Author Topic: Ownership rights in space  (Read 23833 times)

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #20 on: 03/21/2015 06:35 am »
Once things are well established, each person would have a specialty to trade with others.

Greason would say, everyone has something they're least bad at.

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2180
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #21 on: 03/21/2015 12:05 pm »
If you don't know it, there is a term in America.  "Forty acres and a mule"

Errr, yeah, and not just off-topic for NSF but probably not something you should casually drop into a conversation without seriously researching.

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2180
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #22 on: 03/21/2015 12:41 pm »
On topic:

I think the OST comes pretty close to perfect, once you ignore the fluffy-bunny sentiments and look at the actual treaty obligations.

1) No traditional national sovereignty. No flag planting claims over an entire body.

2) Sovereignty over your own stuff. And return anything that falls on your country to its original owner.

3) No interference with operations.

4) Assistance in distress. Including allowing astronauts to emergency land on your territory with guaranteed right-of-return to their own nation.

5) No nuclear weapons.

6) A requirement of each space-faring nation to regulate commercial activity in space that originates from their territory.

The bad parts?

1) The fluffy-bunny-speak makes many people think that ownership of processed materials in space is forbidden. (However, IMO, the subsequent Moon Treaty is the "exception that proves the rule" in the strict legal sense; in specifying additional common-ownership/shared-resources measures, it proves that such measures were not part of the OST.)

2) The absoluteness of the no-nukes clause. Limiting it to cis-Earth space would have been sufficient to reduce the Cold War weaponisation of space, without limiting potential future use of nukes as propulsion or tools in deeper space.

Can't do much about Bad Part #2. But as for BP#1, it's worth noting that many treaties and international agreements are defined much more by convention than by strict word-lawyering. So if you don't want the OST to limit space settlement... stop interpreting it as limiting space settlement.

Therefore if a nation's method of "regulating activity in space" is to establish a pseudo-property-rights-by-dint-of-use legal regime without the nation itself claiming any sovereignty, then that becomes the correct interpretation of those clauses. Property rights without national sovereignty.

What I've numbered as 2&6 allow you to claim effective property rights over areas of operation, and what I've numbered as 3 prevents others from claim-jumping or literal undermining. But WINA#1 prevents arbitrary claims over entire regions, areas that aren't part of an operation.

What constitutes an "operation" or an "area under control"? Again, that is where convention trumps a strict letter-of-the-treaty interpretation. Keep it reasonable and it becomes the law.

[This is why it bugs me every time some nerd-obsessive "Internet Lawyer" starts insisting that the OST is terrible for space development. If you make that "the convention", then yes that is what the treaty means. So "shhhhutup, stupid".]

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #23 on: 03/21/2015 03:05 pm »
I know where 40 acres and a mule came from after the Civil War.  However, it is or was common knowledge in America that to provide for a family one needed 40 acres.  Now, on say Mars, how much would one need to provide the family needs and have something to trade or sell.  200 acres?  How much regolith?  What if he staked a claim near a glacier towards one of the pole?  He would have plenty of water ice to sell/trade as well as hydrogen/oxygen. 

Now, when colonies first came to America, they were trading companies.  They funded the set up of colonies in America.  They paid the way of poor people to come to America to make a better life.  I foresee companies like SpaceX funding original colonists.  Eventually they will become independent of Earth and start producing things that space exploration needs like LOX, liquid hydrogen, methane, water, even food grown in greenhouses, and water tanks.  These supplies would be needed to travel beyond Mars to Ceres, the astriods, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.  A stop off at Mars for supplies would be cheaper and easier than carried all the way from earth.  So eventually property rights, and pay for supplies would be needed.  I also see equipment brought from earth the colonists would need to expand their operations traded for the above items.  Eventually some type of property rights and system of government would have to be implemented. 
« Last Edit: 03/21/2015 03:05 pm by spacenut »

Offline nadreck

Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #24 on: 03/21/2015 03:19 pm »
Ok I would like to point out that in the US land claims were handled in a lot of different ways including ones that had no legal standing but ended up being later ratified by the US government. So the largest area allowed to be claimed for free that I know of was 640 acres in Oregon (but it was only being allowed by the provisional government that had no authority, though the US government basically ratified the claims) The largest legitimate claims were 320 acres, and the famous land rush events allowed 160 acre claims.

There is also legal precedence behind squatters rights in early north american settlement, however there are also land grants where people were deemed illegal squatters on lands they had occupied for a generation or more but were forced to move when the recipients of land grants often thousands of acres in size, were equipped and so inclined to move them.

Why I point this out is that I expect that for things to work there will have to be, at different times and in different locations, different rules on how people might claim land. Also there is the issue of who they claim it from.

The first people out there will may well be squatters though, and to a certain extent, especially given the distance between the first people to want to permanently occupy or to set up exploitation and processing equipment at/on a given body and the people who might want to regulate them, those people will get to set their own rules.
« Last Edit: 03/21/2015 03:20 pm by nadreck »
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #25 on: 03/21/2015 03:36 pm »
On the case of weapons in space.  I agree about nukes.  However, what if a nuke is needed to say blast an incoming asteroid that could wipe out a colony?  Also, small arms are not going to fire outside of living quarters because of no oxygen.  In space traditional small arms, even if they could fire, will probably throw someone backwards. 

Offline nadreck

Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #26 on: 03/21/2015 03:40 pm »
On the case of weapons in space.  I agree about nukes.  However, what if a nuke is needed to say blast an incoming asteroid that could wipe out a colony?  Also, small arms are not going to fire outside of living quarters because of no oxygen.  In space traditional small arms, even if they could fire, will probably throw someone backwards.
bullets don't need oxygen or air pressure, in fact guns will have higher muzzle velocities. Recoil would be an issue.

Also a few thousand rounds of ammo fired in the wrong direction would up the odds of a runaway Kessler syndrome in LEO, only fire when pointing in a direction where you end up with the bullets in an orbit that decays fast.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #27 on: 03/21/2015 07:49 pm »
{snip}
What constitutes an "operation" or an "area under control"? Again, that is where convention trumps a strict letter-of-the-treaty interpretation. Keep it reasonable and it becomes the law.


So governments cannot claim sovereignty over land in space but can claim sovereignty over people and corporations. They may be able to grant a person a permit to mine say a 10 hectare (metric) area. Or possibly a permit for a toll road between two towns.

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2180
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #28 on: 03/22/2015 03:00 am »
So governments cannot claim sovereignty over land in space but can claim sovereignty over people and corporations. They may be able to grant a person a permit to mine say a 10 hectare (metric) area. Or possibly a permit for a toll road between two towns.

That's what I believe. And I see it as close to ideal. If you have national sovereignty, you will have land or entire celestial bodies being claimed without any intention to develop them. If you have UN "sovereignty", you will end up with idiot rules like the Moon Treaty.

By separating "sovereignty" from "right of use", you may end up with the best of both worlds.

I know where 40 acres and a mule came from after the Civil War.

Just pointing out that it's not a bear you wake up casually.

However, it is or was common knowledge in America that to provide for a family one needed 40 acres.

It varied wildly depending on the land. The same will be true in space.

(For example, that specific 40 acres from Sherman's order 15 was for captured plantations on the east coast, ie, already improved land. It was not unimproved forest-land, nor western plains land.)

A stop off at Mars for supplies would be cheaper and easier than carried all the way from earth.

Orbital mechanics doesn't work like that. It's different to trips on Earth, where anywhere along the line between two points can serve as a waystation. In space, it's very rare that a spot that happens to be along your path has the right orbital velocity to serve as a waystation. But Mars' surface is even worse, the energy to land and relaunch is essentially wasted. (Mars' only real use is for occasional gravitational slingshots whenever the alignment happens to be right.)

Also, small arms are not going to fire outside of living quarters because of no oxygen.

Like all explosives, gunpowder carries its own oxidiser. Specifically potassium nitrate (saltpeter).

Supposedly the Soviet Salyut-3 (Almaz) space-station/module/thing had an externally mounted anti-aircraft gun for "self defence". It was reportedly fired in space after the crew had left. (Wiki-poo says it wasn't fired earlier due to fear of vibration damaging the station.)

[Interestingly, even rifling will work, being mechanical not aerodynamic. So bullets will be quite accurate once you adjust the sights for the absence of gravity.]

In space traditional small arms, even if they could fire, will probably throw someone backwards.

Need a Gyrojet rocket gun.

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2725
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 992
  • Likes Given: 668
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #29 on: 03/24/2015 10:51 am »
On topic:

I think the OST comes pretty close to perfect, once you ignore the fluffy-bunny sentiments and look at the actual treaty obligations.

1) No traditional national sovereignty. No flag planting claims over an entire body.

2) Sovereignty over your own stuff. And return anything that falls on your country to its original owner.

3) No interference with operations.

4) Assistance in distress. Including allowing astronauts to emergency land on your territory with guaranteed right-of-return to their own nation.

5) No nuclear weapons.

6) A requirement of each space-faring nation to regulate commercial activity in space that originates from their territory.

The bad parts?

1) The fluffy-bunny-speak makes many people think that ownership of processed materials in space is forbidden. (However, IMO, the subsequent Moon Treaty is the "exception that proves the rule" in the strict legal sense; in specifying additional common-ownership/shared-resources measures, it proves that such measures were not part of the OST.)

2) The absoluteness of the no-nukes clause. Limiting it to cis-Earth space would have been sufficient to reduce the Cold War weaponisation of space, without limiting potential future use of nukes as propulsion or tools in deeper space.

First note how article I mentions not only exploration but use of outer space without discrimination of any kind, denoting activities beyond fluffy-bunny-science.

You forgot sovereignty over anything you construct too, mentioned in article VIII. This effectively negates bad part 1.

2 + 3 = de facto homesteading should State Party's national legislation support it.

The nuke article does not prohibit peaceful nuclear activities in outer space, only weapons.
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #30 on: 03/24/2015 11:58 am »
If mining in space ever becomes profitable...

Optimally:

Mining rights are being auctioned and sold to the highest bidders by a global space mining agency. Revenues will be distributed equally to every citizen on planet Earth.

Realistically:

Individual nations will operate and/or protect their own mining companies and fight wars over territory in space.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2015 12:01 pm by Oli »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #31 on: 03/24/2015 12:23 pm »
I don't think there will be mining rights to be sold unless it is agreed on by the UN.  Your Optimally is communistic.  Even if a UN agreement is done, certain countries will not use the money wisely, but for weapons, or to keep their dictator in power.  I don't think there will be an agreement until space becomes crowded. 

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #32 on: 03/24/2015 12:41 pm »
If the UN handled auctioning space mining rights, then the proceeds could go to fund UN operations that would directly benefit individuals, such as disaster relief and refugees. That could help avoid some of the political minefields and actually get the system approved. Remember that it only takes one veto from a permanent security council member to scuttle any proposal.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #33 on: 03/24/2015 12:59 pm »
Your Optimally is communistic.

Not at all. An auction, if it's done properly, will make sure the most efficient mining companies will get the rights. Obviously the revenues generated by mining rights (approx. the value of the resources minus the cost of mining them), belong to the people and nobody else.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2015 01:01 pm by Oli »

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #34 on: 03/24/2015 01:12 pm »
Your Optimally is communistic.

Not at all. An auction, if it's done properly, will make sure the most efficient mining companies will get the rights. Obviously the revenues generated by mining rights (approx. the value of the resources minus the cost of mining them), belong to the people and nobody else.

Under that concept, there had better be a pretty good profit for the mining companies as part of the mining costs or no one would do it.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #35 on: 03/24/2015 01:34 pm »
If the ore, ice, or whatever was mined for in space use so as not to use earth's resources, then to me mining rights wouldn't matter.  Only way I see it could be taxed is if it were brought back to earth.  For instance, if a Mar's colony needs something an asteroid could provide, earth might not even know about what they are doing.  Kind of like America being taxed without representation in the late 1700's. 

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2725
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 992
  • Likes Given: 668
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #36 on: 03/24/2015 01:41 pm »
UN auctioning mining rights is the Moon Treaty leftist fluff and it would be in violation of OST article I ("free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind").

I fail to see how it would benefit outer space exploration or otherwise be "just" to force those few able and willing to take the huge risks in outer space development to pay all other countries royalties, countries most of whom have jack to do with space exploration/usage. UN bureaucracy would gobble up large share of the money, corruption in third world countries the rest. The common people in poor/restless countries would get diddly squat.
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #37 on: 03/24/2015 01:45 pm »
Your Optimally is communistic.

Not at all. An auction, if it's done properly, will make sure the most efficient mining companies will get the rights. Obviously the revenues generated by mining rights (approx. the value of the resources minus the cost of mining them), belong to the people and nobody else.

Under that concept, there had better be a pretty good profit for the mining companies as part of the mining costs or no one would do it.

Well oil companies are the biggest and most profitable in the world (partly because they get good deals when they bribe corrupt government officials of 3th world countries). Ideally, with perfect auction and perfect markets, mining companies could just cover capital (includes dividends) and labor costs.

I fail to see how it would benefit outer space exploration or otherwise be "just" to force those few able and willing to take the huge risks in outer space development to pay all other countries royalties, countries most of whom have jack to do with space exploration/usage. UN bureaucracy would gobble up large share of the money, corruption in third world countries the rest. The common people in poor/restless countries would get diddly squat.

And that's why we'll have a fight over resources. There is no reason for the ones with the guns to share the resources with others, except the others have guns and force them to.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2015 02:09 pm by Oli »

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2725
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 992
  • Likes Given: 668
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #38 on: 03/24/2015 02:18 pm »
There is no reason for the ones with the guns to share the resources with others, except there are others with guns forcing them to.

Apparently all the commodities exchanges in the world didn't get that memo.
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Ownership rights in space
« Reply #39 on: 03/24/2015 02:33 pm »
There is no reason for the ones with the guns to share the resources with others, except there are others with guns forcing them to.

Apparently all the commodities exchanges in the world didn't get that memo.

Those resources aren't being shared, they're being sold. Somebody must enforce property rights.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0