There are two other, very large factors - the cost (energy, fuel, time, human and other resources) of getting the ammunition and the propellant to the battle, and the safety. The fuel to drive the ammo supply ships has to be taken into account. A given ship is expected to be able to carry four times as many rounds of railgun ammunition vs. standard ammunition, eliminating two or three supply runs, and possibly dangerous deliveries between ships in the middle of the ocean. Ammo ships are notoriously bad duty in real wars, and if you look through WWII naval battles it is quite common for the killing blow to a ship having been penetration and detonation of one or more magazines.

From a _systems_ point of view (which is the Navy's POV on this), the cost of railguns will be much less. While at present manufacturing cost of the projectiles is high, it's already competitive with equivalent damage-producing shells. And passive solid tungsten projectiles could become quite cheap once the high precision high volume manufacturing gets in gear.

Not to mention that historically the most dangerous duty in the Navy has been the ammo supply ships. Delivery of ammunition is also one of the most expensive things that Navies have to deal with as well.

It's all about these: F=MA and E=1/2 MV^2. The launcher applies the force over the length of the barrel - say 5 meters, so the acceleration at launch is much, much less than the deceleration on target. The kinetic energy goes up as the square of the velocity, so a projectile impacting at Mach 7 is going to release 49 times the kinetic energy of one impacting at Mach 1, and over a distance of a few inches or even less (e.g. armor plate). That energy has to be dissipated extremely quickly, causing heat, melting and gasification of the projectile and the target, resulting in explosive disassembly and a crater.

Well there is hope. According to at least one economist, the potential availability of resources from space (including materials, information, energy, etc.) could improve the mean standard of living of everyone on Earth by a factor of 10 within 100 years.

No, they're just offering to help US companies avoid conflict with other US companies (where by "US companies" I mean "entities that for whatever reason, whether launching from the US, using US-made vehicles, using US tracking stations, etc."). This doesn't prevent conflict with, say, a Chinese company. But it does establish a useful beginning for cooperation between orbital-capability nations, to jointly prevent conflicts between their respective companies.

Some very good space lawyers disagree with you. Not all, but this is an area of strong debate. (The Moon Treaty was never ratified by any nation with an orbital space capability - I presume you mean the Outer Space Treaty). And what if a corporation is incorporated in one of the several dozen nations that have never signed, or have signed but never ratified?

The FAA presently administers space flight to/from the US already - if you want to launch a rocket with more than small-hobby capability you have to get a permit. You may also have to get NASA to sign off on the equipment to get that permit. So FAA is offering to extend this to provide a reasonable alternative to the 'Wild West' for at least those companies with some US component - residence, launch, tracking, lots of other aspects, IOW almost every rocket flight from almost any country. IMHO it's a reasonable offer.

I foresee other nations establishing a cooperative agreement for each of their aerospace agencies to cooperate in this, taking responsibility for their own parties and working together. In general cooperation has been the case for most space operations - viz. the continued launches of rockets from Russia, carrying satellites from the US and elsewhere despite the various international goings-on. This type of international cooperation is analogous in some ways to the way that patents and other IP rules have gradually evolved to a modicum of international normalization.

Well put, thanks. I'm glad you took the time to write this. BTW - my group (spacefinancegroup.com) is looking for a competent lawyer with space and ITAR knowledge and experience. PM me if that's of interest.

FAA has legitimate authority over anything that flies through the atmosphere, and at least exerts its authority over near-Earth space. It can and does require permits for launching and landing rockets from/to US soil. It also has some authority over US made equipment flown anywhere. Until it is feasible, and in fact common, for space 'inhabitants' to get along without any dependence on Earth, Earth authorities will have some level of control/

It could also be the beginning of a fairly useful cooperative agreement between the major/all spacefaring countries to apply such enforcement in a cooperative way, much as patent law has gradually evolved to be more or less workable. The biggest counter argument is when national interest conflicts, such as the present situation in the South China Sea. But in this way it may be that the wording of the Outer Space Treaty could actually turn out to be beneficial. Since no nation can 'own' anything in space, but they all agree that (as one major interpretation of the wording says) private entities can, all these nations could find it beneficial to work together to avoid conflicts between their respective private parties.

This is an area of unsettled law. The wording of the Outer Space Treaty did not contemplate non-governmental entities. It also leaves ambiguous the status of material removed from a body. Some experts believe that because every corporation is a creation of a government, the prohibition on possession governments extends to corporations. Others disagree, leaving it open for corporations to take ownership. If there is no ownership, then the other ambiguity implies that, while nobody can establish, for example, a mining claim, any material removed and processed does belong to the miner. This could create a 'Wild West' scenario where protection of a mine requires the miner to exert whatever force is required.

In the long run, most folks whether libertarian or otherwise, believe that as soon as it is feasible to operate in space without the need for constant replenishment from Earth, the legal system will fairly rapidly evolve to a pure space-based law, established and managed by those who live in space. I.e. a new revolution. The best way to prevent that would be for Earth authority to have a very light hand, and to emphasize the advantages of things like a single mine registry. Corporations, all other things being equal, generally prefer a stable and reliable legal and economic structure within which to work. But such an authority would not have any teeth to enforce, unless there is a fleet capable of arriving at any necessary locale and exerting the necessary enforcement activity.

Two and three engine planes are quite safe, but I suppose the President's plane is more likely to be the subject of hostile action that could take out one or more engines. Also I would think that the Secret Service would not want the President's plane to have to land suddenly at an unexpected emergency airport, which is generally OK for everyone else.

Most of what was in the Patriot Act was already in force under the War on Drugs, for use against Evil Drug Lords - wiretapping, etc. The Patriot Act just expanded those provisions into a much larger portion of society. IIRC, that is.

So this raises the question, "what if I use a VPN just to route around the snooping, domain-snatching, ad-insertion and cookie shenanigans that my ISP is perpetrating?"

That is the essential difference between the Stasi (East German Secret Police) and what some in the NSA want to do. The Stasi had to work with paper and actual human informants.

Hmm. Tests by a Navy cyber defense unit back around 1999 showed that the average cost of getting a poor SOB sysadmin into allowing physical access to a Fortune 500 server room was around $7000. Which ties back to an XKCD cartoon - "Let's use this $5 hammer to beat on his head until he gives us the password." So we convince poor SOB to allow us to put a tiny camera into his glasses to watch while he types.