[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 44 KB, 400x379, uninvolved-in-africa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4588775 No.4588775 [Reply] [Original]

I think that UN should create a space agency like nasa and require all governments pay 1% of their GDP to fund it. World GDP is 63 trillion, 1% of that would be 630 billion. Which is significantly larger than NASA's 2011 budget of $18.4 billion.

What do you think?

>> No.4588797
File: 51 KB, 520x534, 969638-cool_story__bro_super.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4588797

I think you should try to convince the UN to do that. Good Idea OP.

>> No.4588802

bump

>> No.4588809

You an what UN peacekeepers?

Oh, and UN peacekeepers are pussies.

>> No.4588807

This would be prudent. And it would pay off, even if it would take a few decades. But no way it passes.

>> No.4588812

>>4588775
two opinions
1. we are halfway there: the European Space Agency and the ISS are huge multi-national space endeavors
2. it will never happen: too much national pride is invested in space for the big countries to give up control, and the little countries couldn't care less.

>> No.4588813

Uh, you know the UN is a just a group of leaders from those countries, right? There is no "UN government". Just a meeting of delegates from countries. You're saying that countries would agree to tax themselves.

Now there are international collaborations, like the LHC, so it's not impossible. But don't pretend it can be coercively imposed - there is no "them" to impose coercion.

>> No.4588816

>>4588812
>too much national pride is invested in space for the big countries to give up control.

Then why the fuck is America castrating NASA?

>the little countries couldn't care less.

I come from a little country, I asked 10 people and they all wholeheartedly agreed with my proposal. This shit could pass.

>> No.4588829

>>4588816

Individuals would all agree. Societies and governments would not.

The best option we have now is to hope that private enterprise builds space infrastructure before there aren't enough easy resources on Earth to do that.

It's worth noting that NASA's budget is more than enough to swallow Mars Direct, or an asteroid landing mission, without much issue. These programs would cost a billion a year, each, at most, over a decade or so. So it's not cost, really. It's more that they take a long time to show results, and they won't result in a dollar return for, in the case of Mars exploration, centuries, and for asteroid exploitation, it could be decades.

>> No.4588838

>>4588829
With 630 billion in their budget, I am sure they could find away to appease the governments by occasionally mining some asteroids while doing some exploring.

>> No.4588843

Yes over 9000 yes

>> No.4588847

>>4588829
>These programs would cost a billion a year, each, at most, over a decade or so.
Mars direct is half-baked.
You could not get to mars for 10 billion.

>> No.4588853
File: 144 KB, 441x352, 1274425102509.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4588853

>630 billion

Why even ask for 1%? Unless you want it to be a multi-faceted research facility, 630 billion is not needed. Cut it right back, 40-50billion.

Some things to consider:
1. Who gets access to the research? Some projects could indirectly lead to military equipment
2. Which countries decide on which projects to pursue?
3. How are projects regulated?
4. Who gets the largest say? Who has the most scientists working there? It can't be too multi-lingual or it would be counter productive. Yet it can't be dominate by just a few small countries, otherwise there would not be incentive for all UN nations to get involved.
5. Where is it built?
6. What are the hiring policies?
7. Who is at the tippity top? Because the UN doesn't know shit about space travel.

And that's just ignoring the very basic fact that no country is likely to get involved if they can't slap their flag on the shuttle.

>> No.4588854

You could never mandate something like this. Trying to get countries to agree to fund the UN and it's tiny budget is hard enough, demanding everyone pay billions of dollars is something else.
The UN is a lose enough coalition, most countries only take part because, on occasion it has made a difference and it doesn't cost them anything.

Big spending countries like russia, china and the US do it for national pride, that factor would be removed. The European Space Agency which is the only multinational agency has no manned spaceflight capability because it's recognised that it's just nationalistic chest-beating.
It wouldn't work, no one would agree to it.
Also don't mix politics (the UN) with space it would end badly.

>> No.4588855

>>4588838
Space will not be profitable for at least a century. We need to get over the energy crisis first.

>> No.4588859

The UN is not a government and can't require governments to do anything. (This is a good thing.)

>> No.4588862

>>4588816
>Then why the fuck is America castrating NASA?

liberals

>> No.4588864

>>4588816
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk

>> No.4588866

>>4588862

You really have no idea what's going on, do you?

>> No.4588868

>>4588862
0/10

>> No.4588870

Uneconomical.

Due to exponential increases in technology (and thus the world production function), it will become so much cheaper for space-related research/development to take place in coming years. As the pressure to colonize other planets is low currently, most won't see much necessity in space exploration now. Basically, there are other endeavors which are closer to our current position on the scientific timeline, and space is way ahead in the chain.

Oh, and of course, the UN doesn't do anything. It's just a more professional /pol/.

>> No.4588892

>>4588870
> exponential increases in technology
> 2012 people still believe technology creates energy
> hurr durr nurr

This is supposed to be a serious conversation, retard. Shut the fuck up.

>> No.4588904

Yes, it's a good idea. There are countries that will not want to pay though.

Maybe it would be better to form an international space agency that has nothing to do with the UN. Just convince the people of the USA, EU, Russia, Japan, that their governments should form such an organization. Countries like China, Brazil, and plenty of others with money and maybe engineers will join.

They could do projects for mankind that no country has any particular interest in, and may be too expensive. But the problem is spreading the word around and getting people to want to do this. How do you start with that?

>> No.4588909

>>4588892
lolwut
Technological progression has largely been about harnessing more and more energy.

>> No.4588929

>>4588904
It wouldnt happen that way though. You would get almost every country on the earth joining, and the shit would probably be led by china, or britian. The USA wouldnt get involved though, because it is mostly full of fucking retards who actually dont like progress or science (looking at you republicans).

America will loose out.

>> No.4588937

This would amount to the UN laying a tax. Such a tax would violate national sovereignty, so the UN is not allowed to do it. Also do you want the future of space travel in the hands of an organization that had China, Syria, Uganda, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan on its commission on human rights? Most arguments center on inefficient government vs. unmotivated private industry. You've gone the other way and taken a stand for inefficient and unmotivated super-government.

>> No.4588945

>>4588904
If we got all those nations together we could really get something done. We could put a research facility in space. A space station if you will. And with all that international cooperation we should highlight that it is a joint effort in the name of the facility. We should call it the Multinational Space Research Facility.

>> No.4588964

>>4588945
... we already have the ISS, and their funding is in serious danger. They're desperate to find a way to stay in operation.

>> No.4588967

>>4588847

Even if the budget over-ran to 40 billion, it would still be astonishingly cheap, and within the current budget of NASA.

Plus, getting people back into the business end of space stuff would mean more funding down the line, as people on Earth become more interested in it.

And asteroid mining is just a huge cost of entry. Anybody can see how it pays for itself once you get even a single return journey. Rare earth element crisis? Forget about it.

>> No.4588969

>>4588775
If the US doesn't even pay 1% now you shouldn't expect Bangladesh to pay 1%. There are people there that make $600 a year.

>> No.4588972

love that idea, thay could work quite well. Lets try to get UN to do this

>> No.4589018

>>4588972
There would be a lot of fighting over contracts. Every nation would want a slice. It wouldn't be nearly as efficient as any national space agency.

>> No.4589023

Who would decide what the agency were to conduct? The security council? Face it the UN is a defunct travesty, it's a awesome idea, but it has no police force to enforce it's rules and can't even come together on topics such as who we should kill and who we should let be. The US refuses to recognize the ICC since they prefer to remain a lawless state. We need to put this idea in the bag until we've become civilized and shit.

>> No.4589037

>>4589023

It's not supposed to have a police force, because it is not a government and was never intended to be. It is a framework in which nations voluntarily cooperate.

>> No.4589070

>>4589037
The point I would make on the topic of what is wrong with the UN is that the UN has little power in general. The UN won't have significant power until it has much more cultural, economic, or military weight on the geopolitical scene.

>> No.4589074

>>4589070
But why would nations willingly give the UN this power?

>> No.4589081

>>4589074
Exactly.

>> No.4589093

>>4589074

The reason would be because we're civilized and we recognize the rule of law over the rule of guns. But we aren't. We have the General Assembly we're everyone has their say as to what is proper and we have the Nuclear Club - who by the right bestowed upon them by virtue of being able to destroy the planet get final say.

>> No.4589098

>>4589074
If I were trying give the UN more power I would focus on the biggest geopolitical player today, the USA. The US is the top-dog and thus the world generally has to play by its rules. Giving power to the UN would only take power away from the US. However, there is a reason why the US might benefit from giving the UN more power.

The US could set a precedent of EVERY nation bowing to the will of the UN, no matter their economic and military strength, which would make it harder for future superpowers to disobey the UN. This would benefit the US because China is quickly becoming the world's greatest superpower and putting a leash on every superpower now would ensure China isn't utterly dominating the geopolitical scene for the next 50 years.

>> No.4589109

>>4589098
But that would require almost all US politicians agreeing and basically admitting that the US is losing its #1 status, and that it's better to be ruled by the UN than by China.

They might never *say* it, but that's what it would mean.

>> No.4589119

>>4589109
>almost all US politicians agreeing
No it wouldn't. It would take a majority.

Choose your words more carefully broseph.

>> No.4589126

It would probably take a small nuclear war or something to scare people straight, much like a kid playing with fire whom loses a eyebrow you know. Think about it 3's a charm right?

WW1 - 'League of Nations' _FAIL_
WW2 - 'United Nations' ...better, but not quite
_ _ _ - Either no nations left to worry about or we perhaps get it right.

>> No.4589131

>>4589093
Thought: I suppose that is a consequence of creating the UN for practical reasons as opposed to forming it around ideals. The structure of the UN may disallow it from evolving into a "United Federation of Planets" or any utopian world government but it at least motivates nations to act civilly.

>> No.4589137

>>4589126
Hmm, perhaps world wars benefit humanity in the long run... Perhaps nukes aren't worth having for the sake of staving off WWIII

>> No.4589151

Here's my idea:
All military funding in the world should be cut down to 0% and everything that will be saved must be used for the space exploration and manned flights to the Mars and Moon.
Well, I know that's impossible because humans are too ignorant. That's why we need something that will force humanity to do this.... Probably Skynet and rise of the machines? Somebody could create a "good" Skynet that will work for the benefit of mankind.

>> No.4589161

>>4589151
Obviously you are exaggerating. If there wasn't a single conventional military force on Earth then a band of dissidents could take over any location on Earth.

>> No.4589174

>>4589131
Agreed. It's not like the the UN isn't doing anything at all. It sorta shames nations to meet some minimal standard as to not look bad in the eyes of the so called international community. however I doubt that will be enough in the long run. We've see states do some pretty dubious interventions under the protection of their nuclear umbrellas. And proliferation continues. After the cold war people don't really feel like it's a big deal anymore. But a few decades is a very short time in world history, and we have a long way to go until we are safe from WMD's seeing how we all sit on the same piece of rock.

>>4589137

I believe they do. If anything positive can be said about humanity it is that as a large we tend to improve over time once we've recognized the errors of or ways. The problem is one of space, we need to populate mars or something so there be humans left who can point and say "yeah, look, let's not do that" when we torch this place.

>> No.4589175

>>4588855
Orbital flight would be profitable. I imagine people would pay a fuckton of money if it meant going out into "space" and being able to fly to the other side of the planet in less than an hour.

>> No.4589194

>>4589151

>All military funding in the world should be cut down to 0%

you do realize that this money ultimately goes to people, so I mean, you cut all military spending and then suddenly you have to pay all that money to people on welfare. Also the military does things other than invade countries and murder children you know?

>> No.4589209

>>4589151

There is always going to be a need for military in some form. The reason for this is that there is a certain kind of truth to violence. You can't argue with violence. Therefore you need to ensure that violence is kept in monopoly by a body ruled by well thought and intelligent laws that regulates when that power is allowed to be exercised. A bit paradoxically what you want is a authority of violence that denies all authority derived from violence.

>> No.4589220

>>4589194

Actually only a fraction of so called military spending in US goes to strict defense contracts. The money that goes into the budget black-hole of the the pentagon system is really a way to state subsidize hi-tech industry.

>> No.4589224

>>4589220
It pays the salaries of the 1,000,000+ us personnel in the military, their insurance costs, weaponry expenditures, and logistics and acquisitions.

>> No.4589238

Yes
Because we totally want the whole UN on our rockets (which would of course lead to tons of developments to long range missiles in the world).

>> No.4589250

>>4589224

Yeah, let's pretend it is the people in the military that is expensive... Hmm I wonder what the price tag of a carrier battle group is these days anyhow?

>> No.4589284

>>4589250
That's why I listed
>weaponry expenditures, logistics and acquisitions.

Maybe I didn't clarify that.

>> No.4589344

I have an idea, how about we take over the world and shape it as we see fit?

>> No.4589354

>>4589175
Dude, we aren't even building supersonic commercial jets anymore. What are you on about?

>> No.4589357

>>4589344
You and what army, Attila?

>> No.4589386

>>4589175

No, they wouldn't. The flight would be very uncomfortable, more like a two hour roller coaster ride than anything.

Plus, all it takes is one little screw and all public confidence will be lost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcp8rDqWoAM&feature=related

>> No.4589390

>>4589357
I'll just find an ideology that people like and twist it to fit my needs.