Author Topic: How Plausible is Chinese Annexation of Territory on the Moon?  (Read 19127 times)

Offline Warren Platts

Professor John Hickman just sent me a copy of his latest article. I think it's an excellent analysis. With his permission, I've added a link here.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14777622.2012.656544

Quote from: Abstract
This article argues that a hypothetical decision by the People's Republic of China to assert territorial sovereignty over the area surrounding its planned manned Moon base is plausible. Enhanced international prestige in the near term and access to natural resources and strategic military positions in the long term may be sufficient temptations for China's leaders to challenge the United States to a twenty-first century space race. Strategic surprise could be successfully employed, given the opacity of Chinese decision-making; the conceptual blindness of external observers, including decision-makers, analysts, and academics; and China's repeatedly demonstrated capacity for executing military or diplomatic surprises of comparable magnitude. The ability of signatory states to withdraw from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty with one-year's notice means that international law only poses a temporary obstacle to such a decision. A manned Moon base would fulfill the condition of effective occupation necessary for territorial sovereignty under international law. An international relations constructivist approach discourages consideration of the advantages to states of territorial aggrandizement or the weakness of international law in restraining the behavior of states.
Astropolitics: The International Journal of Space Politics & Policy, Volume 10, Issue 1, 2012

When it comes to the Moon, the operative directive is going to be: "Use it, or lose it."

IMHO
YMMV
« Last Edit: 05/12/2012 12:36 pm by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 338
Thanks for posting.

The phrase "conceptual blindness of external observers" strikes to the heart of NASA's failure to accomplish a lunar base or even BEO flight in the last forty years.  The external observers would be our policy makers, largely in the executive and legislative branches.  Internal observers would be in NASA management here and there.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32546
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11333
  • Likes Given: 334
the sky is falling to

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8828
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5886
  • Likes Given: 1990
People are getting way too worked up about 'the Chinese are gonna claim the moon'. So, what is the big deal if they do?
Answer: no big deal. There is nothing of strategic value on the moon. At most it would gain China one heck of a lot of international prestige. And that's what they are headed for anyway. They are THE up-and-coming nation on Earth, likely to be eclipsed some time there after by India.

Now I can hear some people shout: "There is water on the moon!" Yeah, so..?
The expense it will take to establish a moon-base, set up a mining operation to extract water or whatever stuff from the lunar soil will, in the end, be so incredibly large that even China can not afford to do so for any extended period of time.

Now I can hear some other people shout: "China will militarize the moon and use it as a weapons platform against their enemies on earth!!"
Oh please....  ::)  delivering a weapon to any location on earth is best done NOT from the moon. It would make one heck of an expensive weapon... think of it: first have the weapon transported to the moon, than have it fly all the way back to a certain target on earth? So much for a surprise attack. Whatever the target on earth will be, it will have at least one full day to see the weapon coming and do something about it.

And I don't want to hear the laser argument either. Any laser firing on an Earthly target from the moon can easibly be targeted itself by Earth-bound lasers.

These constant warnings about the supposed lunar colonization plans of China are the direct result of fear. The fear that lives within predominantly within the USA that they will be surpassed by China.
Too late. That' gonna happen with or without China colonizing the moon. Just a few years from now China will pass the USA as the worlds largest economy.


Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 338
Quote from: Jim
The sky is falling to...

...to where? The ground?

Quote from: woods
(1) People are getting way too worked up about 'the Chinese are gonna claim the moon'. So, what is the big deal if they do?

Answer: no big deal. (2) There is nothing of strategic value on the moon. At most it would gain China ... international prestige. ... (3) They ... likely to be eclipsed some time there after by India.

Now I can hear some people shout: "There is water on the moon!" Yeah, so..? (4)
The expense (5) it will take to establish a moon-base ... will, in the end, be so incredibly large that even China can not afford to do so for any extended period of time.

Now I can hear some other people shout: (6) "China will militarize the moon ..."

Oh please....  (7) delivering a weapon to any location on earth is best done NOT from the moon. ...

And I don't want to hear the laser argument either. (8) Any laser firing on an Earthly target from the moon can easibly be targeted itself by Earth-bound lasers.

(9) These constant warnings about the supposed lunar colonization plans of China are the direct result of fear. ...

(1) That they are.

(2) Yes, there is, since the Moon is the high ground in the current theater.  The high ground is only of utility if you can actually use it.  Since nobody can at the moment, it is not being used as the high ground.

(3) Which remains to be seen, as does remain whether or not China will eclipse the US.

(4) As to expense, if an engineer in one economy makes $100K, and an equivalent engineer in another economy makes $10K, then the second economy will have less of an engineering expense.  Who knows what that equivalency is, since engineering talent is also affected by political freedom in some stereotypical ways, not all of which are well understood.

(5) Even so, it won't be cheap.

(6) They way they act here on Earth is not likely to change on the Moon, so the military option is not off the table for their policymakers.

(7) Conceptual blindness can be so strong that when a vetted, trusted report crosses the President's desk that fuel laden passenger aircraft can be readily converted into intelligently guided bombs, the report can be ignored.  Who knows what such a weapon might look like, or what could be its feasibility?  Certainly the cognitively dissonant mind can hold that in this case there will be no technological advancement, but in another case, technological advancement can be counted on with certainty.

(8) You got that right.

(9) And that one too.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2012 12:01 am by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13113
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4368
  • Likes Given: 796
How plausible is it?  Not. 

Think about this question for about 2 seconds.  Then ask why China would want to do something outrageous like this that would antagonize the world - its economic customers.

At any rate, it is one thing to claim something.  It is something else to actually "own" it.  It is yet another thing to have the claim recognized by all of the world's other powerful nations, which would be necessary to "own" the claim. 

Right now China is developing a Delta 4 Heavy-class rocket (which the U.S. already has) while the U.S. is developing a rocket that will launch three to four times as much mass.  Control of assets in space, if it turned into a contest, would ultimately come down to which contestant could orbit the most mass in a given time frame.   

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/11/2012 09:19 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Warren Platts

What's so implausible about claiming territory on the Moon? NASA has already done it: NASA has declared no-go zones around some of its Apollo landing sites, and placed regulations on movement within the rest of them. China would only be following the precedent started by the USA.

As for the OST, it actually allows for the declaration of "safety zones". Remember? But it doesn't specify how big (or small) these must be. I figure a permanently manned facility is going to be very expensive: they won't want to take a chance of anything crashing into it. With NASA using "crasher" stages, which seems to be the main design at this point, I suspect that the Chinese would want to declare a pretty big safety zone in order to feel safe. So they wouldn't even have to withdraw from the OST to capture all the strategic resources.

And even if they did withdraw from the OST in order to claim regions around a permanently manned base, what of it? The US couldn't complain very loudly considering that the previous Bush administration came very close to withdrawing from the OST: the thinking at the time was that there were bigger fish to fry, and that little would be gained by withdrawing at that time: but the converse of that line of reasoning is that the US would withdraw from the OST if it were decided that withdrawal was in the selfish self-interest of the US. Therefore, there isn't much ground to complain if China withdraws.

Would the USA go to war in space over the Moon. Not hardly. Would it start a trade war? I highly doubt. Would it default on all its T-bills. That's more likely, but China claiming all or part of the Moon won't precipitate that.

And why should anyone complain at all anyways? If China goes to the trouble to set up a permanently manned base on the Moon while the USA pursues more literal navel gazing in LEO, then the Chinese deserve the Moon. Neither the US nor anyone else would have the right to complain about what rightfully belongs to China under international law.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Warren Platts

There is nothing of strategic value on the moon.

People said the same thing about Alaska when US went about buying that place. Guess what? They were proved wrong. In addition to vast volatile deposits, there are also likely vast electrostatic placer deposits of valuable metals that people are only dimly aware of at the present time.

Quote
Now I can hear some people shout: "There is water on the moon!" Yeah, so..?

The expense it will take to establish a moon-base, set up a mining operation to extract water or whatever stuff from the lunar soil will, in the end, be so incredibly large that even China can not afford to do so for any extended period of time.

How do you know this to be true? Did you read the Spudis and Lavoie paper? They describe a base capable of producing useful amounts of rocket propellant that could be constructed for about $86 billion USD, no heavy lift required.

Quote
Now I can hear some other people shout: "China will militarize the moon and use it as a weapons platform against their enemies on earth!!"

Oh please....  ::)  delivering a weapon to any location on earth is best done NOT from the moon. It would make one heck of an expensive weapon... think of it: first have the weapon transported to the moon, than have it fly all the way back to a certain target on earth? So much for a surprise attack.

The Moon wouldn't be used as a missile platform: it would be used as a manufacturing platform. Think about it this way: the first step will be to produce rocket fuel. Then they will refine some metals. Then it's a small step building some kind of factory on the Moon.

Now, the holy grail of space weaponry would be a full spectrum missile defense system that would provide complete control of the upper atmosphere and Earth-orbit up to GEO and possibly beyond.

The US looked very hard at this concept back in the  day. The consensus was that a large constellation of 100,000 satellites (Brilliant Pebbles) could actually deliver a such a full-spectrum missile defense system. The problem was launch costs: they figured it would cost many trillions of USD to deploy such a system.

That's why SDIO was heavily involved in researching ways to radically bring down the cost of launching to LEO, e.g., Delta Clipper and other systems.

But what if a space power had a satellite manufacturing facility on the Moon? Combined with Lunar propellant and reusable Lunar landers, the launch costs for such a system would be practically for free. After all, isn't that the same argument used for space based power systems (SBSP)? SBSP is a neat idea, but all proposals get eaten up by launch costs: one proposed solution is to get the materials from the Moon: by parity of reasoning, a massive Brilliant Pebbles system would also benefit greatly if its parts could be manufactured on the Moon.

The US would be presented with a big, fat strategic surprise. It would be forced to respond in kind, but with having to launch all its assets from Earth rather than the Moon, it will be at a major cost disadvantage. Combine this with the fact that at the time this all goes down, China will have a larger GDP than the US. The US simply wouldn't be able to compete: it will be in the same predicament that the USSR found itself in when Ronald Reagan was president. They'll be able to spend us into the ground.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32546
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11333
  • Likes Given: 334
What's so implausible about claiming territory on the Moon? NASA has already done it: NASA has declared no-go zones around some of its Apollo landing sites, and placed regulations on movement within the rest of them.

Invalid argument.

Those stay out zones are only for NASA sponsored missions.  Has no bearing internationally

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32546
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11333
  • Likes Given: 334
There is nothing of strategic value on the moon.

People said the same thing about Alaska when US went about buying that place. Guess what? They were proved wrong. In addition to vast volatile deposits, there are also likely vast electrostatic placer deposits of valuable metals that people are only dimly aware of at the present time.

Quote
Now I can hear some people shout: "There is water on the moon!" Yeah, so..?

The expense it will take to establish a moon-base, set up a mining operation to extract water or whatever stuff from the lunar soil will, in the end, be so incredibly large that even China can not afford to do so for any extended period of time.

How do you know this to be true? Did you read the Spudis and Lavoie paper? They describe a base capable of producing useful amounts of rocket propellant that could be constructed for about $86 billion USD, no heavy lift required.

Quote
Now I can hear some other people shout: "China will militarize the moon and use it as a weapons platform against their enemies on earth!!"

Oh please....  ::)  delivering a weapon to any location on earth is best done NOT from the moon. It would make one heck of an expensive weapon... think of it: first have the weapon transported to the moon, than have it fly all the way back to a certain target on earth? So much for a surprise attack.

The Moon wouldn't be used as a missile platform: it would be used as a manufacturing platform. Think about it this way: the first step will be to produce rocket fuel. Then they will refine some metals. Then it's a small step building some kind of factory on the Moon.

Now, the holy grail of space weaponry would be a full spectrum missile defense system that would provide complete control of the upper atmosphere and Earth-orbit up to GEO and possibly beyond.

The US looked very hard at this concept back in the  day. The consensus was that a large constellation of 100,000 satellites (Brilliant Pebbles) could actually deliver a such a full-spectrum missile defense system. The problem was launch costs: they figured it would cost many trillions of USD to deploy such a system.

That's why SDIO was heavily involved in researching ways to radically bring down the cost of launching to LEO, e.g., Delta Clipper and other systems.

But what if a space power had a satellite manufacturing facility on the Moon? Combined with Lunar propellant and reusable Lunar landers, the launch costs for such a system would be practically for free. After all, isn't that the same argument used for space based power systems (SBSP)? SBSP is a neat idea, but all proposals get eaten up by launch costs: one proposed solution is to get the materials from the Moon: by parity of reasoning, a massive Brilliant Pebbles system would also benefit greatly if its parts could be manufactured on the Moon.

The US would be presented with a big, fat strategic surprise. It would be forced to respond in kind, but with having to launch all its assets from Earth rather than the Moon, it will be at a major cost disadvantage. Combine this with the fact that at the time this all goes down, China will have a larger GDP than the US. The US simply wouldn't be able to compete: it will be in the same predicament that the USSR found itself in when Ronald Reagan was president. They'll be able to spend us into the ground.


Nothing but scaremongering and bovine excrement.  Not one bit of reality in that post.

Offline Warren Platts

That's a brilliant analysis Jim. Thanks!  :P
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline tigerade

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Low Earth Orbit
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 36
In my opinion, if China can make it to the moon, they can do whatever they want when they get there.

Offline Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 76
If the entire Standing Committee suddenly and unanimously lose their minds and decide that their current policy of seeking to curb international concerns about China's rise is best achieved by randomly declaring that they are the Imperial Lords of the Moon, then this is plausible.

Otherwise, it is not.
"It’s the typical binary world of 'NASA is great' or 'cancel the space program,' with no nuance or understanding of the underlying issues and pathologies of the space industrial complex."

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
  • Liked: 293
  • Likes Given: 39
In our lifetime, China is not going to land people on the moon, so what do we worry about here?

Online MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4532
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1279
  • Likes Given: 2486
People who make absolute statements - 'never In our lifetime' etcetera - about geopolitical or historical futures usually end up absolutely wrong.

China will go to the Moon, IF they want to. But will they?

Even though I strongly suspect they are in no hurry, I strongly believe they will.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2012 07:38 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 67
Limited resources on the moon?

What exactly is China going to build the grandest space program of all time for?

Just so they can annex a bit of water and gold in a dark crater?

Is this their public policy?

Lets see China build a rocket in the "moonshot" class before getting worried about losing all that precious crater ice.

I'm trying to compare China to NASA in the early 60s and I just don't see it.

Their capability to even do an Apollo type mission any time soon is greatly overestimated.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 338
Control of assets in space, if it turned into a contest, would ultimately come down to which contestant could orbit the most mass in a given time frame.

Exactly.  One of the reasons the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor was to reduce the amount of mass we could send to that theater.  They underestimated our ability to create new mass and new delivery systems.

The US looked very hard at (Brilliant Pebbles) back in the  day. ...such a full-spectrum missile defense system. The problem was launch costs: they figured it would cost many trillions of USD to deploy such a system. ...

The US would be presented with a big, fat strategic surprise. ...

Future President Paul probably would put it this way:

"We had no idea what the Chinese were doing, with a hundred launches a year for the last decade, due to the entirely coincidental failure of our access to our satellites and the internet.  We were completely surprised to hear about what the Chinese accomplished on the Moon."
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Warren Platts

Lets see China build a rocket in the "moonshot" class before getting worried about losing all that precious crater ice.

I'm trying to compare China to NASA in the early 60s and I just don't see it.

Their capability to even do an Apollo type mission any time soon is greatly overestimated.

I'd be more worried if they start working on cryogenic fuel transfer and storage capability than if they start work on an BFR. As the ULA depot-based architecture demonstrates, HLV's are not necessary for an aggressive and sustainable Moon program that would include a permanently manned base. If they're smart, they'll do what NASA did right and leapfrog the mistakes and sidetracks....
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8781
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3786
  • Likes Given: 892
Their capability to even do an Apollo type mission any time soon is greatly overestimated.

Actually, that appears to be the way they're going.. which suggests they won't be doing anything after that, just like Apollo.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 67
Heavy Lift rockets and fuel depot technology?

Both will cost heaps and one has not been done before.

China has their own version of ULA and Rocketdyne do they?

All I'm seeing is a few medium class UDMH powered rockets.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8781
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3786
  • Likes Given: 892
All I'm seeing is a few medium class UDMH powered rockets.

If they have any sense they'll keep it that way, and forget about the heavy lift. Storable propellant buildup at EML1 is a lot more scalable than a big rocket.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 338
Their capability to even do an Apollo type mission any time soon is greatly overestimated.

Actually, that appears to be the way they're going.. which suggests they won't be doing anything after that, just like Apollo.


I don't think that the Apollo approach is a pathway to failure, if the political motivation is sustained, and if launch costs can fall in accord with a more usual manufacturing paradigm.  We chose the elective Vietnam war, and were not able to afford Apollo.  It may be suggested that we would have lost interest in exploring the Moon anyway, but this view can't be proven any more than the opposite contention that we would have maintained our national interest in HSF. 

As it turns out, the limited exploration in LEO was sucessfully marketed to the politicians and the nation at large, so I think that had the funds been available, and the path of Apollo continued, and had not the warriors taken the public imagination, we could very well have that lunar base I keep clamoring for.

But it is the conjectural past.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10314
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
China has their own version of ULA and Rocketdyne do they?

All I'm seeing is a few medium class UDMH powered rockets.

you might be very surprised in a couple of years.   China has been buying Russian engines etc at scrap prices.  We are talking Buran "system" parts. 

Plus, China has a way of "reverse engineering" what they want/need.

 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Warren Platts

Plus, China has a way of "reverse engineering" what they want/need.

You got that right. They are absolutely shameless. cf. the Shanghai maglev train.

Anyways....

Consider the attached map: it is from Spudis and Lavoie (2010). It shows the major resources in the north polar region of the Moon. According to international law, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) are declarable over former res communis on Earth. I have dawn in an approximate boundary of an EEZ of 200 nautical miles around a Moon base located at the North Pole.

As you can see, the customary boundary that's drawn on Earth around isolated places like the Falkland Islands  would encompass the entire North Polar region.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2012 03:34 am by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32546
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11333
  • Likes Given: 334
That's a brilliant analysis Jim. Thanks!  :P

Why both with detail when your first line is wrong

Offline Warren Platts

That's a brilliant analysis Jim. Thanks!  :P

Why bother with detail when your first line is wrong

First line? That people used to say that there were no worthwhile resources in Alaska?!?
____________________________________________
As for the area that would have to be controlled to lock up all the resources in the north polar region, one can see in the attached radar map that all good craters are within about 10 degrees latitude of the poles. On the Moon, a degree of latitude is about 30 kilometers. So an annexation of the north polar region of not much more than 300 km (around 172 nautical miles) would be all that is required. This is smaller than the 200 mile EEZ's typically declared on Earth.

Of course, the flipside of all this talk about it being in China's interest to annex territory on the Moon is that it would also be in the USA's interest to annex such territory....
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 67
So you want the USA to annex the north pole of the moon?

Nobody needs to concour the lunar poles in the name of a singular country.

Australia claimed Antarctica and was then able stop it being exploited to preserve it's natural beauty allowing all the citizens of the world and future generations to enjoy it.

Working together with others for scientific research and exploration.

This is what should be done for the moon too once many countries have the capability to go there of course.

I like this.

Quote
There are few places in the world where there has never been war, where the environment is fully protected, and where scientific research has priority. But there is a whole continent like this - it is the land the Antarctic Treaty parties call '... a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science'.

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/antarctic-law-and-treaty/our-treaty-obligations
« Last Edit: 03/14/2012 01:47 am by spectre9 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8781
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3786
  • Likes Given: 892
Australia claimed Antarctica and was then able stop it being exploited to preserve it's natural beauty allowing all the citizens of the world and future generations to enjoy it.

Yeah.. sure we did.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22558
  • Liked: 908
  • Likes Given: 330
The general analysis so far has been focused on technical or economic factors in China and the moon, but clearly does not attempt any analysis in a historic or political science facet.

Will China claim the moon?

No, China does not want to mess up the current pyramid of cards that is the international laws governing space.  China has never shown a historic desire to massively expand their boundaries except for areas they consider historic part of their identity. The voyages of Admiral Zheng He did not result in overseas expansion, even at the height of Chinese power. The PRC would rather work within the existing system as it benefits them.  If there are any resources on the moon worth exploiting China can do so within the existing agreements without the need to bother to claim it.  Just look at Africa, China has shown little interest in anything except resource extraction, and does so by supporting governments that we find "undesireable" for various reasons.  No, China does too well in the existing system to open Pandora's box.

Offline Warren Platts

The general analysis so far has been focused on technical or economic factors in China and the moon, but clearly does not attempt any analysis in a historic or political science facet.

Will China claim the moon?

No, China does not want to mess up the current pyramid of cards that is the international laws governing space.  China has never shown a historic desire to massively expand their boundaries except for areas they consider historic part of their identity. The voyages of Admiral Zheng He did not result in overseas expansion, even at the height of Chinese power. The PRC would rather work within the existing system as it benefits them.  If there are any resources on the moon worth exploiting China can do so within the existing agreements without the need to bother to claim it.  Just look at Africa, China has shown little interest in anything except resource extraction, and does so by supporting governments that we find "undesireable" for various reasons.  No, China does too well in the existing system to open Pandora's box.

As has been pointed out, the very best spots on the Moon are few and far between. These are the relatively flat, quasi-permanently sunlit plateaus adjacent to major cold traps. Basically, there is one: the north rim of Whipple Crater. Thanks to NASA declaring its little sovereign zones around the Apollo sites (like the 40 acre no-trespassing zone around the Apollo 17 site), whoever gets to North Rim first can claim it with a single, brief sortie.

The other lesson that NASA taught the world, is that whoever gets up there gets to decide what happens. Did NASA consult with the UN when it declared its no-trespassing zones? Nope. Did they consult with the Chinese or Russians? Nope. Therefore, whoever goes to the Moon next has no obligation to consult with anyone on how they choose to dispose of the terrain they occupy.

Thanks to the precedent that NASA itself set, the UN is irrelevant. People that don't go to the Moon are irrelevant. If the US bypasses the Moon, by NASA's own actions, the US is irrelevant.

What's going to suck is when after the Chinese demonstrate the superiority of the "Kobe Bryant" model where commerce is led by state owned enterprises and demonstrate that there are trillions of renminbi to be made on Lunar commodities after Earth's stocks hit the wall, US companies are going to want to get in on the act.

But then the PRC may decide that it likes having a corner on the global gold, PGM, REE market. And so, since they will have the Lunar infrastructure, they will simply arrest anyone who attempts to cut into their turf. And what will the US or EU be able to do about it. Absolutely nothing. Will they go to war over it? Nope. Will they embargo Chinese goods? Nope. In fact, the pundits will say the Chinese deserve their concession, because they earned it.

Will the Chinese have to withdraw from the OST to do this? Nope. They will have their little operations strategically scattered around. They will get to decide how big the safety zones should be, because they got their first.

So don't worry, be happy.

Bottom line: when it comes to the Moon, the guiding principle will be use it or lose it.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 338
China has never shown a historic desire to massively expand their boundaries except for areas they consider historic part of their identity. ...

Well:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/20774

Quote
Bodhisattva Guanyin of the Water Moon

This is all speculation, right?  Or does the Bodhisattva count as the "historic part of their identity"?

What about Tibet, for example?  Times change; regimes change; nation's goals change.  Look at us; we used to be all about space.  Now we're all about portable devices and entertainment.  Fiftey years ago the South China Sea wasn't all that important to China.

...the very best spots on the Moon are few and far between.

Maybe so, at least with current knowledge of the mineral content up there.  Just to pick one group at random...

From:

http://www.moonexpress.com/index.php/moon-is-me/moon-is-me-human-benefits-article

Quote
The resources and the wealth of the Moon, and beyond, will be available to Earth.

From:

http://www.moonexpress.com/index.php/moon-is-me/moon-is-me-mission-article

Quote
"We are looking for the next generation superpowers out there to help us identify and acquire lunar resources that could benefit life on Earth and our future in space," said Richards.

Hard for me to believe that they (ME, China, anybody) are only interested in the water ice.  Other groups are also interested in lunar resources.  Some of them are dead set on acquiring He3, for example, as that pathway to profitability.

Point is, our current knowledge of the "best spots" on the Moon is incomplete at best.  We do have an idea as to where some good initial base spots are.  Tho.

Quote from: Warren
The other lesson that NASA taught the world, is that whoever gets up there gets to decide what happens.

I agree, and I also think that the race back has already started.  Our policymakers do not see it that way, having won the primitive race in 1969, that the advanced marathon is right around the corner.  The US needs to withdraw from OST, and the Moon and all needs to be opened up for private property ownership.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline lbiderman

  • Going where no Uruguayan has gone before
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 269
  • Buenos Aires - Argentina
    • Mars Society Argentina
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 13
Plus, China has a way of "reverse engineering" what they want/need.

You got that right. They are absolutely shameless. cf. the Shanghai maglev train.

Anyways....

Consider the attached map: it is from Spudis and Lavoie (2010). It shows the major resources in the north polar region of the Moon. According to international law, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) are declarable over former res communis on Earth. I have dawn in an approximate boundary of an EEZ of 200 nautical miles around a Moon base located at the North Pole.

As you can see, the customary boundary that's drawn on Earth around isolated places like the Falkland Islands  would encompass the entire North Polar region.

Wrong. The Economic Exclusive Zone is based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In international law, you cannot expand one charter into another domain. Therefore, the EEZ is not applicable on the Moon. Anyways, basing ourselves on the old utis possidetis concept (mainly, that the permanent and long term occupation of a territory gives you sovereignty), you could, theoretically speaking, declare that certain lunar territory is yours if you establish a permanent lunar base. However, in order for the principle to function, there should be no other claims to the same territory (Malvinas/Falklands is the perfect example), and (this is the key) it should be recognized by other international powers (which is highly unlikely).
Anyway, going back to reality here, the only way China could declare ownership on lunar land is by "kicking the board", saying to the world "what are you going to do about it?". That is NOT going to happen given the current long term scenario. It has more to lose than to win.
"If I wanted to lead a bunch of robots that could only follow orders, I would have joined the Army!"
Captain Alvarez (Uruguay Marine Corps) in Congo (MONUC Deployment), March 2007

Offline Warren Platts

Plus, China has a way of "reverse engineering" what they want/need.

You got that right. They are absolutely shameless. cf. the Shanghai maglev train.

Anyways....

Consider the attached map: it is from Spudis and Lavoie (2010). It shows the major resources in the north polar region of the Moon. According to international law, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) are declarable over former res communis on Earth. I have dawn in an approximate boundary of an EEZ of 200 nautical miles around a Moon base located at the North Pole.

As you can see, the customary boundary that's drawn on Earth around isolated places like the Falkland Islands  would encompass the entire North Polar region.

Wrong. The Economic Exclusive Zone is based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In international law, you cannot expand one charter into another domain. Therefore, the EEZ is not applicable on the Moon.

Huh? Charters are always expanded into other domains. That's how it's done. What was the reason for the 200 nautical mile EEZ limit? Mainly mathematics: 200 is a nice, round number; 100 miles didn't seem generous enough, and 300 would be too much, evidently. But the 200 nautical mile limit, as opposed to, say 300 km, or 250 statute miles was totally arbitrary.

But now that that number is out there, what's to prevent it from being applied to other areas? What IS the appropriate EEZ boundary around a permanently manned Lunar Station?

The thing is, if we apply the Law of the Sea standard, one base locks up the entire polar region. You guys don't realize this, because it takes actually looking at a map of the Moon and punching in some numbers into a calculator. But I make it my business to do little things like that.

Quote
However, in order for the principle to function, there should be no other claims to the same territory (Malvinas/Falklands is the perfect example), and (this is the key) it should be recognized by other international powers (which is highly unlikely).

No, Malvinas only proves my point. The Brits were there first with British settlers. They speak English down there--not Espanol. Therefore, they get to say what happens down there. And guess what? It doesn't matter what "international powers" think about the issue. It's a centuries old fait accompli at this point.

If China gets up there first, Mandarin will be the official language of future Lunar colonies. As it should be.

Quote
Anyway, going back to reality here, the only way China could declare ownership on lunar land is by "kicking the board", saying to the world "what are you going to do about it?". That is NOT going to happen given the current long term scenario. It has more to lose than to win.

No, it has more to lose by NOT "kicking the board". See, their whole modus operandi is that major state owned enterprises (SOE's) kind of lead the way for a whole economy. These are things like major oil companies. In the "free" world, we have Shell and BP and Exxon; in the ROW they have PEMEX, ARAMCO, CITGO, etc.--these latter are SOE's where all the "profits" go to the "people", in theory.

And for something like developing the Moon, it almost takes the deep pockets of a big nation-state the size of China to get the ball rolling. Otherwise, we're looking at some sort of consortium of Exxon-Halliburton-Rio Tinto-Caterpillar multi-multi-billion dollar conglomerate to make it worth it. And what is the likelihood of that happening?

Well, traditionally, in situations like that, the US government (or whoever) would step in and pony up some cash (or sweet land deals) to kick start private development. Of course, now it looks like NASA, the one go-to department, is going to drop that ball. They could go in there and prove out and pay for the development of things like assessing the mineral content of the Moon making propellant from Lunar ice and things like that (which is why I favor transferring the entire HSF program to USGS; they would actually know what to do with a few astronauts; NASA itself is captured by aeronautical engineers and astrobiologists who don't have a clue about actually producing mineral wealth).

Thus at any rate, it looks like China is going to have both the deep pockets, and the inclination to get whatever value there is to be had out of the Lady of the Moon. The Moon has figured more prominently in their mythology than it ever did in the West. It's theirs by rights. They care about it more than we do.

And if they spend the hundreds of billions of RMB to make it happen, why should they share the spoils with Johnny-come-lately, claim-jumping, carpet baggers, just because the OST says everything belongs to everybody? That's not fair. The spoils belong to whoever makes it happen.

Common heritage of mankind?!? What a joke!!!
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline lbiderman

  • Going where no Uruguayan has gone before
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 269
  • Buenos Aires - Argentina
    • Mars Society Argentina
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 13
Plus, China has a way of "reverse engineering" what they want/need.

You got that right. They are absolutely shameless. cf. the Shanghai maglev train.

Anyways....

Consider the attached map: it is from Spudis and Lavoie (2010). It shows the major resources in the north polar region of the Moon. According to international law, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) are declarable over former res communis on Earth. I have dawn in an approximate boundary of an EEZ of 200 nautical miles around a Moon base located at the North Pole.

As you can see, the customary boundary that's drawn on Earth around isolated places like the Falkland Islands  would encompass the entire North Polar region.

Wrong. The Economic Exclusive Zone is based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In international law, you cannot expand one charter into another domain. Therefore, the EEZ is not applicable on the Moon.

Huh? Charters are always expanded into other domains. That's how it's done. What was the reason for the 200 nautical mile EEZ limit? Mainly mathematics: 200 is a nice, round number; 100 miles didn't seem generous enough, and 300 would be too much, evidently. But the 200 nautical mile limit, as opposed to, say 300 km, or 250 statute miles was totally arbitrary.

But now that that number is out there, what's to prevent it from being applied to other areas? What IS the appropriate EEZ boundary around a permanently manned Lunar Station?

The thing is, if we apply the Law of the Sea standard, one base locks up the entire polar region. You guys don't realize this, because it takes actually looking at a map of the Moon and punching in some numbers into a calculator. But I make it my business to do little things like that.

Quote
However, in order for the principle to function, there should be no other claims to the same territory (Malvinas/Falklands is the perfect example), and (this is the key) it should be recognized by other international powers (which is highly unlikely).

No, Malvinas only proves my point. The Brits were there first with British settlers. They speak English down there--not Espanol. Therefore, they get to say what happens down there. And guess what? It doesn't matter what "international powers" think about the issue. It's a centuries old fait accompli at this point.

If China gets up there first, Mandarin will be the official language of future Lunar colonies. As it should be.

Quote
Anyway, going back to reality here, the only way China could declare ownership on lunar land is by "kicking the board", saying to the world "what are you going to do about it?". That is NOT going to happen given the current long term scenario. It has more to lose than to win.

No, it has more to lose by NOT "kicking the board". See, their whole modus operandi is that major state owned enterprises (SOE's) kind of lead the way for a whole economy. These are things like major oil companies. In the "free" world, we have Shell and BP and Exxon; in the ROW they have PEMEX, ARAMCO, CITGO, etc.--these latter are SOE's where all the "profits" go to the "people", in theory.

And for something like developing the Moon, it almost takes the deep pockets of a big nation-state the size of China to get the ball rolling. Otherwise, we're looking at some sort of consortium of Exxon-Halliburton-Rio Tinto-Caterpillar multi-multi-billion dollar conglomerate to make it worth it. And what is the likelihood of that happening?

Well, traditionally, in situations like that, the US government (or whoever) would step in and pony up some cash (or sweet land deals) to kick start private development. Of course, now it looks like NASA, the one go-to department, is going to drop that ball. They could go in there and prove out and pay for the development of things like assessing the mineral content of the Moon making propellant from Lunar ice and things like that (which is why I favor transferring the entire HSF program to USGS; they would actually know what to do with a few astronauts; NASA itself is captured by aeronautical engineers and astrobiologists who don't have a clue about actually producing mineral wealth).

Thus at any rate, it looks like China is going to have both the deep pockets, and the inclination to get whatever value there is to be had out of the Lady of the Moon. The Moon has figured more prominently in their mythology than it ever did in the West. It's theirs by rights. They care about it more than we do.

And if they spend the hundreds of billions of RMB to make it happen, why should they share the spoils with Johnny-come-lately, claim-jumping, carpet baggers, just because the OST says everything belongs to everybody? That's not fair. The spoils belong to whoever makes it happen.

Common heritage of mankind?!? What a joke!!!

No. Charters are NOT expanded into other domains. Show me one example of that. The EEZ is not applicable on land, as well as on air, where what you could call "EEZ" is all of the space up to space. Why would it be applicable on the Moon? The charter has a certain spectrum of use, the sea. Everything that itīs not the sea, is not under the charter. You would need another charter to apply it to the Moon, like the EU needs another treaty when they want another area to be integrated. The scenario you are plotting does not need an "Economic Exclusive Zone", itīs based on blunt force: I am here and here I am the Law. That wonīt happen on the Moon, you now why? Simple: it is not enforceable. The Chinese are not going to evict by force an American o European lunar base inside their self-declared EEZ. As a matter of fact, the only thing a proclamation of EEZ or annexation would produce is the localization of American bases inside that area, to contest that proclamation. And please donīt start bringing the idea of a Lunar Peopleīs Liberation Army. China cares above all about China. What is the point of killing a couple of scientists on the Moon and have a war on Earth? They may be bold, but definitely not stupid.
And no: Malvinas was actually a Spanish colony, then Argentine. The British kicked them out by force in 1833, and took the land. The fact that itīs considered a "territory under dispute" is a perfect example that utis possidetis needs uncontest by other powers. Of course there is a de facto British control, but the Moon is not Malvinas, and Argentina is not the United States.
"If I wanted to lead a bunch of robots that could only follow orders, I would have joined the Army!"
Captain Alvarez (Uruguay Marine Corps) in Congo (MONUC Deployment), March 2007

Offline Warren Platts

Señor, let's say you're right; that still begs the question of whether there ought to be a 200 nm EEZ around a permanently manned base on the Moon. If a country goes up there, spends a trillion CNY to develop the place, shouldn't they be granted a 200 nm EEZ? Who in their right mind would argue against such a proposition?

Article XV of the OST states that "Any State Party to the Treaty may propose amendments to this Treaty." So if anybody were to propose an amendment granting a 200 nm EEZ surrounding a permanently manned facility, shouldn't we all agree to it?

Seriously, what would be the problem with such an amendment? It wouldn't upend the principle that celestial bodies are the common heritage of humankind: like nautical EEZ's the area would still belong to humanity as whole; it's just that the holder of the EEZ simply gets the exclusive economic rights to the area. The purpose is to prevent anarchy from breaking out, to prevent a "tragedy of the commons".

Just because China had an EEZ doesn't mean that foreign companies couldn't also have access to the EEZ; it's just that would have to negotiate with the PRC first, maybe pay a license fee, agree to some technology transfers, ensure that pilots of landers speak Mandarin on the radio, pay a severance tax and things like that.

Sure, China would reap all the profits, but the benefits would trickle down to the rest of the planet, even to places like Uruguay. It would be worth it, because if nobody develops the Moon, nobody gets anything. As a character in Bill White's Platinum Moon said IIRC, "For everyone to eat bread, some must eat caviar!"
« Last Edit: 03/18/2012 10:28 am by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline lbiderman

  • Going where no Uruguayan has gone before
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 269
  • Buenos Aires - Argentina
    • Mars Society Argentina
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 13
Seņor, let's say you're right; that still begs the question of whether there ought to be a 200 nm EEZ around a permanently manned base on the Moon. If a country goes up there, spends a trillion CNY to develop the place, shouldn't they be granted a 200 nm EEZ? Who in their right mind would argue against such a proposition?

Article XV of the OST states that "Any State Party to the Treaty may propose amendments to this Treaty." So if anybody were to propose an amendment granting a 200 nm EEZ surrounding a permanently manned facility, shouldn't we all agree to it?

Seriously, what would be the problem with such an amendment? It wouldn't upend the principle that celestial bodies are the common heritage of humankind: like nautical EEZ's the area would still belong to humanity as whole; it's just that the holder of the EEZ simply gets the exclusive economic rights to the area. The purpose is to prevent anarchy from breaking out, to prevent a "tragedy of the commons".

Just because China had an EEZ doesn't mean that foreign companies couldn't also have access to the EEZ; it's just that would have to negotiate with the PRC first, maybe pay a license fee, agree to some technology transfers, ensure that pilots of landers speak Mandarin on the radio, pay a severance tax and things like that.

Sure, China would reap all the profits, but the benefits would trickle down to the rest of the planet, even to places like Uruguay. It would be worth it, because if nobody develops the Moon, nobody gets anything. As a character in Bill White's Platinum Moon said IIRC, "For everyone to eat bread, some must eat caviar!"

I see your point, but I donīt see it happen. An example is Antarctica. Every country with a permanent base there spent (and continues spending) fortunes to keep them functioning, and even though there are claims to the land, those claims are maid to the Antarctic Treaty Organization, and have zero effect to the planet. Of course, the problem with the example is that there is no commercial exploitation on Antarctica.
Regarding a modification of the OST, anyone can propose an amendment, but I seriously donīt see it going through. The main opposition is going to be from the "second wave" countries, those that currently donīt have the technology to reach the Moon, but they expect to have it in some years (think of Brazil, India, South Korea, Israel), considering that the United States, Russia, Japan and the European Union are already on the Moon by the time the proposal is presented. Those countries donīt have any incentive to allow that modification, because it would leave them on the doorstep of the profits. Something similar happened with the NPT, but the advanced countries managed to force itīs acceptance on that case, and I donīt think they would manage to do it again.
Anyway, all of this is just guesses.
"If I wanted to lead a bunch of robots that could only follow orders, I would have joined the Army!"
Captain Alvarez (Uruguay Marine Corps) in Congo (MONUC Deployment), March 2007

Offline Warren Platts

Hm... I see what you're saying. And those are good points.

But consider the potential for conflict as things stand now. Let's say for the sake of the argument that there are indeed vast gold deposits in the polar cold traps (and I'm the first to admit that this is pure speculation based on very little evidence). Now think of everything that needs to be done in order to get that gold back to Earth: the depots, the heavy-duty reusable landers, Lunar propellant production, and then all the gold refining stuff. You're looking at at least $50B USD for DDT&E costs and another $150B to deploy it all at a minimum. That would be about a trillion CNY.

Now there's a Chinese state-owned enterprise (SOE) that's happily churning out the gold bars, and China is now the world's largest gold producer as a result. They're careful to restrict production to carefully manage the price of gold: they'll drive the price down a little bit to drive out marginal producers on Earth, but still keep it around $50K/kg to keep the Lunar operation profitable.

But now all the heavy lifting and risk taking has already been done. So what's to stop "the Big Australian", BHP Billiton, from getting in on the act? Under the OST as it stands now, there's nothing to prevent BHP Billiton from setting up shop literally on the other side of the crater of the Chinese operation. See the potential for crisis: now the Chinese SOE has to split the market with a "claim jumper" who didn't help pay to develop the prospect; not only that, by ramping up production, there would be a danger that the price of gold would collapse and drive the entire Lunar economy out of business.

So (A) it is seemingly unfair that a company that took none of the risks gets to profit from the hard work done by the Chinese SOE; and (B) destroying a profitable Lunar economy is a practical result that no one wants to see.

Now for some reason I was thinking that the OST allowed safety zones to be declared around manned facilities, but as I look at it again today, I see there really is no such provision. On the other hand, declaring safety zones aren't specifically prohibited. Similarly, NASA's no-trespassing zones like the 40 acres it claimed around the Apollo 17 site are not specifically disallowed under the OST. Thus although Article II specifically states that the Moon is "not subject to national appropriation", apparently self-declared zones where activities can be limited are in fact compatible with the OST.

E.g., NASA is not contesting that the Moon is the common heritage of mankind by declaring it's 40-acre no-go zone, nor is the 40 acre no-go zone a form of national appropriation. Scientific research near the site isn't prohibited, and free access is guaranteed to all, except for the 40-acre core zone. Presumably study of the site through remote sensing isn't prohibited by NASA.

So consider this: Article III states that explorers "shall carry on activities ... in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co- operation and understanding."

Now, there are space lawyers on this forum that know more about this stuff than I do, but I believe a case can be made that an anarchic, free-for-all, gold rush on the Moon is not conducive to maintaining international peace and security, nor would it promote international cooperation and understanding! So, contra Professor Hickman, I believe that a Chinese SOE could declare an EEZ and still stay within the letter of the OST; in other words, China would not have to withdraw from the OST in order to declare a 200 nm EEZ.

Think about it: the EEZ wouldn't prohibit any of the other positive activities spelled out by the OST: e.g., Article I states that there shall be freedom of scientific discovery, and that there be free access to all areas of the Moon, but an EEZ per se would not affect these sorts of activities. People would still be allowed to conduct scientific research on the cold traps, and move around, they just would be prohibited from conducting economic activities. The resources there would still be the common heritage of mankind, but the Chinese SOE would enjoy the sole right to exploit those resources. Once those resources are sold on Planet Earth, however, it's a boost to the whole global economy and so everyone benefits as it all trickles down.

Thus, the argument is this: that the OST does not specifically prohibit self-declared zones that place restrictions on activities: presumably NASA's space lawyers have already checked this out; otherwise they wouldn't have claimed the 40 acres around the Apollo 17 site. Since self-declared EEZ's are not specifically prohibited, then presumably they are allowed. Indeed, the argument is that EEZ's are necessary in order to promote international peace and cooperation--without it, anarchy and environmental contamination would ensue.

Naturally, the size of the EEZ should be that which best promotes international understanding and cooperation: the 200 nm limit is already on the books on Earth, and it would be big enough to lock up the entire north polar region.

Again, EEZ's are not forms of "national appropriation": e.g., the nautical EEZ's on Earth are still international waters; anybody is free to sail through them: people just can't fish or drill for oil without permission. The resources there are still the "common heritage of mankind", but in order to prevent anarchy and collapsing fish stocks, the country holding the EEZ gets to regulate how those resources are managed. It's only fair.

What about enforcement? Well, if anyone tried to do any claim-jumping beyond fair-use, scientific sampling, the interlopers would simply be arrested and sent home unharmed. While the OST specifically forbids military operation on the Moon, it does not specifically forbid the use of police forces. E.g., NASA has it's own SWAT team with the power to arrest people: presumably if anybody monkeyed with the Apollo 17 site, NASA would have the power to arrest them for violating NASA's regulations. Similarly, if China were to declare a 200 nm EEZ, they would have the power to arrest anybody conducting economic activities within the EEZ.

If potential claim jumpers decided to up the notch and resist arrest through force of arms, that would arguably be a military action and would be forbidden by the terms of the OST.

Again, declaring the EEZ wouldn't be a form of national appropriation any more than EEZ's on Earth are forms of national appropriation. Freedom of movement and scientific research would still be allowed. The resources would still be the common heritage of mankind, just like they are in terrestrial EEZ's.

You heard it here first! ;D
« Last Edit: 03/18/2012 12:51 pm by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8781
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3786
  • Likes Given: 892
But now all the heavy lifting and risk taking has already been done. So what's to stop "the Big Australian", BHP Billiton, from getting in on the act?

China buys most our ores.. one word that they might stop and they get anything they want.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Warren Platts

But now all the heavy lifting and risk taking has already been done. So what's to stop "the Big Australian", BHP Billiton, from getting in on the act?

China buys most our ores.. one word that they might stop and they get anything they want.


Exactly. China throws a lot of weight around all over the planet. So really, if China were the first to get up there and they declared an EEZ, it wouldn't be in anybody's interest to challenge them. Others would feel they were better off focusing their efforts on Mars or asteroids, rather than taking on the Chinese head on.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline lbiderman

  • Going where no Uruguayan has gone before
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 269
  • Buenos Aires - Argentina
    • Mars Society Argentina
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 13
Hm... I see what you're saying. And those are good points.

But consider the potential for conflict as things stand now. Let's say for the sake of the argument that there are indeed vast gold deposits in the polar cold traps (and I'm the first to admit that this is pure speculation based on very little evidence). Now think of everything that needs to be done in order to get that gold back to Earth: the depots, the heavy-duty reusable landers, Lunar propellant production, and then all the gold refining stuff. You're looking at at least $50B USD for DDT&E costs and another $150B to deploy it all at a minimum. That would be about a trillion CNY.

Now there's a Chinese state-owned enterprise (SOE) that's happily churning out the gold bars, and China is now the world's largest gold producer as a result. They're careful to restrict production to carefully manage the price of gold: they'll drive the price down a little bit to drive out marginal producers on Earth, but still keep it around $50K/kg to keep the Lunar operation profitable.

But now all the heavy lifting and risk taking has already been done. So what's to stop "the Big Australian", BHP Billiton, from getting in on the act? Under the OST as it stands now, there's nothing to prevent BHP Billiton from setting up shop literally on the other side of the crater of the Chinese operation. See the potential for crisis: now the Chinese SOE has to split the market with a "claim jumper" who didn't help pay to develop the prospect; not only that, by ramping up production, there would be a danger that the price of gold would collapse and drive the entire Lunar economy out of business.

So (A) it is seemingly unfair that a company that took none of the risks gets to profit from the hard work done by the Chinese SOE; and (B) destroying a profitable Lunar economy is a practical result that no one wants to see.

Now for some reason I was thinking that the OST allowed safety zones to be declared around manned facilities, but as I look at it again today, I see there really is no such provision. On the other hand, declaring safety zones aren't specifically prohibited. Similarly, NASA's no-trespassing zones like the 40 acres it claimed around the Apollo 17 site are not specifically disallowed under the OST. Thus although Article II specifically states that the Moon is "not subject to national appropriation", apparently self-declared zones where activities can be limited are in fact compatible with the OST.

E.g., NASA is not contesting that the Moon is the common heritage of mankind by declaring it's 40-acre no-go zone, nor is the 40 acre no-go zone a form of national appropriation. Scientific research near the site isn't prohibited, and free access is guaranteed to all, except for the 40-acre core zone. Presumably study of the site through remote sensing isn't prohibited by NASA.

So consider this: Article III states that explorers "shall carry on activities ... in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co- operation and understanding."

Now, there are space lawyers on this forum that know more about this stuff than I do, but I believe a case can be made that an anarchic, free-for-all, gold rush on the Moon is not conducive to maintaining international peace and security, nor would it promote international cooperation and understanding! So, contra Professor Hickman, I believe that a Chinese SOE could declare an EEZ and still stay within the letter of the OST; in other words, China would not have to withdraw from the OST in order to declare a 200 nm EEZ.

Think about it: the EEZ wouldn't prohibit any of the other positive activities spelled out by the OST: e.g., Article I states that there shall be freedom of scientific discovery, and that there be free access to all areas of the Moon, but an EEZ per se would not affect these sorts of activities. People would still be allowed to conduct scientific research on the cold traps, and move around, they just would be prohibited from conducting economic activities. The resources there would still be the common heritage of mankind, but the Chinese SOE would enjoy the sole right to exploit those resources. Once those resources are sold on Planet Earth, however, it's a boost to the whole global economy and so everyone benefits as it all trickles down.

Thus, the argument is this: that the OST does not specifically prohibit self-declared zones that place restrictions on activities: presumably NASA's space lawyers have already checked this out; otherwise they wouldn't have claimed the 40 acres around the Apollo 17 site. Since self-declared EEZ's are not specifically prohibited, then presumably they are allowed. Indeed, the argument is that EEZ's are necessary in order to promote international peace and cooperation--without it, anarchy and environmental contamination would ensue.

Naturally, the size of the EEZ should be that which best promotes international understanding and cooperation: the 200 nm limit is already on the books on Earth, and it would be big enough to lock up the entire north polar region.

Again, EEZ's are not forms of "national appropriation": e.g., the nautical EEZ's on Earth are still international waters; anybody is free to sail through them: people just can't fish or drill for oil without permission. The resources there are still the "common heritage of mankind", but in order to prevent anarchy and collapsing fish stocks, the country holding the EEZ gets to regulate how those resources are managed. It's only fair.

What about enforcement? Well, if anyone tried to do any claim-jumping beyond fair-use, scientific sampling, the interlopers would simply be arrested and sent home unharmed. While the OST specifically forbids military operation on the Moon, it does not specifically forbid the use of police forces. E.g., NASA has it's own SWAT team with the power to arrest people: presumably if anybody monkeyed with the Apollo 17 site, NASA would have the power to arrest them for violating NASA's regulations. Similarly, if China were to declare a 200 nm EEZ, they would have the power to arrest anybody conducting economic activities within the EEZ.

If potential claim jumpers decided to up the notch and resist arrest through force of arms, that would arguably be a military action and would be forbidden by the terms of the OST.

Again, declaring the EEZ wouldn't be a form of national appropriation any more than EEZ's on Earth are forms of national appropriation. Freedom of movement and scientific research would still be allowed. The resources would still be the common heritage of mankind, just like they are in terrestrial EEZ's.

You heard it here first! ;D

Ok, I see where you are going. I believe, in that scenario, that an exclusion zone might, and stress might, be compatible with the OST, but forget about 200 nm. Think closer to 15. And I repeat something I said a couple of posts ago: Chinese are bold, not stupid. They wonīt try any of this if they are not 100% sure they can get away with it. I donīt think they can create the logistics of an EEZ on the Moon, meaning, that they can collect royalties: that is definitely not going to be accepted by the rest of the OST members. Most likely, it will be an exclusion zone, like "this is my area of work, please donīt get in here", as a gentlemen agreement. But again, all of this must be worked out before it can be implemented.
"If I wanted to lead a bunch of robots that could only follow orders, I would have joined the Army!"
Captain Alvarez (Uruguay Marine Corps) in Congo (MONUC Deployment), March 2007

Offline Warren Platts

A gentleman's agreement is a good way to put it. Arguably, NASA's restrictions on the Apollo 17 site are also a gentleman's agreement. It doesn't really have the force of international law, yet everybody is going to voluntarily respect it.

As for the size of the "EEZ" 15 nm would be big enough to lock up Whipple Crater, but it wouldn't leave China in possession of a monopoly in the north polar region. So why not think big? They could argue that anybody else would be free to set up shop on the South Side and declare their own 200 nm EEZ. That could be how it happens: e.g., USA would take the Shackleton Basin in the South and claim everything down to the 80th parallel same as the Chinese in the north. Meanwhile, other actors might go for the equatorial region: not much hydrogen, but you can still make LOX; you could use Al for the fuel if you wanted. Find a big PGM asteroid body, and you could be in business. So people might be persuaded to at least not object strenuously because they all would have the opportunity to claim a piece of the pie.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 67
Australia claimed Antarctica and was then able stop it being exploited to preserve it's natural beauty allowing all the citizens of the world and future generations to enjoy it.

Yeah.. sure we did.


Does this post need one of these?  ::)

I support preserving Antarctica, hopefully it remains pristine for at least the next few generations.

The moon on the other hand isn't a wildlife reserve. People should do what they like there.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8781
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3786
  • Likes Given: 892
Yep.. when Australia makes a stand there's only one question the international community asks: you and who's aircraft carrier? :)
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 67
I guess the thing with the moon is a small country like Australia will never have the ability to claim it.

I do think there will be treaties for resource sharing and China isn't in the space race to go it alone.

They just want to prove they're up to the same level as Russia/ESA/JAXA before starting to ramp up their international cooperation.

As an Aussie I don't demonise China at all. I love our Asian neighbours.

In a recent speech in Darwin Obama told us all about the growing threat from China in south east Asia. I'm not sure he realised that nobody bought a word of it.

Americans might be scared of China but we're right next door to them. We're trying to be friends.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 338
(1) I guess the thing with the moon is a small country like Australia will never have the ability to claim it.

...

(2) In a recent speech in Darwin Obama told us all about the growing threat from China in south east Asia. I'm not sure he realised that nobody bought a word of it.

...

(1)  Well, Andorra's economy is 80% tourism per Wiki, which is a higher percentage than Australia's.  Since tourism is pretty much the only "industry" in space at the moment, I think they have a pretty good chance of claiming the Moon and making the claim stick.

(2)  Tell that to Vietnam and the Phillipines.  The Aussie's didn't invite Mr. Obama to speak on a lark.  Any Aussie naysaying in pubs and what have you, on the South non-China Sea issue, is an example of conceptual blindness and informal group think. 

Which doesn't mean that I can foresee China's various global and extra-global intentions.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags: