Bigelow: Moon Property rights would help create a lunar industry

[Mader Levap]

A government department that knows about mining, roads and buildings could issue Licences authorising private sector 'activities' on the Moon and asteroids.

Whose goverment department? China?

[high road]

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...

That way of claiming land has been the cause of 500 years of fighting for the America's, Africa and the European colonies in Asia. Including the wars of independence, the outcome of which is the direct cause for most of the current conflicts in those territories. Especially in Africa. Let's try to avoid that.

Property rights are an issue that will have to be resolved before (or most likely when) the first companies want to erect businesses on the moon, or when the first settlers want to go. But we're still a few years away from that though. A lot of development and research needs to be done before anybody can start doing business on the moon, even if property rights would be protected. Until business on the moon reaches a certain size, 'property rights' in space would be a matter of goodwill and diplomacy between countries, like it is today.

I too like the idea of a separate governing body, paid for by the business and colonists on the moon, that takes decisions solely in the interests of all people on the moon. Any other regulations would depend on the company's home country. That's basically the same as a company that has mines or factories in other nations. But if a company or nation violates the rules, how will they be punished or made to comply? That's something that hasn't been adressed yet. If you can't enforce the rules, they aren't real rules.

Furthermore, it's more complex. Mines want to have exclusive rights to the surface rich in ore, but a space telescope would want to forbid anyone from coming within hundreds of kilometers, to avoid signals and tremors that would reduce accuracy. Hotels might like their guests to be able to travel anywhere, regardless of territorial claims. Colonists would not necessarily need much space, but a lot of planning so the settlement can sustain itself. Another thing to consider, is to have the claims to be renewable every year or so. As soon as the company stops paying it's yearly taxes (that should go to further opening up the moon for business and colonization), the claim is put up for sale. That way, nobody gets to speculate on rising land prices while the claim lies bare. Or at least not for free.

[yg1968]

The Economist recently also came out with an article on lunar property rights:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/02/lunar-property-rights

[Rocket Science]

The Economist recently also came out with an article on lunar property rights:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/02/lunar-property-rights

Thanks for the link yg! This topic crosses the line from commercial to policy and maybe Chris can decide should it be moved or another thread started? China just this past week said it intends to revisit any treaty it signed in the past as she is much more than she was and those treaties are in a sense voided....

[Robotbeat]

The Economist recently also came out with an article on lunar property rights:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/02/lunar-property-rights

Thanks for the link yg! This topic crosses the line from commercial to policy and maybe Chris can decide should it be moved or another thread started? China just this past week said it intends to revisit any treaty it signed in the past as she is much more than she was and those treaties are in a sense voided....

That sucks. Not for space policy, but for future prospects of peace in the region.

[Rocket Science]

The Economist recently also came out with an article on lunar property rights:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/02/lunar-property-rights

Thanks for the link yg! This topic crosses the line from commercial to policy and maybe Chris can decide should it be moved or another thread started? China just this past week said it intends to revisit any treaty it signed in the past as she is much more than she was and those treaties are in a sense voided....

That sucks. Not for space policy, but for future prospects of peace in the region.

If we colonize off-world, be it the Moon or Mars, we will take our 'human failings" with us...

[Robotbeat]

The Economist recently also came out with an article on lunar property rights:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/02/lunar-property-rights

Thanks for the link yg! This topic crosses the line from commercial to policy and maybe Chris can decide should it be moved or another thread started? China just this past week said it intends to revisit any treaty it signed in the past as she is much more than she was and those treaties are in a sense voided....

That sucks. Not for space policy, but for future prospects of peace in the region.

If we colonize off-world, be it the Moon or Mars, we will take our 'human failings" with us...

Well, to be honest, I think a small amount of nationalistic competition (mixed with the desire to peacefully coexist) is good for space exploration. If it motivates the US government to take exploration seriously (and for Congress to not consider NASA as just a job provider in their district) and for US companies like Bigelow, then it's a good thing for space policy.

I'm just worried about territorial waters... Taiwa--oh, look at the time!

[R7]

Bigelow  . o O ( I want to speculate with lunar property, could mean riches for me. Gotta muddy the OST waters though... )

Congress:  ZZZzzz

Bigelow: Hey grant me lunar property rights!

Congress: zzz...krhh...uh... huh?

Bigelow: Yeah, property rights, for ... uh ... base security reasons.

Congress: But OST.

Bigelow: CHINA! Fanged fire breathing communists will eat the Moon if I don't get lunar property rights.

Congress: Oh no! We must act!

[dcporter]

That way of claiming land has been the cause of 500 years of fighting for the America's, Africa and the European colonies in Asia. Including the wars of independence, the outcome of which is the direct cause for most of the current conflicts in those territories. Especially in Africa. Let's try to avoid that.

It's only the proximate cause of the current conflicts in those territories; in all of those cases, the root cause was our (humanity's) habitual deplorable treatment of native peoples by colonists. I gotta say I'm not too worried about repeating our past sins re: native peoples... when we land on the Moon.

[A_M_Swallow]

A government department that knows about mining, roads and buildings could issue Licences authorising private sector 'activities' on the Moon and asteroids.

Whose goverment department? China?

Chinese mining and settlement companies will probably approach the Chinese Government for authorisation.

The British would go to The "Department of the Environment".

[Mader Levap]

Chinese mining and settlement companies will probably approach the Chinese Government for authorisation. The British would go to The "Department of the Environment".

So miners/settlers from given nation will deal with their own goverment bureaucracy, huh.
Now what you will do if plans and permits of various countries conflicts? Let's say Chinese and British settlers lay claim to same piece of South Pole. Now what?

[Robotbeat]

If Bigelow is motivated by profit-seeking when it comes to lunar property rights, then he's dumber than I thought.

[ChefPat]

The International Institute of Space Law

It might be worthwhile to get these guys involved in the conversation.

[Hop_David]

China just this past week said it intends to revisit any treaty it signed in the past as she is much more than she was and those treaties are in a sense voided....

What?!

I hope that is true. An aggressive Chinese lunar push might prod U.S. politicians to wake up.

And even if the U.S. doesn't step up, it's good to see some part of human civilization pushing the envelope.


Rocket Science do you have a link for that?

[go4mars]

I didn't mention it in the article. But during the Gate 2 Press conference, Bigelow mentionned that one reason for promoting property rights is to prevent China from claiming the Moon. He said that he doesn't thinking China is going to the Moon for flags and footprints.

I'm curious why you left that out of the article. 
He's been talking about it for a long time and I think it's a very central point to his thesis/motivation. 

Incidentally, I think there are good odds that he's right (even though many people seem to enjoy casting levity at the point of view).

[yg1968]

I didn't mention it in the article. But during the Gate 2 Press conference, Bigelow mentionned that one reason for promoting property rights is to prevent China from claiming the Moon. He said that he doesn't thinking China is going to the Moon for flags and footprints.

I'm curious why you left that out of the article. 
He's been talking about it for a long time and I think it's a very central point to his thesis/motivation. 

Incidentally, I think there are good odds that he's right (even though many people seem to enjoy casting levity at the point of view).

I left it out because it isn't news. He said it many times before. But perhaps, I should have included it. I didn't realize that China is second guessing some of its treaty commitments.

[yg1968]

If Bigelow is motivated by profit-seeking when it comes to lunar property rights, then he's dumber than I thought.

What about in-situ resource utilization?

[dcporter]

I left it out because it isn't news. He said it many times before.

FWIW, I think the productive property-rights conversation we've had would have gone a different, less productive direction if you'd included it, and as you say, it's not news.

[R7]

Bigelow mentionned that one reason for promoting property rights is to prevent China from claiming the Moon.

Bigelow's logic seems upside down; aren't recognized lunar property rights the very tool China needs to claim at least those parts of the Moon with Chinese activity? Or is there some hidden double standards to rule out Chinese claims.

[yg1968]

Bigelow mentionned that one reason for promoting property rights is to prevent China from claiming the Moon.

Bigelow's logic seems upside down; aren't recognized lunar property rights the very tool China needs to claim at least those parts of the Moon with Chinese activity? Or is there some hidden double standards to rule out Chinese claims.

I haven't verified this. But apparently, China (or any other country) can get out of the OST Treaty with a one year notice.

Edit: changed 6 months to a year. Thanks R7.