Some uninformed speculation:Since it is well known that NASA is currently developing plans to explore space beyond low earth orbit, is it possible that the subject of this thread is simply an offer by a consortium of private companies to provide an affordable lunar landing mission? In other words, is it possible that the customer is NASA?
Quote from: Danderman on 11/17/2012 04:05 pmSome uninformed speculation:Since it is well known that NASA is currently developing plans to explore space beyond low earth orbit, is it possible that the subject of this thread is simply an offer by a consortium of private companies to provide an affordable lunar landing mission? In other words, is it possible that the customer is NASA?NASA money is as green as anybody else's. Only problem is it comes with lots of strings attached...
Maybe I am wrong, but so far on the moon--NASA has brought back stuff and guess who it belongs to?? NASA. So if a company brought back stuff--guess who it would belong to--the company. As they possession is 9/10ths of the law. Even if someone were to try and claim a companies--what agruement would they use? I could see a company building a small habitat, processing metals and then claiming x square miles for there development--who would stop them? No-one. :-) The treaties do not say anything about not allowing private ownership.
If I had time in the next few weeks, I'd write a screenplay based largely on this thread, and film it quick and low budget with some friends. So the dominion of space comes down to a race between private industry (individual incentive) and China (communal incentive). ?Some themes change in guise over time, but remain the same at the core.Want to come with me to buy a trillion barrel bitumen deposit I recently discovered? Individual incentive is under-estimated as a creativity impellor imo.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 11/17/2012 08:03 amQuote from: robertross on 11/16/2012 11:48 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 11/16/2012 10:56 pmHelium-3? Why?I know, I'm having a hard time trying to see them justify a commercial endeavour centered around He3.There is a big part of me inside thinking that something WAS found on the moon, something worth persuing, and this is the attempt to lay claim on it....I keep telling you guys:THERE'S GOLD IN THEM THAR CRATERS!!!It's not quite commercially viable to bring gold back from the moon, nor Platinum. Now something like Iridium - maybe, but there has to be an absolute use & need for it, perhaps a new technology, that would be worth while.
Quote from: robertross on 11/16/2012 11:48 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 11/16/2012 10:56 pmHelium-3? Why?I know, I'm having a hard time trying to see them justify a commercial endeavour centered around He3.There is a big part of me inside thinking that something WAS found on the moon, something worth persuing, and this is the attempt to lay claim on it....I keep telling you guys:THERE'S GOLD IN THEM THAR CRATERS!!!
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/16/2012 10:56 pmHelium-3? Why?I know, I'm having a hard time trying to see them justify a commercial endeavour centered around He3.There is a big part of me inside thinking that something WAS found on the moon, something worth persuing, and this is the attempt to lay claim on it....
Helium-3? Why?
Quote from: rcoppola on 11/17/2012 04:05 pmI'd like to see the 1967 treaty challenged and amended. If you allow private rights to certain resources, it will make the 1960s space race look like 2 guys racing go-carts. IMO...Most unlikely to happen. That treaty was signed for one main reason: To save money for the state by removing all incentive to invest in space...In the current climate of austerity, getting rid of a treaty whose main reason was to save money is the last thing on any politician's mind. And private enterprise does not make or break international treaties.
I'd like to see the 1967 treaty challenged and amended. If you allow private rights to certain resources, it will make the 1960s space race look like 2 guys racing go-carts. IMO...
Quote from: HIP2BSQRE on 11/17/2012 05:00 pmMaybe I am wrong, but so far on the moon--NASA has brought back stuff and guess who it belongs to?? NASA. So if a company brought back stuff--guess who it would belong to--the company. As they possession is 9/10ths of the law. Even if someone were to try and claim a companies--what agruement would they use? I could see a company building a small habitat, processing metals and then claiming x square miles for there development--who would stop them? No-one. :-) The treaties do not say anything about not allowing private ownership.Actually, the treaty is rather explicit with regards to "claiming x square miles for their development". See Article II:"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."I would submit that "National" would be extended to Private. I'd like to see it make a clear distinction between national and private. Which is why it needs to be amended for today's possibilities, not the 1960s.
Quote from: aquanaut99 on 11/17/2012 04:20 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 11/17/2012 04:05 pmI'd like to see the 1967 treaty challenged and amended. If you allow private rights to certain resources, it will make the 1960s space race look like 2 guys racing go-carts. IMO...Most unlikely to happen. That treaty was signed for one main reason: To save money for the state by removing all incentive to invest in space...In the current climate of austerity, getting rid of a treaty whose main reason was to save money is the last thing on any politician's mind. And private enterprise does not make or break international treaties.The 1967 Outer Space Treaty provides for private property rights as currently written. Companies like Planetary Resources are fully aware of this, and will conduct their business under the treaty.To attempt to change the treaty would cause uncertainty in the industry, which is not a good thing.
Quote from: Danderman on 11/17/2012 06:28 pmQuote from: aquanaut99 on 11/17/2012 04:20 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 11/17/2012 04:05 pmI'd like to see the 1967 treaty challenged and amended. If you allow private rights to certain resources, it will make the 1960s space race look like 2 guys racing go-carts. IMO...Most unlikely to happen. That treaty was signed for one main reason: To save money for the state by removing all incentive to invest in space...In the current climate of austerity, getting rid of a treaty whose main reason was to save money is the last thing on any politician's mind. And private enterprise does not make or break international treaties.The 1967 Outer Space Treaty provides for private property rights as currently written. Companies like Planetary Resources are fully aware of this, and will conduct their business under the treaty.To attempt to change the treaty would cause uncertainty in the industry, which is not a good thing.That's interesting, perhaps I missed it. Can you point me to where it specifically provides for private property ownership? Specifically, my ability to own and manage an actual parcel of celestial land?
That's interesting, perhaps I missed it. Can you point me to where it specifically provides for private property ownership? Specifically, my ability to own and manage an actual parcel of celestial land?
property rights ... It's not a sexy part of this conversation, but it is an extremely important one.
I think, at least for now, no one is expecting any commercial lunar exploitation to be (much) cheaper than doing it on the Earth. What Golden Spike are probably trying to do is prove the viability of non-governmental routine access to the Moon. If they can demonstrate a four-stop 'lunar railroad' (Earth, LEO, EML-2, Moon) then investors will be a lot more interested in funding the engineers and scientists who claim there are commercially viable lunar resources.The original infrastructure will likely only be used for a half-dozen or so lunar missions of which I suspect only three or four will be surface sorties. However, if it demonstrates the viability of the concept, others will look a lot more closely at the concept than they are right now. The designs and procedures will be in place to assemble a new 'rail-road' when the funded applications are ready to go. Optimistically, NASA might even end up buying/leasing the original completed infrastructure to accelerate its own lunar missions.This isn't as much "If you build it, they will come" as it is "if you build, it, they'll actually seriously think of why they would want to go". From such thinking would investment in lunar applications follow.
I'm not so much confusing them as I am pointing out that this treaty provides very little legal or regulatory guidance for what's coming.Namely, the method for which a private company or citizen could purchase land rights and usage that can, at any time in the future, be sold or rented to another commercial or Govt entity. Among many other issues.
Look guys, we can go on for pages and pages and pages over this. It's already been done in numerous threads.
This isn't as much "If you build it, they will come" as it is "if you build, it, they'll actually seriously think of why they would want to go". From such thinking would investment in lunar applications follow.