Space Homesteading Paper

[jongoff]

Here's an interesting paper by Rand Simberg and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (a free-market think-tank) on an approach to establishing clear space homesteading and property rights in a way that's compatible with the Outer Space Treaty:

http://cei.org/issue-analysis/homesteading-final-frontier

http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Rand%20Simberg%20-%20Homesteading%20the%20Final%20Frontier.pdf

While I don't agree with everything in the analysis, it seems like an interesting approach to enabling commercial development of off-earth resources.

Thoughts?

~Jon

[jongoff]

Mr. Simberg states, at the outset, that "new space transportation companies are driving down the cost of accessing space". 

Are they, really?

There is some definite newspace optimism in the paper, however I wanted to discuss the actual meat of the paper...since we already have a half kazillion threads on here about whether newspace is going to revolutionize the cost of getting people and things to space.

~Jon

[A_M_Swallow]

Mr. Simberg states, at the outset, that "new space transportation companies are driving down the cost of accessing space". 

Are they, really? 

 - Ed Kyle

Yes.

Each Shuttle flight is estimated to have cost $0.7 to $1.5 billion.

The Russians are believed to be increasing the price per seat to $60 million.
For 6 people that is 6 * $60M = $360 million.

SpaceX has agreed to make 12 cargo flights to the ISS for $1.6 billion.  That is 1600M / 12 = $134 million per flight

If manned flights are twice that (pessimistic) and have 6 passengers then the price per passenger is
2 * $134 / 6 = $44.7 million

[A_M_Swallow]

Homesteaders need criminal law as property rights to protect them.  A treaty permitting creation of a legislative body able to ban murder, rape, theft etc. is needed.  Powers to create courts, police and levy taxes will also be needed.  This body with powers over the Moon could also register people's property.

[mrmandias]

Without even reading the paper, the most interesting part of this is that its coming from CEI, not from a group of us"fringe crazies" like the Space Frontier Foundation.

CEI isn't THE leading conservative think tank, but its a well-respected player that's well within the Republican and especially conservative political mainstream.

So this paper is good news for two reasons.  One, it takes an important step to legitimizing space land claims (much, much, much remains to be done, admittedly).  Two, and probably more important, it is a big step in getting Republicans to quit doffing their free market hats when they put their space hats on.  If in a few years down the line Republican congressmen stop talking so much about the evils of competition in space, mission accomplished.

[Jim Davis]

Thoughts?

This is the sort of thing that brings space advocacy down to the level of scams like naming stars after people or selling deeds to lunar land plots.

From the proposal:

A proposed law requiring the United States to recognize land claims off planet under specified conditions offers the possibility of legal, tradable land titles, allowing the land to be used as loan collateral or an asset to be sold to raise funds needed to develop it.

This would be a de facto assertion of sovereignty on the part of the US if it were to pass such a law. It is inconceivable that any other signatory to the Outer Space Treaty would view it in any other light. It brings about the very situation that the treaty was designed to avoid.

 

[IRobot]

This argument is severely flawed. There is no lack of "space" or raw materials. You can mine the moon at will for the next 200 years without reaching a point where land claim is important!

Nobody would invest now on land purchases on a thing that will become (remotely possible) valuable in the next 200 years!
The only organisms that invest in +50y business are pension funds. If a critical mass could be reached, this could easily degenerate to a speculative market, like the stamp collection scam in Spain some years ago.

This is all a SCAM to keep lawyers busy and fool's money flowing.

[ChileVerde]

Here's an interesting paper by Rand Simberg and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (a free-market think-tank) on an approach to establishing clear space homesteading and property rights in a way that's compatible with the Outer Space Treaty:

http://cei.org/issue-analysis/homesteading-final-frontier

I have a great amount of respect for Rand Simberg as someone who has a long track record of sanity in issues of space policy, but here I'm going to dissent.

What the executive summary says is,

While new space transportation companies are driving down the cost of accessing space, development of the space frontier will continue to be held back, as it has for decades, by the lack of clear off-planet property rights. Without them, it is difficult to raise funds for extraterrestrial ventures, despite the abundant resources on the Moon and on asteroids, including metals with high value on Earth.

I'd edit that to say,

While new space transportation companies are driving down the cost of accessing space, development of the space frontier will continue to be held back, as it has for decades, by the lack of any identifiable profits to be had on the frontier due to the cost of space flight:  the business case doesn't close.  Without identifiable profits and a persuasive business case even if property rights weren't involved, the issue of property rights is moot.

[QuantumG]

Unlike, I suspect, most other responders here - I actually read the paper. The lynchpin concept is that the Outer Space Treaty does not prohibit the legal recognition of private occupation and improvement claims, so long as the nationality of the claimant is not a consideration. Simply, it is preposterous to equate legal recognition of a foreign land claim with sovereign appropriation, which is what the OST prohibits. The US, and most English common law based legal systems, already has mechanisms for private individuals to make occupation and improvement claims outside their national borders, the paper merely suggests legislation that makes it explicit that these laws apply to claims made on other celestial bodies, explicitly defining the extent of a legal claim, and disclaiming the military defense of those claims.

I recommend actually reading the paper, it's a good application of international law.
 

[Robotbeat]

Here's an interesting paper by Rand Simberg and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (a free-market think-tank) on an approach to establishing clear space homesteading and property rights in a way that's compatible with the Outer Space Treaty:

http://cei.org/issue-analysis/homesteading-final-frontier

I have a great amount of respect for Rand Simberg as someone who has a long track record of sanity in issues of space policy, but here I'm going to dissent.

What the executive summary says is,

While new space transportation companies are driving down the cost of accessing space, development of the space frontier will continue to be held back, as it has for decades, by the lack of clear off-planet property rights. Without them, it is difficult to raise funds for extraterrestrial ventures, despite the abundant resources on the Moon and on asteroids, including metals with high value on Earth.

I'd edit that to say,

While new space transportation companies are driving down the cost of accessing space, development of the space frontier will continue to be held back, as it has for decades, by the lack of any identifiable profits to be had on the frontier due to the cost of space flight:  the business case doesn't close.  Without identifiable profits and a persuasive business case even if property rights weren't involved, the issue of property rights is moot.

+1. (Though I'd point out that there are some profitable traditional niches, like comm sats.)

[jongoff]

Jim,

Out of curiosity, did you actually bother reading the whole paper? Because he answered those concerns pretty clearly I thought.

~Jon

Thoughts?

This is the sort of thing that brings space advocacy down to the level of scams like naming stars after people or selling deeds to lunar land plots.

From the proposal:

A proposed law requiring the United States to recognize land claims off planet under specified conditions offers the possibility of legal, tradable land titles, allowing the land to be used as loan collateral or an asset to be sold to raise funds needed to develop it.

This would be a de facto assertion of sovereignty on the part of the US if it were to pass such a law. It is inconceivable that any other signatory to the Outer Space Treaty would view it in any other light. It brings about the very situation that the treaty was designed to avoid.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

Controversial.

{snip}
This is all a SCAM to keep lawyers busy and fool's money flowing.

Property rights are the basis of English liberties and wealth.  Treat them with great respect.

Many Palestinians did not get their claim to their farms and property in writing and registered with the government.  The Israelis bent the law to take the land.  See this article.
http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman070110.htm

Some one will do the same on the Moon.

[mrmandias]

Thoughts?

This is the sort of thing that brings space advocacy down to the level of scams like naming stars after people or selling deeds to lunar land plots.

From the proposal:

A proposed law requiring the United States to recognize land claims off planet under specified conditions offers the possibility of legal, tradable land titles, allowing the land to be used as loan collateral or an asset to be sold to raise funds needed to develop it.

This would be a de facto assertion of sovereignty on the part of the US if it were to pass such a law. It is inconceivable that any other signatory to the Outer Space Treaty would view it in any other light. It brings about the very situation that the treaty was designed to avoid.

 

That stuff about a scam is completely uncalled for.  I'll address you substantive points, but not your namecalling.

1.  I disagree.  As a lawyer, my view is that the issue is nowhere near the clearcut.  I don't think its as clearcut as Simberg says either, but he does a fair job of presenting arguments from the other side.  If I had to choose, I'd say his side has the better of the argument.

2.  Most other nations would disagree, true, but unless there disagreement would be warlike, that probably doesn't matter much.  That does make it politically unlikely but it doesn't affect the legal analysis.

[gbaikie]

Here's an interesting paper by Rand Simberg and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (a free-market think-tank) on an approach to establishing clear space homesteading and property rights in a way that's compatible with the Outer Space Treaty:

http://cei.org/issue-analysis/homesteading-final-frontier

http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Rand%20Simberg%20-%20Homesteading%20the%20Final%20Frontier.pdf

While I don't agree with everything in the analysis, it seems like an interesting approach to enabling commercial development of off-earth resources.

Thoughts?

~Jon

I think to "allow" an entity to own land, a party should doing something that is improving the land in some fashion. Occupying it, and using the land fits what I mean. And so the paper seems pretty good to me.

I don't think it worsen it, to allow different sizes of land. In other words if someone claim lunar land I think there should reason why large areas of land are needed.
How put it into law is a problem.
One could have provisional grant, which reviewed in 10 or 20 year period, and if the large area of land is being sold and being used, then it becomes permanent.
So at point of granting, one submit your grant. One has limit to how land one can get [as said in paper]. But also in the grant one provides 3 possible future uses of land- a small use of land, medium, and the whole land parcel. Basically a business plan- how the land is used. One though free to say that at moment it's not known- and basically will find out in time.
And you have the provisional grant extended, indefinitely. And revised or not.

But to make it permanent it needs to go thru some process which ends with some kind "committee stamp of approval". And it might be easier to get that stamp of approval on more defined smaller parcel.
There no reason to think the provisional grant is inferior- other than one needs to fill in paperwork every decade or 2.
And permanent could merely a pat on the back, and show of confident, a gold star or it's good thing- "hey, you some city planning, and you made some nice park areas". And the permanent grant could very well be a measure of the committee rather than the party seeking the grant.

Edit: perhaps permanent grant would allow recognized government of some sort.

[Jim Davis]

Out of curiosity, did you actually bother reading the whole paper?

Jon, are you just being insulting or do you really imagine that the proposal is so well thought out and well reasoned that any disagreement must be the knee jerk reaction of someone who never bothered to read it? 

Because he answered those concerns pretty clearly I thought.

He answered them clearly, sure. Effectively, not so much. It's hard to imagine any nation not seeing this as an abrogation of the Outer Space Treaty.

The passing of laws regarding land ownership is the prerogative of a sovereign power. The proposal brings about the very situation it was designed to prevent - conflict over extraterrestrial bodies.

Do you or anyone really imagine that other nations would meekly acquiesce if the US were to implement this proposal?