Bigelow: Moon Property rights would help create a lunar industry

[Chris Bergin]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/bigelow-moon-property-create-lunar-industry/
Part 2 of the Bigelow features from Yves-A. Grondin.

Really informative read and shows how much work Yves has put into this, so I hope you all appreciate that both on here and in the social media, as was the case with Part 1.

--

Part 1 is here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/affordable-habitats-more-buck-rogers-less-money-bigelow/

[Elmar Moelzer]

Cool article! Thanks Yves (and Chris)!

[Lar]

Great article!

[kicaj]

company has the financial capacity to pay for at least two BA 330s habitats which should ready by the end of 2016.

what could be the price of one habitat?

[Chris Bergin]

Nice RT by @BigelowSpace  - always a good sign when the company mentions something on their official feed when it's about them.

[MTom]

Interesting questions.

"“Without property rights, any plan to engage the private sector in long-term beyond LEO activities will ultimately fail." - this should be true.

But giving such property rights are a kind of bianco cheque: decesions about something, that nobady knows exactly.

The right decision is very hard.

[Herb Schaltegger]

Land grants for railroad rights-of-way were a HUGE impetus to the expansion of the United States "inward" from the coasts in latter-half of the 19th century. However, those grants did not have negative consequences and anyone pushing for a repeal of the Outer Space Treaty really needs to study that kind of history, as well as world history regarding colonialism and independence of former colonies, to appreciate the complexities - sociological, economic, technological, and even anthropological. Allow people to claim tracts of land on the Moon - or anywhere else - will not create Utopia.

[R7]

If a nation would start to grant property rights on the Moon wouldn't that imply claiming sovereignty over those parts too, violating OST? Some sort of international agreement on "exclusive economic zones" around static bases might work. Has there been any hard numbers how much "property" Bigelow would want around it's lunar Habitat?

[MTom]

Land grants for railroad rights-of-way were a HUGE impetus to the expansion of the United States "inward" from the coasts in latter-half of the 19th century. However, those grants did not have negative consequences and anyone pushing for a repeal of the Outer Space Treaty really needs to study that kind of history, as well as world history regarding colonialism and independence of former colonies, to appreciate the complexities - sociological, economic, technological, and even anthropological. Allow people to claim tracts of land on the Moon - or anywhere else - will not create Utopia.

This is ok.
But what should be exactly the property rights and for what exactly?

In worst case it could result, that companies launch a lot of "something" to get a mean part of the Moon.

Wrong decisions about property rights could be cause a rally only for the property rights. Isn't it possible?

[Danderman]

The US of A has no right to grant deeds to land on the Moon, nor does any country.

However, the Outer Space Treaty DOES provide for the equivalent of land rights, which are perfectly useful for anyone planning to operate on the Moon. In fact, the Moon has been mined, and the proceeds have been sold commercially. There are no legal barriers to mining the Moon, or living on the Moon,  or putting up a solar facility.

What some people want is the ability to sell real estate on the Moon. Apart from the potential profit, the thought is that if people have their wealth up there, someone might go there. It is a weak rationale for overturning the Outer Space Treaty.

If you want to sell the Moon, put up a facility there, and sell the facility.

BTW, I am not suggesting that the Moon should never ever be subject to land claims. At some future date, people living there will set up a property rights regime. In the meantime, we should not hinder those future explorers by subjecting to our ideas of what that property rights regime should be.

[yg1968]

Great article!

Thanks Lar and Elmar! Glad you liked the article.

[IRobot]

Interesting questions.

"“Without property rights, any plan to engage the private sector in long-term beyond LEO activities will ultimately fail." - this should be true.

That is a very uni-country perspective. A Chinese or European country can just land on the "private property" and ignore the law of the other country (ex: USA). Private property presumes that the land belongs to a country in the first place. This is normal on Earth because (except for Antartica) borders have been established on all claimable land.

Also property rights might have the opposite effect. Some corporations can just keep the property rights and do nothing, waiting for it to weight on their assets with some steady yearly increase.

Personally I think these "private property" movements just want to draw some money from investors. "Look, let's get this through Congress, then you buy a block and I will land something there to make it claimable."

[Danderman]

"“Without property rights, any plan to engage the private sector in long-term beyond LEO activities will ultimately fail." - this should be true.

Because there is no commercial activity on the oceans.

Oh, wait.

[MTom]

Interesting questions.

"“Without property rights, any plan to engage the private sector in long-term beyond LEO activities will ultimately fail." - this should be true.

That is a very uni-country perspective. A Chinese or European country can just land on the "private property" and ignore the law of the other country (ex: USA). Private property presumes that the land belongs to a country in the first place. This is normal on Earth because (except for Antartica) borders have been established on all claimable land.

Also property rights might have the opposite effect. Some corporations can just keep the property rights and do nothing, waiting for it to weight on their assets with some steady yearly increase.

Personally I think these "private property" movements just want to draw some money from investors. "Look, let's get this through Congress, then you buy a block and I will land something there to make it claimable."

If you read my second post, you will see, that I have also big questions about giving property rights.

My english ist not good (deutsch könnten wir viel besser miteinander diskutieren...    .)
I wanted say, that the argument from Bigelow could be more or less understood. He wants property rights, he arguing for it.
But the other side of it is also very important to see.

I dont' agree with giving poperty rights, it is too early for it (Danderman had good arguments for it).

[A_M_Swallow]

Interesting questions.

"“Without property rights, any plan to engage the private sector in long-term beyond LEO activities will ultimately fail." - this should be true.

That is a very uni-country perspective. A Chinese or European country can just land on the "private property" and ignore the law of the other country (ex: USA). Private property presumes that the land belongs to a country in the first place. This is normal on Earth because (except for Antartica) borders have been established on all claimable land.

Article IX gives some weak property privileges.

"In the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, States Parties to the Treaty shall be guided by the principle of co-operation and mutual assistance and shall conduct all their activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty.  ... 
 ... A State Party to the Treaty which has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by another State Party in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, may request consultation concerning the activity or experiment."

A country invading and expropriating land allocated to a private firm belonging to a second country is performing an activity that causes "harmful interference with activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space".

Also property rights might have the opposite effect. Some corporations can just keep the property rights and do nothing, waiting for it to weight on their assets with some steady yearly increase.

Personally I think these "private property" movements just want to draw some money from investors. "Look, let's get this through Congress, then you buy a block and I will land something there to make it claimable."

Land speculation requires a buyer.  If a company cannot get authorization to use the land there will be few buyers.

Mining companies need to be told they can mine up to a certain point but no further, that land is the responsibility of someone else.

[Danderman]

What the above post is implying is that private activities on the Moon are allowed, and those entities engaged in activities on the Moon would have control over the area they are working on. They would be protected to some degree against Moon pirates or the North Korean Army by their host country.

What they cannot do is sell the land, or try to maintain control over the land after they leave (assuming they don't leave robots there). Robots are protected, just try to steal that Chinese rabbit and all hell would break loose.

Bigelow really wants to be able to engage in land speculation without actually having a presence there. Unfortunately, in our society, ownership of land requires (implicitly) the ability to control the land, which implies presence, or the ability to extend a virtual presence.

A good analogy would be a proposal to make development in North Korea happen by setting up a system where people around the world could buy and sell North Korean land (of course, without the permission of the current government). In theory, the value of this land would increase and there would be a boatload of money that theoretically was created due to North Korea, but in reality it would be the tulip craze all over again, and when the bubble burst, there would be no value created.  Just as you can't control land you might have title to in North Korea, you can't control land on the Moon today. It is only when there is regular access to the Moon when questions of land title should come up.

So, the Moon real estate people are trying to create a land ownership regime that is fundamentally different from the one we have here, and based on a fundamentally flawed premise.

[Robert Thompson]

Has there been any hard numbers how much "property" Bigelow would want around it's lunar Habitat?

Great work, yg1968. I'm glad we're far enough along to be asking this question, here. IIRC a recent TheSpaceShow (Tumlinson?) had a long segment on property rights, including something about how sea floor mining faced a similar fork in the road, and the 'wrong' fork was chosen.

[starsilk]

The US of A has no right to grant deeds to land on the Moon, nor does any country.

to play Devil's advocate for the moment, the US of A has more right than any other country to grant deeds to land, being the only country to have actually put 'boots on the ground' there. that being the traditional method of claiming land for your country...

[yg1968]

If a nation would start to grant property rights on the Moon wouldn't that imply claiming sovereignty over those parts too, violating OST? Some sort of international agreement on "exclusive economic zones" around static bases might work. Has there been any hard numbers how much "property" Bigelow would want around it's lunar Habitat?

It's organic. So it would vary depending on the circumstances. It would be limited to what you could reach and use. But you would only have a zone of operations if you were using the habitat. If your habitat was no longer in use, your zone of operation would essentially disappear. 

The zone of operation would only be valid against other companies that fall under the juridiction of AST (companies launching from the United States). The zone of operation could not be enforced against other nations unless other nations decide to follow similar rules and decide to grant reciprocity to companies launching from the United States.   

[yg1968]

In his discussion on lunar property rights in the Gate 1 Report, Mike Gold references the following articles:

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, "Who Owns the Moon? The case for Lunar Property Rights", Popular Mechanics, June 1, 2008, http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/4264325

Joseph Miller and David Colt, "Lunar Property and Mining Rights", Worcester Polytechnic Institute, May 26, 2008, p. 18.

Alan Wasser and Douglas Jobes, "Space Settlements, Property Rights, and International Law: Could a Lunar Settlement Claim the Lunar Real Estate It Needs to Survive?", Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Winter 2008, Volume 73, Number 1, p. 41.