Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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...
Have you read my blog lately?
Clearly. I would rather the US control those points than someone frankly and overtly evil.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
There is truth in humor.
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.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
I'd pick cuba. Won't someone PLEASE think of the cigars.
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.
Two words: Orbital mechanics.
g range.html
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/la
-- Dan Jenkins, Rastech Inc.
No it's not, asshole.
After all, I am strangely colored.
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."
"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.
Don't whistle while you're pissing.
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.
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?
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
"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
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Come up here to L5 and say that, punk! :)
I, for one, welcome our new Ur-Quan masters.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
As a conservative, I favor the policy that ensures maximum violence.
"The British Parliament offered seats to the Colonies" Sure they offered a seat or two, but not enough to make a fucking difference.
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.
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.
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.
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
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.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
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
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
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.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)