Two initial reactions which immediately popped into my head. 1/ Don't you mean Helium-3, not hydrogen-3? He-3 is used for fusion power along with deuterium I believe. The utility of that is the reaction releases protons, which are positively charged, rather than neutrons. The He-3 could certainly be mined by robots of course, so doesn't require humans. Which is just as well.
2/ The idea that excavations on the moon would alter the lunar gravity is scientifically absurd given how massive the moon is. You'd have to carve out an entire chunk of it. Death star style, maybe.
I'll probably have some more thoughts in due course... Nice essay though, I enjoyed it very much.
This also mentions the fusion torch, which can break down any matter into its constituent elements. Given this technology was first described back in 1969, it kind of tells you a lot about the attitude of those in positions of political (and financial) power. Even notwithstanding other kinds of cheap and clean energy, He-3 fusion and the fusion torch would not only solve all the environmental problems but it would completely remove any resource-based motivation for colonialist practices, including wars and the fomenting of internal conflicts etc. Furthermore it gives self-sufficiency and autonomy to every country on the planet (and thus their citizens, if they had good government). In other words, it destroys the possibility of 'empire', warmongering, and therefore geopolitical power and control. So this I think adequately explains the suppression of these technologies, as well as lunar exploration/He-3 extraction. Once we understand that the people in political power do not care about the planet or the people or prosperity or fairness and such like, we have a much clearer picture of what's actually going on and how the future might look. It is simply not in their interests to enact a policy which removes their own power and liberates the species.
Likewise, I think it's somewhat pie in the sky to think that these sorts will come to any arrangement which benefits humanity/the common people. The Rawlsian idea, for example, seems the most atrocious form of neoliberalism in which only the richest oligarchs will benefit. It's interesting likewise that a 'socialist' option wasn't really mooted in your list. Obviously such a socialist (by which I simply mean 'for everyone') option simply wouldn't be 'allowed' by these oligarchs, despite it being the most obvious beneficial solution. That's to say an internationally organised He-3 extraction programme.
If you were to ask any normal person, of course, they would invariably choose this socialist option. Only those in power would not choose it. So the problem is them, really. As it always is!
I think my alter ego touched on this kind of thinking in some of the Dexos stuff from my site. Essentially, we need to look at the lunar exploration subject from a psychological perspective, because we simply can't assume that corrupt and selfish people will ever choose an option which benefits the common people. They've never really done that in the past, and I very much doubt they'll be changing that habit anytime soon...
Hi there, so as promised I'd like to give you a fuller response to your comments
1) Thanks for pointing out my mistake on He-3 which is due to poor memory and failure to check on it. Now amended. I preferred not to go into how fantastically promising it could be as a resource so it didn't cloud the basic debate about Moon settlement/use in general. If people were focussed on the miracle-substance that can solve all energy an environmental problems they might not be thinking about the other issues, was my reasoning.
2) The gravitational spillover or externality - I'm sure positing a wobble resultant from mining seems far-fetched, and it may well be. But it is still a perfect example of an externality that needs to be considered, along with all the others. And with the Moon's existing mascons and lumpy gravity, as well as the kind of extraction called for by Stanford Torus-type constructions, it's not impossible that some wobble might occur. Studies called for, etc.
3) The politics of it all. Although Turner's Rawlsian market-mechanism scheme seems the very embodiment of neoliberalism, it actually is designed with global equity in mind due to a central distribution of wealth funds. I actually believe Turner intends it to be a kind of stealth introduction to global fairness redistribution, but I'm wary of putting words into his mouth.
It's a bit difficult to comment on the Rawlsian proposal in detail as it's currently undergoing revision prior to publication and so the details are changing constantly. I put it out there as a kind of placeholder for what a 'market-mechanism' system for fairness would be like. I probably didn't describe it very well.
So it could be considered as a 'market socialist' approach to the question, of the only kind that could even be considered by the global powers today. I'm socialist myself and I'm not kidding myself that some kind of overt redistribution scheme would ever get a fair shake in the corridors of power.
In fact my order of personal preference is in the order these options were presented, with an absolute moratorium on exploitation the best thing, a global authority like with Antarctica second, the Rawlsian idea third, and the Wild West an absolutely worst-case outcome. But at the same time the most probable, being as we live in the world we do.
I'd be curious to consider which of these options I presented might be preferable to you, or if you have a socialist option that would have a chance of being accepted internationally, how that would be (in very brief outline obviously).
Ok - here's the parallel world solution. Bear in mind this is a more utopian parallel world in which there are benevolent governments. Not every government is socialist though, mind. America (under President Kennedy, JFK's son, that is) is a kind of mixed economy.
In this world there was the threat of a new cold war between liberal socialist Europe and capitalist America, which was avoided. Then there was a new space exploration treaty (signed by Kennedy in 2017). This benefited America more than Europe actually, since Europe was way ahead in terms of technology (von Braun stations, fusion, electrogravitic drives etc.). So, in this treaty Europe shares the tech with America and America gets 'first go' at the moon. That includes extraction and supply of He-3 (at an agreed reasonable price). Europe, on the other paw, gets first go at Mars.
After the first half dozen or so Martian missions America can join in (and China too for that matter), and from that point exploration and colonisation of all the major planets, and some of the gas giant moons, are international cooperation. Everything else is open to commercial exploitation by private enterprises. As is the case today with the likes of Musk, 'private' doesn't preclude government subsidies. So this would mean all those American adventurers get to competitively scramble for all those asteroids and such like.
Anyhow, what is really going on here is that rather than try and parcel up each astronomical body individually, we take the entire solar system and award priority (first go, in other words) for each body to a particular country. This could also work in this world - say, give China first go at the moon in exchange for an agreed price for He-3, and for a specified period of time (say, 10 years from first extraction). Then, say, America gets Mars, and Russia gets Venus. Asteroids, fair game to anyone, and beyond this it's international cooperation - given this is some way in the future, one would hope these countries would've grown up a bit since then and learned to respect each other.
In this other world that growing up already happened, so that's not an issue. But this kind of thinking, it occurs to me, allows everyone's attitude an outlet, including private enterprise. That other world has much better technology, though, which does make a difference.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility in this world, though, but only if each country does indeed grow up and realise it's in their own best interests not to be antagonistic towards others. Perhaps it will take some major incident in space to provoke that growing up. Who knows...
Nations co-operating in their mutual interest? Concessions made in return for fair price deals? Rational allocation of resources?
It really is an alternative reality.
Come back JFK Jr, don't go on that plane!
Sounds very intriguing as a fictional scenario, comparable to the HBO series "For All Mankind" which I believe is based on the divergence that Korolev didn't die.
I've heard of that series but I haven't watched any of it (yet) - my interest is being piqued, though (I shall have to add it to my long list of stuff to watch). Korolev's death did seem like a game changer and I would be somewhat suspicious of the circumstances there. But I'm like that.
I should've added that in this other world by 'Europe' I mean Eurasia, which is Europe plus Russia, which replaced Nato after 9/11. The history is a bit more complicated but essentially although America was somewhat sidelined because of the sheer geopolitical power of Eurasia, it realised its best interests lay in cooperation. This is especially the case when more advanced technology is involved, which does indeed make something resembling socialism unavoidable - withhold it from people and they revolt. The only other option is outright totalitarianism, which would also end up with an eventual revolt because human beings instinctively value freedom.
Yeah - with JFK Jr., I did want to imagine what 'single incidents' happening differently can do to history. He was just about to announce his running for the senate in NYC, in a seat which was actually taken by Hillary Clinton. Once he becomes a senator, after what happened to his father and uncle, it would simply be impossible for the CIA (or whomever) to whack him without inciting a revolution. And if he ever chose to run for President he'd win hands down (and likely release every file about his father).
Hence the 'conspiracy theory' about the plane. It proved to be very convenient for the bad guys.
So I do love these what-if scenarios. America in this other world isn't whiter than white, by any stretch, and a lot of what they do really is 'enlightened self-interest' kind of thing. Say what we like about bad guys and oligarchs, but they aren't stupid.
Another what-if question really worth looking at is the Apollo 1 fire of course.
Ah - forgot to say - given the existence of something like the fusion torch, if the commodities market no longer functions as a 'market' because the price is so negligible, then setting these agreed fixed prices is something which oligarchs/governments would agree to I think. They can then make their fortunes from other areas (like space exploration).
If this Rawlsian idea overtly incorporates or forces this idea of enlightened self-interest then it might work, of course...
I'll do each point in turn (seems easiest). 1/ I know what you mean about sticking to the main point. Although this does sort of also relate to your point 2/ which I now better understand what you're getting at, given that in the long-term we'd be talking about colonisation of the entire system, which obviously requires a lot of resources. However, this is partly why I mentioned the fusion torch, because it removes the necessity of carving out massive chunks from the moon. Everything can be recycled, such that even a ton of dirt from your back garden would contain enough stuff to make you a millionaire in today's markets. Naturally, given this abundance, there wouldn't be 'markets' anymore with a fusion torch (hence another reason for the suppression of it - it politically leads to unavoidable 'socialism', because there is no excuse for denying resources to anyone - if they continue to deny people what they need, you have revolution).
But then, as you say, if we're talking colonisation, those colonies tend to increase in size. One would hope, however, that careful preparatory calculations about extraction and development limits would be carried out.
3/ I don't think there would be a socialist option accepted internationally as things stand at the moment. It might be a kind of 'disguised' socialism, for example administered by the UN or some other international body, but those bodies are still somewhat controlled by the most powerful countries (as we see in the UN security council, where America simply vetoes any votes that conflict with its interests).
I would agree with the order of your list, I think. Although rather than a moratorium as such, I think the setting of 'limits' is better, but with a global authority ensuring some kind of fair distribution of resource extraction. Similar limits could be put on 'colonies' (partly on the surface, partly beneath). Even granting, say, 150 people per country might be acceptable (Dunbar's number, of course).
I really wouldn't want the Rawlsian thing and I don't think there would be any equitable outcome for that - we may as well do option 2 instead, rather than risking what option 3 results in. I wouldn't trust the markets to lead to a solution which benefits the people. The markets are controlled by the rich, after all.
Option 4, yes, that is the most likely outcome, and that would easily lead to actual conflict. That might seem quite exciting to land dwellers and SF fans (and writers), but it won't be pretty.
The answer would have to be for nations to resolve their differences down here first - if that happened it would lead to a sensible option 2 type approach. Whether that is likely, with the way things are going, is a different question and I don't hold out much hope.
I do have another option, however, which comes from the parallel world story I'm doing, which I'll do in a separate reply.
I think I've really not done a good job on selling the Rawlsian proposal which despite "market mechanisms" (Mr Turner was very emphatic on this point) is NOT a free market itself, but rather a highly regulated mechanism that uses bidding mechanics to ensure fair outcomes especially with regard to distribution of gains. Within this system there would be safeguards to ensure that oligarchs and monopolistic rent-seekers don't gain a dominant position.
The details of that will have to await a full publication, but in any case it's designed to sound market-y enough to appeal to neolibs while resting on a mechanism of fair global distribution of profits, sovreign wealth funds in escrow, etc etc.
It didn't convince me at first precisely for the reasons you suggest, but I've been provisionally convinced by its sincere concern to fairly distribute gains and incorporate environmental offsets. I need more detail and an analysis from an economist to be truly convinced though.
And if it's going to be that or the Wild West, I'll take that every time, and try to make sure there's a guard there to manacle any oligarchs trying to muscle in.
A parallel might be made between Rawlsian economics and carbon credits, which have been increasingly dismissed as unworkable and open to fraudulent manipulation.
Yes, I think the history of Tesla Motor Company is a perfect example of how the carbon credit system can be gamed to create something that has a minimal beneficial outcome for the environment while pumping up a company to massive multinational status on the back of false promises rewarded with public subsidies.
Mr Turner offers his sytem as a basis for discussion and fine-tuning that hopefully could avoid some of these pitfalls. It certainly isn't a complete framework by any means yet.
Thanks for this excellent post: I found it informative and thought-provoking. I'm just a keen bystander who was born 3 months after the first moon landing and have been disappointed for decades that we aren't on the moon.
For me, the fictional treatment closest to reality for lunar exploration and exploitation remains 'For All Mankind' (the American sci-fi TV drama). It didn't shy away from the conflict and military aspects. Who will have the power to deny an American their constitutional right to bear arms, irrespective of them being in orbit or on the Moon? Wherever and whenever a flag is planted then wars will be fought. That's humanity for you.
Sure, but there are two problems with considering that series as a portrayal of the issues facing us today:
1) It's an alt-history scifi series, though well researched in the sense of what projects were considered at the time. The tech and the political situation have moved on considerably.
2) It considers space exploration from an exclusively American point-of-view in a bipolar Cold War context. Which is no longer relevant, as the US is likely to be the least successful of all major state players in today's multipolar scramble to the Moon.
Very true, although a future Cold War doesn't have to involve Russia. But I think human behaviour is the least invariable parameter historically, even if what we predict will happen tomorrow is very likely to be alt-history by the day after. The acceptance of risk has the biggest part to play compared to the Apollo program. The Space Shuttle disasters now mean even one orbital or interplanetary human death is unacceptable (on that basis it's still a 100% safety record). Musk et al may have a greater risk appetite, but I do think the first off-Earth colonists won't all be returning intact.
A future Cold War will almost certainly feature multiple players in shifting alliances, which to a very limited sense was true also of the original Cold War. But Cold Wars impact on Space Races quite unpredictably - for example, the US is still engaged in a joint space project with Russia in the ISS, despite being "adversaries" in the present context.
At war on Earth but running a space station together? Seems unlikely but in fact essentially the case today.
Re risk: China for example has a much higher tolerance for risk and even a serious loss would be unlikely to have that much impact on their appetite for the race.
The idea floated by NASA at present that Artemis III will be touching down on the Moon in 2026 is clearly a non-starter given safety concerns about the SpaceX lander and the Starliner Boeing crew vehicle.
I'm hoping that this sparks an interesting discussion, so:
-Which of these options strikes you as most appropriate?
-Is there another option which I haven't mentioned?
-What are the political and commercial interests involved here?
Two initial reactions which immediately popped into my head. 1/ Don't you mean Helium-3, not hydrogen-3? He-3 is used for fusion power along with deuterium I believe. The utility of that is the reaction releases protons, which are positively charged, rather than neutrons. The He-3 could certainly be mined by robots of course, so doesn't require humans. Which is just as well.
2/ The idea that excavations on the moon would alter the lunar gravity is scientifically absurd given how massive the moon is. You'd have to carve out an entire chunk of it. Death star style, maybe.
I'll probably have some more thoughts in due course... Nice essay though, I enjoyed it very much.
I managed to find a link I had bookmarked in my labyrinthine favourites directory which should interest you: https://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/space-on-earth/everyday-life/china-helium-3-program/
This also mentions the fusion torch, which can break down any matter into its constituent elements. Given this technology was first described back in 1969, it kind of tells you a lot about the attitude of those in positions of political (and financial) power. Even notwithstanding other kinds of cheap and clean energy, He-3 fusion and the fusion torch would not only solve all the environmental problems but it would completely remove any resource-based motivation for colonialist practices, including wars and the fomenting of internal conflicts etc. Furthermore it gives self-sufficiency and autonomy to every country on the planet (and thus their citizens, if they had good government). In other words, it destroys the possibility of 'empire', warmongering, and therefore geopolitical power and control. So this I think adequately explains the suppression of these technologies, as well as lunar exploration/He-3 extraction. Once we understand that the people in political power do not care about the planet or the people or prosperity or fairness and such like, we have a much clearer picture of what's actually going on and how the future might look. It is simply not in their interests to enact a policy which removes their own power and liberates the species.
Likewise, I think it's somewhat pie in the sky to think that these sorts will come to any arrangement which benefits humanity/the common people. The Rawlsian idea, for example, seems the most atrocious form of neoliberalism in which only the richest oligarchs will benefit. It's interesting likewise that a 'socialist' option wasn't really mooted in your list. Obviously such a socialist (by which I simply mean 'for everyone') option simply wouldn't be 'allowed' by these oligarchs, despite it being the most obvious beneficial solution. That's to say an internationally organised He-3 extraction programme.
If you were to ask any normal person, of course, they would invariably choose this socialist option. Only those in power would not choose it. So the problem is them, really. As it always is!
I think my alter ego touched on this kind of thinking in some of the Dexos stuff from my site. Essentially, we need to look at the lunar exploration subject from a psychological perspective, because we simply can't assume that corrupt and selfish people will ever choose an option which benefits the common people. They've never really done that in the past, and I very much doubt they'll be changing that habit anytime soon...
Thanks for the correction to my mistake about He-3, it will be amended shortly.
I'll respond at more length to your interesting points tomorrow.
I look forward to reading your response - I'm off to do my bedtime ritual myself now so that works out quite well!
I like reading essays that spark interesting discussions - thanks!
Hi there, so as promised I'd like to give you a fuller response to your comments
1) Thanks for pointing out my mistake on He-3 which is due to poor memory and failure to check on it. Now amended. I preferred not to go into how fantastically promising it could be as a resource so it didn't cloud the basic debate about Moon settlement/use in general. If people were focussed on the miracle-substance that can solve all energy an environmental problems they might not be thinking about the other issues, was my reasoning.
2) The gravitational spillover or externality - I'm sure positing a wobble resultant from mining seems far-fetched, and it may well be. But it is still a perfect example of an externality that needs to be considered, along with all the others. And with the Moon's existing mascons and lumpy gravity, as well as the kind of extraction called for by Stanford Torus-type constructions, it's not impossible that some wobble might occur. Studies called for, etc.
3) The politics of it all. Although Turner's Rawlsian market-mechanism scheme seems the very embodiment of neoliberalism, it actually is designed with global equity in mind due to a central distribution of wealth funds. I actually believe Turner intends it to be a kind of stealth introduction to global fairness redistribution, but I'm wary of putting words into his mouth.
It's a bit difficult to comment on the Rawlsian proposal in detail as it's currently undergoing revision prior to publication and so the details are changing constantly. I put it out there as a kind of placeholder for what a 'market-mechanism' system for fairness would be like. I probably didn't describe it very well.
So it could be considered as a 'market socialist' approach to the question, of the only kind that could even be considered by the global powers today. I'm socialist myself and I'm not kidding myself that some kind of overt redistribution scheme would ever get a fair shake in the corridors of power.
In fact my order of personal preference is in the order these options were presented, with an absolute moratorium on exploitation the best thing, a global authority like with Antarctica second, the Rawlsian idea third, and the Wild West an absolutely worst-case outcome. But at the same time the most probable, being as we live in the world we do.
I'd be curious to consider which of these options I presented might be preferable to you, or if you have a socialist option that would have a chance of being accepted internationally, how that would be (in very brief outline obviously).
Ok - here's the parallel world solution. Bear in mind this is a more utopian parallel world in which there are benevolent governments. Not every government is socialist though, mind. America (under President Kennedy, JFK's son, that is) is a kind of mixed economy.
In this world there was the threat of a new cold war between liberal socialist Europe and capitalist America, which was avoided. Then there was a new space exploration treaty (signed by Kennedy in 2017). This benefited America more than Europe actually, since Europe was way ahead in terms of technology (von Braun stations, fusion, electrogravitic drives etc.). So, in this treaty Europe shares the tech with America and America gets 'first go' at the moon. That includes extraction and supply of He-3 (at an agreed reasonable price). Europe, on the other paw, gets first go at Mars.
After the first half dozen or so Martian missions America can join in (and China too for that matter), and from that point exploration and colonisation of all the major planets, and some of the gas giant moons, are international cooperation. Everything else is open to commercial exploitation by private enterprises. As is the case today with the likes of Musk, 'private' doesn't preclude government subsidies. So this would mean all those American adventurers get to competitively scramble for all those asteroids and such like.
Anyhow, what is really going on here is that rather than try and parcel up each astronomical body individually, we take the entire solar system and award priority (first go, in other words) for each body to a particular country. This could also work in this world - say, give China first go at the moon in exchange for an agreed price for He-3, and for a specified period of time (say, 10 years from first extraction). Then, say, America gets Mars, and Russia gets Venus. Asteroids, fair game to anyone, and beyond this it's international cooperation - given this is some way in the future, one would hope these countries would've grown up a bit since then and learned to respect each other.
In this other world that growing up already happened, so that's not an issue. But this kind of thinking, it occurs to me, allows everyone's attitude an outlet, including private enterprise. That other world has much better technology, though, which does make a difference.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility in this world, though, but only if each country does indeed grow up and realise it's in their own best interests not to be antagonistic towards others. Perhaps it will take some major incident in space to provoke that growing up. Who knows...
Nations co-operating in their mutual interest? Concessions made in return for fair price deals? Rational allocation of resources?
It really is an alternative reality.
Come back JFK Jr, don't go on that plane!
Sounds very intriguing as a fictional scenario, comparable to the HBO series "For All Mankind" which I believe is based on the divergence that Korolev didn't die.
I've heard of that series but I haven't watched any of it (yet) - my interest is being piqued, though (I shall have to add it to my long list of stuff to watch). Korolev's death did seem like a game changer and I would be somewhat suspicious of the circumstances there. But I'm like that.
I should've added that in this other world by 'Europe' I mean Eurasia, which is Europe plus Russia, which replaced Nato after 9/11. The history is a bit more complicated but essentially although America was somewhat sidelined because of the sheer geopolitical power of Eurasia, it realised its best interests lay in cooperation. This is especially the case when more advanced technology is involved, which does indeed make something resembling socialism unavoidable - withhold it from people and they revolt. The only other option is outright totalitarianism, which would also end up with an eventual revolt because human beings instinctively value freedom.
Yeah - with JFK Jr., I did want to imagine what 'single incidents' happening differently can do to history. He was just about to announce his running for the senate in NYC, in a seat which was actually taken by Hillary Clinton. Once he becomes a senator, after what happened to his father and uncle, it would simply be impossible for the CIA (or whomever) to whack him without inciting a revolution. And if he ever chose to run for President he'd win hands down (and likely release every file about his father).
Hence the 'conspiracy theory' about the plane. It proved to be very convenient for the bad guys.
So I do love these what-if scenarios. America in this other world isn't whiter than white, by any stretch, and a lot of what they do really is 'enlightened self-interest' kind of thing. Say what we like about bad guys and oligarchs, but they aren't stupid.
Another what-if question really worth looking at is the Apollo 1 fire of course.
Ah - forgot to say - given the existence of something like the fusion torch, if the commodities market no longer functions as a 'market' because the price is so negligible, then setting these agreed fixed prices is something which oligarchs/governments would agree to I think. They can then make their fortunes from other areas (like space exploration).
If this Rawlsian idea overtly incorporates or forces this idea of enlightened self-interest then it might work, of course...
Thanks for your reply!
I'll do each point in turn (seems easiest). 1/ I know what you mean about sticking to the main point. Although this does sort of also relate to your point 2/ which I now better understand what you're getting at, given that in the long-term we'd be talking about colonisation of the entire system, which obviously requires a lot of resources. However, this is partly why I mentioned the fusion torch, because it removes the necessity of carving out massive chunks from the moon. Everything can be recycled, such that even a ton of dirt from your back garden would contain enough stuff to make you a millionaire in today's markets. Naturally, given this abundance, there wouldn't be 'markets' anymore with a fusion torch (hence another reason for the suppression of it - it politically leads to unavoidable 'socialism', because there is no excuse for denying resources to anyone - if they continue to deny people what they need, you have revolution).
But then, as you say, if we're talking colonisation, those colonies tend to increase in size. One would hope, however, that careful preparatory calculations about extraction and development limits would be carried out.
3/ I don't think there would be a socialist option accepted internationally as things stand at the moment. It might be a kind of 'disguised' socialism, for example administered by the UN or some other international body, but those bodies are still somewhat controlled by the most powerful countries (as we see in the UN security council, where America simply vetoes any votes that conflict with its interests).
I would agree with the order of your list, I think. Although rather than a moratorium as such, I think the setting of 'limits' is better, but with a global authority ensuring some kind of fair distribution of resource extraction. Similar limits could be put on 'colonies' (partly on the surface, partly beneath). Even granting, say, 150 people per country might be acceptable (Dunbar's number, of course).
I really wouldn't want the Rawlsian thing and I don't think there would be any equitable outcome for that - we may as well do option 2 instead, rather than risking what option 3 results in. I wouldn't trust the markets to lead to a solution which benefits the people. The markets are controlled by the rich, after all.
Option 4, yes, that is the most likely outcome, and that would easily lead to actual conflict. That might seem quite exciting to land dwellers and SF fans (and writers), but it won't be pretty.
The answer would have to be for nations to resolve their differences down here first - if that happened it would lead to a sensible option 2 type approach. Whether that is likely, with the way things are going, is a different question and I don't hold out much hope.
I do have another option, however, which comes from the parallel world story I'm doing, which I'll do in a separate reply.
I think I've really not done a good job on selling the Rawlsian proposal which despite "market mechanisms" (Mr Turner was very emphatic on this point) is NOT a free market itself, but rather a highly regulated mechanism that uses bidding mechanics to ensure fair outcomes especially with regard to distribution of gains. Within this system there would be safeguards to ensure that oligarchs and monopolistic rent-seekers don't gain a dominant position.
The details of that will have to await a full publication, but in any case it's designed to sound market-y enough to appeal to neolibs while resting on a mechanism of fair global distribution of profits, sovreign wealth funds in escrow, etc etc.
It didn't convince me at first precisely for the reasons you suggest, but I've been provisionally convinced by its sincere concern to fairly distribute gains and incorporate environmental offsets. I need more detail and an analysis from an economist to be truly convinced though.
And if it's going to be that or the Wild West, I'll take that every time, and try to make sure there's a guard there to manacle any oligarchs trying to muscle in.
Lol. But yes - I think one would just have to wait to see the small print...
A parallel might be made between Rawlsian economics and carbon credits, which have been increasingly dismissed as unworkable and open to fraudulent manipulation.
Yes, I think the history of Tesla Motor Company is a perfect example of how the carbon credit system can be gamed to create something that has a minimal beneficial outcome for the environment while pumping up a company to massive multinational status on the back of false promises rewarded with public subsidies.
Mr Turner offers his sytem as a basis for discussion and fine-tuning that hopefully could avoid some of these pitfalls. It certainly isn't a complete framework by any means yet.
Thanks for this excellent post: I found it informative and thought-provoking. I'm just a keen bystander who was born 3 months after the first moon landing and have been disappointed for decades that we aren't on the moon.
For me, the fictional treatment closest to reality for lunar exploration and exploitation remains 'For All Mankind' (the American sci-fi TV drama). It didn't shy away from the conflict and military aspects. Who will have the power to deny an American their constitutional right to bear arms, irrespective of them being in orbit or on the Moon? Wherever and whenever a flag is planted then wars will be fought. That's humanity for you.
Sure, but there are two problems with considering that series as a portrayal of the issues facing us today:
1) It's an alt-history scifi series, though well researched in the sense of what projects were considered at the time. The tech and the political situation have moved on considerably.
2) It considers space exploration from an exclusively American point-of-view in a bipolar Cold War context. Which is no longer relevant, as the US is likely to be the least successful of all major state players in today's multipolar scramble to the Moon.
Very true, although a future Cold War doesn't have to involve Russia. But I think human behaviour is the least invariable parameter historically, even if what we predict will happen tomorrow is very likely to be alt-history by the day after. The acceptance of risk has the biggest part to play compared to the Apollo program. The Space Shuttle disasters now mean even one orbital or interplanetary human death is unacceptable (on that basis it's still a 100% safety record). Musk et al may have a greater risk appetite, but I do think the first off-Earth colonists won't all be returning intact.
A future Cold War will almost certainly feature multiple players in shifting alliances, which to a very limited sense was true also of the original Cold War. But Cold Wars impact on Space Races quite unpredictably - for example, the US is still engaged in a joint space project with Russia in the ISS, despite being "adversaries" in the present context.
At war on Earth but running a space station together? Seems unlikely but in fact essentially the case today.
Re risk: China for example has a much higher tolerance for risk and even a serious loss would be unlikely to have that much impact on their appetite for the race.
The idea floated by NASA at present that Artemis III will be touching down on the Moon in 2026 is clearly a non-starter given safety concerns about the SpaceX lander and the Starliner Boeing crew vehicle.
Has Artemis III been pushed back to 2029 now? I'm sure I read something to that effect somewhere.
Not according to NASA official publications, it's still on for September 2026, a year after the lunar flyby on Artemis II.
Ah - yes, I remember now - I think it was Artemis V I was thinking of. Thank you for correcting!
Agreed. Thanks for taking the time to work through everything and provide a concise essay-style summary - and to the detailed replies!
Really interesting article, thank you!