republicans were totally pleased with themselves when they remembered that the Chinese government still called themselves Communists, because they hadn't seen any Commies in years except at Berkeley and Harvard and a few mayors in Italy and France. And China does have an industrial base and an army - but it's not really Communist any more, and the army's more concerned with making money running the industrial base and winning infighting between competing factions of the military for economic power than they are about actually fighting anybody. Sure, it's less liberal politically than Singapore, and it occasionally goes "booga booga booga" about Taiwan just for fun, but basically the Chinese leadership are neo-capitalists and Not Stupid. However, as military competitors go, there's nobody else out there.

Sure, there's North Korea, who might be able to make a bomb, but can't feed their own people, and would totally fail if they were to invade South Korea again. There's Pan-Arab Nationalism, but that's not a united political movement any more, and unless the House of Saud falls, the important parts are mostly supported politically and militarily by the US, even if there are economic squabbles about the price of oil - and they're certainly not putting anything into Space at the scale of colonizing the Lagrange points. India's running a small space program for reasons of national pride, but as satellites have been superseded by undersea fiber for telecommunications, and television satellites are easy enough to put up with commercial launch services from the US or Russians.

Interesting Quote That Seems Appropriate

[Master of Transhuman]

I just read Justin Raimondo's latest column over at www.antiwar.com and he quotes foreign policy analyst Chalmers Johnson as follows:

Look at the Big Picture through the perceptive eyes of foreign policy analyst Chalmers Johnson, who notes in his book, Sorrows of Empire, that conquerors of all eras have built encampments and forts in subject provinces, but there is something unique about the Americans:

"What is most fascinating and curious about the developing American form of empire, however, is that, in its modern phase, it is solely an empire of bases, not of territories, and these bases now encircle the earth in a way that, despite centuries-old dreams of global domination, would previously have been inconceivable."

Aside from the interest groups that benefit economically from a policy of militarism and perpetual war, and such factors as securing oil and other resources, Johnson sees

"Something else at work, which I believe is the post-Cold War discovery of our immense power, rationalized by the self-glorifying conclusion that because we have it we deserve to have it. The only truly common elements in the totality of America's foreign bases are imperialism and militarism-an impulse on the part of our elites to dominate other peoples largely because we have the power to do so, followed by the strategic reasoning that, in order to defend these newly acquired outposts and control the regions they are in, we must expand the areas under our control with still more bases. To maintain its empire, the Pentagon must constantly invent new reasons for keeping in our hands as many bases as possible long after the wars and crises that led to their creation have evaporated."

So now these same assholes want to dominate the entire world from the LaGrange Points.

Re:Interesting Quote That Seems Appropriate

[Master of Transhuman]

I'm not sure the number of US bases is the real issue, although the last figure I saw was in excess of 700 IIRC. I suspect the size and positioning are more significant.

The US is apparently relocating many of the South Korean bases south on the peninsula - evidently because they expect the conflict there to go hot at any time, and the existing bases will simply get 35,000 US troops killed in three hours. They also needed to move a lot of South Korean US troops to Iraq due to the manpower shortage.

There's no doubt that the US is projecting military power much further than they used to and for political and economic motives - the penetrations into Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East make that crystal clear.

In any event, it's clear that the suggestion of using the LaGrange Points is more of the same, i.e. "We are the only power than can seize those points for military purposes, so we should do so regardless of whether it makes any sense militarily, financially or politically."

Re:Rivalries are good

[Mycroft_VIII]

Actually there are 5 lagrange points(as the blurb says). And I think we're talking about the earth-moon lagrange points here not earth-sun.
The lagrange points are basically 60degrees in front of and behind the smaller object in it's orbit, between the two objets, just past the small one, and on the other side of the big object from the small one.
Check the first link in the blurb, it'll take you to the L5 societies homepage where you can get a MUCH better explanation along with pictures.
It's also possible to have more than one occupant at a lagrange point, as the 'point' is more like a area. While this point is a tiny space compared to the two bigger objects, it can be fairly large compared to a man made structure. Though the farther from the centre of the Lagrange point you are the more use of correctional thrusting you'll need.
Contrary to common conception lagrange points aren't like magical peg holes that you 'lock' to when you get there, what they really are are places where if you stop there the various forces from the two larger bodies will ballance out such that you won't need to do anything to stay there. but this is the ideal, with perfect spheres and NO other gravitational souces, no solar wind, etc. So you'll always need tiny corrections from time to time, the L points just reduce this to the smallest amount, so by being willing to deal with slightly more correction you can park very near there. Again the L5 society has better info most likely, and if not google for it, I'm sure some-one has expounded with more accuracy and eloquence than I have mustered.

Mycroft

Re:Do you think they were good?

[RWerp]

Here's the deal -- I don't care about most of this. Bottom line is that Bush has kept the homeland free of terrorism for the past 4 years or so. What happens in Smellistan is just noise.

Believe it or not, this sort of attitude from the rich countries of the West ("we look after our interest, and what happens to some poor bastards far away is just noise") is one of the things which breed terrorists and hatred towards Western civilization. I'm not a Pakistani, so I didn't take your post emotionally. Were I one, I'd probably like to spit in your face for your arrogance and stupidity.

If you think that 'homeland' will be kept free from fear for ever by using such tactics (pushing troubles abroad, to some Smellistans or Fuckraqs), you're just soo wrong and invite a repeat of 9/11.

Clarke is absolutely right

[VanillaCoke420]

"There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again." -John F. Kennedy

To prepare for national and military rivalry that does not yet exist out there, except for friendly competition, is to create those rivalries.

Here I was, hoping that maybe space exploration will be one thing that will finally bring us together in peace, for all humankind... Sometimes I think people *want* conflicts and rivalry. If the USA decides to take over and claim certain parts of the solar system, that's just going to make people lose whatever little respect they had for that nation.

Instead, why not set a good example, by bringing together all nations to some conference where you agree not to bring archaic national rivalry into space?

No military presence in space, please! We've had lots of it on this planet, and let me tell you, it's not bringing a whole lot of joy.

Re:Sorry, you again are making a relative judgemen

[ThreeE]

I'm sorry -- we just don't agree here. The US is one of the strongest forces for "good" in the world today. "Good" is an abstract concept, and in the eye of the beholder, but I think "by every reasonable analysis" this is more than obvious.

The risk of terrorism has not increased in the US -- it has decreased. What has increased is the FUD about terrorism abroad. The US didn't "invite" 9/11 -- it was cold blooded mass murder. Terrorism isn't about casualties -- it's very ineffective at that. It's about FUD -- and you have bought in hook, line, and sinker.

I care about Iraq because it was/is a security threat to the US and its allies. It no longer is -- mission accomplished. Eliminating a dictator and freeing the country were nice side-effects.

As long as we're conquering space...

[grikdog]

...using the shuttle, China, Korea and Japan will have nothing to worry about.

Oh please ... do you realize how BIG space is?

[Dr. Zowie]

Currently NASA has two spacecraft "at" the L1 point -- SOHO and ACE. They share a volume several hundred times bigger than the volume of Earth itself. There's plenty of room there -- every nation on Earth could build a colony the size of Manhattan out there, and they'd never collide. "Defending" the Lagrange points is pretty ludicrous.

Hurry up

[Tachikoma]

I think colonies in space would develop into their own nationality, regardless of who put them there, because they would be the ones living there.

For example, Europeans colonized the americas, which formed into their own countries over a realitively short time.

Regardless, we don't really have the tech to make this real anyway, look at the international space station. sure, weightlessness is ok for a space station, but I think gravity might be just a little more important for an entire colony. All we could really do now is put some beacon there to prove its stable, and have it constantly transmit "Future site of another wal-mart" or something to that nature.

I do think that we need to hurry this up though so I can have more room for my epic battles in my Gundam. My neighbors are starting to get pissy about all the mass destruction I've been doing lately, fighting the Earth Alliance and all, plus it does look alittle out of place in my driveway