Space is different than our other frontiers because as a proportion of its size to ours, its unprecedented. It belongs to everyone who wants to go, and will for a very long time.

"take my love, take my land, take me where I cannot stand, I don't care, I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me"

It belongs to the people who actually goddamn contributed to the project. The people who coded it, who built it, who put in the hard effort. Yes, American people funded it, via taxes, but they didn't actually pick to fund it, their government decided it was a good idea. A random person in the states flipping burgers is no more responsible for NASA's achievements than someone flipping burgers in France, or in China, or in Ireland.

I don't say this to be negative, or to put a downer on this fantastic event: I was watching the live-stream with my heart in my mouth, and it's an amazing achievement.

But, if we're going to bring this kind of thing up, I felt like I might as well voice my criticism of this 'couch-achieving' that seems to be to popular.

My country (NZ) currently has the most gold medals in the Olympics of any nation on Earth... provided to measure them per capita. Some people are proud of this achievement. That's fair, you could argue that some of a countries success in the games are based around the logistics of simply sourcing good people, and so the more people you have the better your chances. What doesn't make sense is when people I know talk as if they themselves achieved something.

Sorry if this is a rant, but I really wish people would just be proud of whgat they themselves have achieved, and be proud of other people when they achieve great things, instead of trying to live through other people.

I work in the oil and gas industry. We supply the world with energy, it gets used up about as quickly as it gets produced. In a sense, I will have nothing concrete to show for my work say 30 years from now... apart for the fact that the world continued to function. Same goes for farmers, dentists, parking attendants and in fact for the vast majority of professions.

The people who product the truly lasting products are scientists (and arguably artists, politicians and lawyers... but science is special because it is so consistently worthwhile). But I do feel a part of society's successes, I was one of those millions of little cogs that are a part of the whole machine.

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

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

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

I disagree. Space is there, and it's fine for us to explore it (although space garbage is an issue), but claiming it is just typical human pettiness.

If 'claiming' means "We have exclusive rights to it and ET better just watch out", then that's insane. I've also never heard anyone make that argument.

It's a slippery slope. Replace "space" by "Palestine" and you will have a perfect example of what happens when different groups have different notions of how ownership of physical space is defined.

We haven't found anyone else. Unless and until we do, we're not taking it from anyone. We're just gradually expanding our use of a resource that is currently not in use.

Not everyone working on past, current and future Mars Exploration Programs is an American citizen. The funding may be from the U.S., but the individual contributions at NASA come from all over the world.

To name just three, there's Fernando Abilleira, Spain (trajectory analyst); Nathalie Cabrol, France (planetary geologist); and Firouz Naderi, Iran (manager of the Mars Exploration Program). There's a huge list of people, you should check it out: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/programmissions/people/

And I'm not even an American. I will be just as happy next time any other nation does something like this too, but this one belongs to the Americans.

Really? [0] rings a bell from a few years back, but I'm not sure if it's still current. If denying access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests" isn't "ownership" (or maybe "guardianship", if you prefer that term), I'm not sure what is.

[0]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10...

It was initially promulgated by the USA, UK and [then] USSR in 1967, a 100 countries are currently party to it (with a further 26 signatories pending ratification], and it explicitly says, "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means".

All this is under the ambit of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.

Personally, the cynic in me can't help but believe that the USA was an eager initial party to this because they were terrified that the Soviet Union would pip them to the Moon-post.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

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

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

Examples:

1) I also do volunteer environmental cleanup. So far I've bagged 523 pounds of garbage from forested areas and some abandoned private properties. Garbage pollution happens in forested areas and land where neither party knows exactly who owns what. Land without ownership is allowed to accumulate garbage which flows into the storm drains, into the rivers, and into the oceans. Without ownership, one cannot be accountable. Without ownership there can be no consequences or rule of law. People don't take care of things they don't own (or realize they own).

2) Many African countries are still on the "communal lands" system. Where no one owns any land and individuals simply have a right to live on it. This lack of land rights and ownership is one of the main reasons why so many Africans live in poverty, are behind, cannot build wealth, and resulted in the 2010 Great African Land Grab. Fertile Land the size of France was taken away from numerous African nations at only 23 cents per hectare. That's 23 cents. The normal rate can be $1,000 per hectare. Natives are forced off the land by force.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters...

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

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

http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/special-investigation-two-la...

I smell applause lights. Property ownership and democracy are entirely different concepts.

Also, the things you mention, while being true on Earth, aren't necessarily true in Space (at the moment). Pollution isn't an issue except possibly in Earth's orbit. "Protecting the environment" is another way of saying "keeping the environment friendly to humans". There is no human friendly environment in Space to protect (within our reach). I'm all for land ownership on Moon or Mars but we should probably have this discussion in a few decades when some people actually live there permanently (at which point they will most likely form their own independent government anyways).

Right. You can have democracy without property ownership. However, property ownership and Liberty are inextricably entangled. You can't be free if you can't have a high degree of control of the fruits of your labor.

They go hand in hand.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters...

The poorest countries in the world are ones with little property rights. Especially ones operating on communal land ownership principals.

I live in a land of suburban sprawl; every square inch is owned by somebody. But litter is everywhere and and decay is easy enough to find. I'd guess the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is actually cleaner.

I'd guess that polluters and litterers aren't generally in doubt of the ownership status of the areas they pollute; on the contrary, they're certain that they do not own the areas they pollute. The high school kids who drop their empty soda pop bottles on my lawn aren't in doubt about the ownership status of that lawn. They merely avoid dropping their pop bottles on their own lawns.

Do you suppose that if we arbitrarily decided that the Pacific belonged to (say) China, that China would launch some sort of ocean clean-up force, because hey, that's their land? Do you suppose globally, litter would stop finding its way into the ocean, out of concern for polluting the sovereign property of China?

Romania had so much garbage that volunteers launched "Let's Do It" http://www.letsdoitworld.org/country/romania a national cleanup campaign where over 200,000 people volunteered to cleanup the forests from illegal dumpings. They planned for 3 weeks, geolocated 6,500 waste piles, and in 24 hours assembled in massive droves to the locations, picked it up in 350,000 full sized black bags and hauled it away. It was the most successful social cleanup campaign in the world at the time and has been done EVERY YEAR. This cleanup effort happens every single year. That's how bad our garbage problem is.

- http://www.toonaripost.com/2011/09/green-world/lets-do-it-ro...

If someone owned the Pacific Ocean it would be in their best interest to protect it. It's fish stocks, it's ecology. If it made money from this ownership it can pay for lawyers, lobbyists, enforcers, representatives, campaigns, tv spots. It could at least try to charge countries a penalty for the garbage that flows in by surveying which country it comes from (garbage is traceable) and how much of it comes in. Contrary to popular belief there are international laws. The US, China, India, and everyone else can't just dump waste into another country's territory (not for free at least). I the Ocean territory were owned, there would at least be someone to sue on behalf of that ocean's interests & protect fisheries when their fish stock become exhausted due to over-fishing.

Of course nothing is perfect, but with humans being extreme opportunists, self-regulation is not an option here. And rules can only be made if someone's interested are threatened, and interests are weak if ownership doesn't exist.

In fact, he even says about space: "We need to take it". If that doesn't imply intended ownership I don't what does. He even goes on to say: "It will belong to humans. To people." So why on Earth are you calling him futile and foolish for eschewing notions of ownership? I'm beginning to think you only read the article title.

Quite obviously the main thrust of the article is a call to arms to forgo petty nationalistic concerns, and to embrace the space project as a rational undivided planetary population. His excitement was infectious, and the idea a worthy one, but I don't think there's much more to read in to it.

When space exploration and colonization of planets and moons will costs trillions of dollars over decades (the international space station alone costs $150 billion, costs $650 million every shuttle launch) how can a country invest so much into something that will be fruitless for the nation?

Now I'm with him in terms of desire. I don't "like" any ONE country to own mars or the moon in the same I way a lot of early Americans, African Nations, Indians, etc... didn't "like" being owned by the British Empire. But we have to be realistic, when the people of a colony (on the moon or mars) use taxpayer funded space ships, equipment, support, fuel to reach and colonize that planet or moon and depend on their home country for constant sustenance. Claiming independence is ridiculous and just not going to happen. I wouldn't blame them for desiring independence, but that's just not possible given the expensive nature of interplanetary exploration. The only way to have an independent Mars is to hope for privatized space exploration. Not like NASA + SpaceX but a completely private space program. From funding to execution, from creation to exploration to maintenance.

These seem rather quaint concepts when talking about space.

Unlike the oceans or our home-planet, space is vast. Apart from some tiny areas where cleaning is mandatory (e.g. our own orbit, or common travel-routes) it just doesn't care about the scales of waste that we can possibly shoot in any general direction.

Yes, corporations will own things in space, e.g. planets that we will mine for resources.

But space itself is indeed best likened to the oceans. We'll pollute it just like the oceans, but in this case it will (gladly) most likely not matter.

Very true, and may I add this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14763668

Basically, we're going to have a lot of cleanup problems in the very near future with Earth's orbit.

On the other hand, humans fight wars because of things they think they own / want to own.

Deforestation causes erosion of top soil, nutrient imbalances, dust storms and land slides. Even the type of farming that goes hand and hand with land ownership causes environment problems.

This view seems like foolhardy view, endorsed because of its prevalence on earth in powerful nations.

Regarding point #2, poverty is relative. Although you may consider not having internet to be poverty, much of the world couldn't care less about it. Hunter/Gathers native to Sudan, central, and south africa live the way they do because it is considered to be their culture (they choose to do it). So there is no "poverty" to be talked about. "Being behind" and "Building wealth" sound like nonsense that they deliberately want no parts of. Their state is not something they're trying to get away from. It is desired. So your notion of 'not owning land' put them in this position is false. Their will-power is why they live traditionally, not land ownership.

Living natively didn't cause the land grab. Other people's notions of land ownership is what caused the land grab. If it were not for people who think they own land, there would have been no land grab...

Your logic seems to be completely backwards.

That was before the industrial revolution and consumerism. That's why America was so pristine and clean.

The deforestation was due to farming not necessarily land ownership. Go to maps.google.com and look up any eastern US state. You'll find that almost all the deforestation is due to farming fields. Deforestation and farming happens even in communal lands. And that happens because people need food (either to eat or to export to others who want to eat). Deforestation will happen with or without land ownership.

"Living natively didn't cause the land grab. Other people's notions of land ownership is what caused the land grab."

That's like saying "Living without an army didn't cause a country to lose the war. Other people's notions of invade & conquer is what caused the war." Well of course. When the whole world operates on the notions of land ownership and great countries are built on those rules, not having it screws a country. My argument has some flaws because with or without land ownership humans are reckless. They're just more likely to be punished or motivated when they own something. But you seem to be unable to make the connection between Africa's lack of growth, lack of investment, and extreme poverty and the inability to own land. Do people really think Africa is going to get somewhere like this?! This defies all historical examples of nation and empire building. It ignores history. As if tribal lands are really going to give birth to a wealthy, healthy nation. This is just Ludicrous.

"Being behind" and "Building wealth" sound like nonsense that [African's] deliberately want no parts of. Their state is not something they're trying to get away from. It is desired." & "[African's] will-power is why they live traditionally, not land ownership."

I honestly cannot believe you uttered that statement. At this point, there's no reason to debate with someone that ignores so much history, so much suffering, so many problems, and so much struggle, and writes it off as simply "they don't mind it at all, they like it". This is why we need better world history in American classrooms.

You use the Great Pacific Garbage Patch as your first example, which has nothing to do with absence of private ownership of the seas and everything to do with industrialisation, a throwaway consumer culture, and the ability of corporations to avoid the cost and consequences of environmental externalities.

I get a sense you're actually arguing the tragedy of the commons, and asserting that total private ownership is the solution to the tragedy. But ownership in itself does nothing to enforce good behaviour on bad actors. You need societal rules that are enforced, and they can be enforced in any situation, regardless of whether the situation is private or commons property.

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't support your argument either. You use personal experience related to garbage cleanups to assert that pollution only really occurs in common property areas. Yet some of the worst environmental disasters and cleanup sites are on private property operated by mining and chemical companies. The dirtiest, most polluted locations are often urban areas in cities where private ownership is highly concentrated. Some of the cleanest areas in cities are commons areas, such as public parks.

You imply that Africa's poverty is as a result of traditional "communal lands" systems, when in reality the first world simply steals Africa's wealth through financial and military force to bump up Western living standards. An alternate scenario where Africa had a private property rights tradition would have done little to stop more powerful nations from seizing their resources by various means.

Finally, there's a certain irony in your position, when it could be argued that private property rights narrow the focus and encourage self-interest whereas a more traditional 'communal' view of the land has been associated with a broader and deeper connection with the land, and a healthier sense of custodianship.

Above all yes. One can only be punished if one has broken a law, a law can only exist if someone cared to argue in its favor and have it created, the motivation to care exists only when the interests of someone are threatened. It doesn't work like that 100% of the time but it's a consistent basic rule of humanity.

"the first world simply steals Africa's wealth"

Simply steals it? The wealth of an entire continent? That's unsubstantiated rhetoric used to simplify a complex problem to American viewers. Many African nations have mineral deposits, land, even diamonds. But don't have wealth because they lack the ingredients to harness the power of their natural resources. Historians have studied America for a long time to try to determine how out of all the world's nations, the West has dominated. It's influence, it's money, it's language, it's ideas, inventions, and culture are everywhere. Why not China? Why not Europe? Historians boiled it down to more or less 5 things. With Land Ownership being one of the most important things that leads towards a democracy and free market. Advancement in Science, freedom of expression & religion, follow afterward. Even countries that are growing in power and influence are doing so by mimicking the values that got the West where it is. Land ownership + Freedom of expression + consumerism + free markets + Scientific, educational, and technological advancements.

Land ownership and democracy go hand in hand. "Up to 90% of sub-Saharan Africa's land area is currently untitled. Without legal owners, this land falls to the state, which makes it easy to lease to foreign investors". The whole point of a democracy is to make it difficult for dictators to make massive decisions affecting an entire country. Without land ownership in Africa all you have to do is bribe one or two officials to get massive amounts of land. If Africa had stronger land ownership rights this would not be possible. Land would be sold by the owner with it's owner benefiting from the sale. Thus giving locals power and the ability to accrue wealth. Instead the people of a land work to maintain and live off of it but can lose it through no fault of their own due to a decision by someone they don't even know.

"a more traditional 'communal' view of the land has been associated with a broader and deeper connection with the land, and a healthier sense of custodianship."

You're thinking of the Native Americans from hundreds of years ago before the industrial revolution and consumerism. That doesn't work anymore, Neither in country nor continent. The poorest countries in the world use the communal land system. And it's that system that keeps them poor. They can't build or sell anything because they don't own anything to begin with.

Editing in more details from posts I've made before:

The total 2010 US Space budget was $64.6B. The entire rest of the world combined spent only $22.5B. NASA's 2010 budget was $18.7B, 83% of the spending for the rest of the world. The entire ESA budget is a paltry $4.6B, while the EU has a higher GDP than the US.

Not all US space spending is through NASA. For example, the GPS system is not included in NASA's budget, it's spearheaded by the Air Force Space Command, and comes out of the Defense budget. And before anyone says that Defense space spending should not be included, keep in mind that will dramatically reduce the overall global space budget which does include defense spending. For example, the European Galileo satellite navigation system, which has cost some €20B, is included in the ESA budget, so it would have to be taken out in order to compare with NASA, our civilian space program.

If the rest of the world spent as much as the United States on space exploration by GDP, global space spending would be 4.1 times higher than it is today. $267B instead of $87.1B.

Well next time you can wait 12hrs until your own receivers get the signal from the rover. Or perhaps the achievements belong to Australia as well?

As an Australian your post really rubbed me the wrong way. We've been helping NASA with our specialised equipment and expertise for decades (at the Australian taxpayers expense).

Australia was integral in Curiosity's success.

Just like discovering America is Colombus' achievement, we can't say America belongs to Colombus.

To put it in perspective, it's illegal for any American to explain to a foreigner how to build the necessary means to get into space.

That said, it shouldn't be an us vs them game with progressing the knowledge.

No. The achievement doesn't belong to politicians who sign the bills granting the funding nor to taxpayers who provide the money for the politicians to give. The achievement belongs to engineers and scientists who do the impossible (one of the impossible things they do is to convince politicians to give the money in the first place).

Also, keep in mind military spending by the US ended up tying a lot of money in the Soviet Union and China (who, quite reasonably, had to spend a lot building military to defend them against the US) that could have been directed at making the world a better place.

DNA based life < Mammals < Primates < Homo Sapiens < Countries involved in space exploration < Taxpayers of the USA < Rich tax payers of the USA (they contributed more proportionally right?) < People working at NASA < People actually working on the Curiosity project

There is still a difference between that inequity that should be rectified, and the jingoism that we hear about our country.

The US and our partners are definitely doing things that have never been done before, and as everyone keeps noting, for pretty freaking cheap! I just wish we were using that as an invitation for participation from others, rather than just as an opportunity to beat the drums of nationalism.

I guess the difference is that as a private company, they're free to go find funding from other countries' governments too. But have they? And is anyone other than a government going to buy their services?

P.S. I don't really know what I'm talking about, those are actual questions, not sarcasm.

As an example of the value of privatization, look at the history of the Internet [1]. The protocols and useful infrastructure were worked out and available in the 70s. When I was in college in the 80s, we had internet connections. I played games with it, read usenet, traded files with people around the world, etc. I thought it was really cool, but couldn't imagine how my mom would ever get a chance to use it. Then around 1995, the Internet was opened up to private interests. Growth exploded. Billions of extra dollars from all sectors of the economy were willingly poured into expanding the internet so that everyone's mom could access it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

The illusion of ownership is a facet of much suffering of, and is caused by humans (and other sentient beings, for we are all animals) under the idea that they own things, collectively or individually. How can things external of a being be owned by it, when the being, as well as that it considers itself to own, are transient, impermanent and microscopic in the long game? Especially when we consider that this illusion causes suffering to ourselves (through loss) and others (through the opportunity to grasp that which is denied).

We're not talking about sitting at home wringing our hands with misplaced glee over our new found shiny possession, we're talking about physically making this new frontier work for us as a new medium that we're able to use and inhabit. Your Buddhist philosophy while possibly relevant to our personal lives has been misapplied here. This is industry, this is commerce, this is the business of expansion and survival.

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

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

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

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

PS: I'm not american.

This was one of the main themes in Lem's Solaris (ignore the subpar George Clooney knock-off). Really a great read for sci-fi fans.

What we need is an International space exploration program where countries can be involved provided they commit a certain percentage of their GDP.

In America, you own space.

In Soviet Russia, space own you!