Bigelow: Moon Property rights would help create a lunar industry

[A_M_Swallow]

The easiest way around that is to create a new company say Virgin Space Mining.

Not seeing how that could be "easier" in any way Its not the company, but the "sponsoring" nation-state that is the key here. USG as a non-signatory/ratifying nation-state would mean any space mining done by its citizens is their (the citizens) to keep. A signatory/ratifying nation-state government would be obligated to take it all and give it to the UN for distribution under the regulations of the treaty.("Some" would be given back to the original ones who mined it, but it would be pretty much only enough to cover the costs and ONLY after the rest was distributed equally to all signatory nations. Given the way the treaty sets up the distribution process its highly doubtful that ANYTHING would end up in the hands of those who did the mining in this case)
{snip}

A company incorporated in the USA is a US Company and therefore governed by US law.

The Section 8 powers of Congress include:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
 ...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer "

Whether the Sea of Tranquillity on the Moon counts as the high Seas is an interesting question but it is definitely high.

[RanulfC]

The easiest way around that is to create a new company say Virgin Space Mining.

Not seeing how that could be "easier" in any way Its not the company, but the "sponsoring" nation-state that is the key here. USG as a non-signatory/ratifying nation-state would mean any space mining done by its citizens is their (the citizens) to keep. A signatory/ratifying nation-state government would be obligated to take it all and give it to the UN for distribution under the regulations of the treaty.("Some" would be given back to the original ones who mined it, but it would be pretty much only enough to cover the costs and ONLY after the rest was distributed equally to all signatory nations. Given the way the treaty sets up the distribution process its highly doubtful that ANYTHING would end up in the hands of those who did the mining in this case)
{snip}

A company incorporated in the USA is a US Company and therefore governed by US law.

Ahh, I misunderstood why simple forming a company would make a difference.
However To a point, "Spaceflight" has to be "authorized" (in general terms) by a sovereign nation-state government, but by international agreement a "spacecraft" has to be "authorized" by the government of the nation-state it is LAUNCHED from and is generally not able to be "by-proxy" be authorized by any other nation-state. In this case it would not matter WHERE the company was incorporated or head-quartered, the pertinent "fact" here is what government owned and/or was sovereign over the launch site it was launched from. (Baikonur being the "exception that makes the rule" as the case may be, along with some rare others but in general the nation-state where something is launched in legally responsible for all aspects of "law" concerning the spacecraft)

There-fore if a US company (or English as in VG) launches from Australia the Australian government is by-law and international agreement held "responsible" for and legally "assumes" the authorization of and legal consequences of that launch. Australia is now by its signature and ratification into law of the 1979 Moon treaty REQUIRED to impose all regulator and legal restrictions of that treaty on ANY spacecraft launched from territory it controls or has sovereignty over. Bummer but there it is.

So, no forming a company in a non-signatory nation doesn't get you out of having to obey the treaty if you launch from a nation that did sign/ratify the treaty. (See Baikonur and the Soviet Union for reference but unless you're going to somehow "assume" the current government of Australia is going to fold and new one be formed, {NOT talking parliamentary process' here so don't go there} the "example" is not going to be any help)

Randy

[RanulfC]

IMO the US should withdraw from the OST and allow any celestial body landed on by US interests (NASA or commercial) to be claimed as US territory (or probably something like a 100km radius around the landing for large bodies like Moon/Mars).

You didn't read any of what I posted on this did you?

Randy

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
So, no forming a company in a non-signatory nation doesn't get you out of having to obey the treaty if you launch from a nation that did sign/ratify the treaty. (See Baikonur and the Soviet Union for reference but unless you're going to somehow "assume" the current government of Australia is going to fold and new one be formed, {NOT talking parliamentary process' here so don't go there} the "example" is not going to be any help)

Randy

That means the company launches from the USA - where SpaceX and Orbital have their launch pads.

[hop]

However To a point, "Spaceflight" has to be "authorized" (in general terms) by a sovereign nation-state government, but by international agreement a "spacecraft" has to be "authorized" by the government of the nation-state it is LAUNCHED from and is generally not able to be "by-proxy" be authorized by any other nation-state. In this case it would not matter WHERE the company was incorporated or head-quartered, the pertinent "fact" here is what government owned and/or was sovereign over the launch site it was launched from. (Baikonur being the "exception that makes the rule" as the case may be, along with some rare others but in general the nation-state where something is launched in legally responsible for all aspects of "law" concerning the spacecraft)

Do you have any references for this? If Baikonur is the "exception" how is the exception codified?

Are you claiming France legally responsible for everything that launches from CSG? That Russia is legally responsible for Mars Express and Venus Express?

[Vultur]

IMO the US should withdraw from the OST and allow any celestial body landed on by US interests (NASA or commercial) to be claimed as US territory (or probably something like a 100km radius around the landing for large bodies like Moon/Mars).

You didn't read any of what I posted on this did you?

Randy

No -- I did -- but just because the Moon Treaty is even worse doesn't mean the OST isn't a problem.

I think all such treaties are detrimental and have no real point, the Moon and Mars are big enough and there are so many asteroids -- and the cost of entry is high enough -- that fighting over space resources is very unlikely in the near to mid term.

And there's no ecosystem to wreck. So regulation is really unnecessary.

[happyflower]

Sorry for the "what if" questions in advance.

What if Bigelow lands a Moon station (consisting of 2 or 3 BA modules with some connecting structures) on the Moon and begins to mine water, or something else that has an inherent value to it. Can Bigelow make that station a sovereign nation? Any money made from that mining activity is paid to this station which is now on the Moon. Will that be covered by Earth laws? The money and transactions can be maintained in a 3rd party country that has nothing to do with any of the space agreements and is simply for this exercise a banking and financial place holder.

I see corporations on Earth being so good at shell companies, and various smoke and mirror processes that corporations use to get around tax laws. Why couldn't a space corporation do the same thing?

[RanulfC]

No -- I did -- but just because the Moon Treaty is even worse doesn't mean the OST isn't a problem.

Really the OST is pretty "good" as far as treaties go but what I was refering to that without any treaty the US would in fact probably lose any fight to get recognition of any "claims" by anyone but the US and more to the point NO ONE is willing to put a "fight" to extend private property rights BY NAME to outer space.

I think all such treaties are detrimental and have no real point, the Moon and Mars are big enough and there are so many asteroids -- and the cost of entry is high enough -- that fighting over space resources is very unlikely in the near to mid term.

I'd LOVE to see you support your point-of-view at some point and time because in fact treaties have PREVENTED a lot more grief and suffering than they ever caused and the only reason we've been seeing less and less of them is that far to many people are coming to the conclusion that "treaties" serve no purpose other than to bind all the resources and money into the hands of a few powerful people/nation-states to the detriment of the "rest" of the people/nations-states.

History is also quite against you in the fact that no matter how "big" a chunk of real-estate is PEOPLE *will* end up fighting over it unless they make agreements (treaties) not to and have a way resolved to work out future conflicts. (Treaties are NEVER about the near/mid-term they are made to ensure the best possible outcome among those making the agreement for the LONG-TERM. Which is why the 1979 OST is such a stinker because it attempts to turn everything into "common" heritiage so that no one, anywhere, at any time will be able to "use" it unless everyone get a share of the pie no matter if they "helping" with the process or not)

Randy

[Vultur]

No -- I did -- but just because the Moon Treaty is even worse doesn't mean the OST isn't a problem.

Really the OST is pretty "good" as far as treaties go but what I was refering to that without any treaty the US would in fact probably lose any fight to get recognition of any "claims" by anyone but the US

Sure, but that wouldn't really matter. There are too few countries/entities capable of exploiting space resources and too much "stuff" for it to become a problem anytime in the vaguely near future.

I think all such treaties are detrimental and have no real point, the Moon and Mars are big enough and there are so many asteroids -- and the cost of entry is high enough -- that fighting over space resources is very unlikely in the near to mid term.

I'd LOVE to see you support your point-of-view at some point and time because in fact treaties have PREVENTED a lot more grief and suffering than they ever caused

By "all such treaties" I didn't mean treaties in general but "common-heritage-of-mankind" stuff and attempts to regulate resource use (whether ocean/Antarctica/Moon/whatever) in some way other than making them part of the territory of a recognized nation.


"Common-heritage-of-mankind" sounds great and noble but in practice it leads to either "tragedy of the commons" stuff with no one responsible for conserving it (as in the oceans) or total non-use (Antarctic and space resources).

(Treaties are NEVER about the near/mid-term they are made to ensure the best possible outcome among those making the agreement for the LONG-TERM

Yeah, but there's not much point in trying to hash out the 'long term' for this one yet. By the time Moon/Mars/asteroids are sufficiently industrialized for resources to become limited in relation to the capacity to use them, they'll probably have enough of a population to have a formal legal status either as states/provinces/etc of Earth nations or independent nations and thus there will be no place for "common-heritage-of-mankind".

EDIT: That is, until space resources are actually exploited they should be "terra nullius" (free for anyone to claim) rather than "common heritage of mankind".

[RanulfC]

EDIT: That is, until space resources are actually exploited they should be "terra nullius" (free for anyone to claim) rather than "common heritage of mankind".

My point is they ARE so under the original OST without the requirement of prior national-soverignty/ownership while under the 1979 treaty they will NEVER be anything but "common heritage" which means no-one can use them...

About the ONLY reason this discussion has had any validity currently is that people are considering near-term (nearer anyway) use of some resources (Lunar Water for example) which is a good thing to be thinking ahead on but in reality it also effects some even "nearer" term issues in that under the 1979 treaty (due to the whole "common heritage" thing) PROFITS made by accessing "space" can also be considered "resources" and therefore fall under the legal disposition thereof. That means if some country were to decided to "adhere" to the 1979 treaty there's a whole can of legal worms that need to be addressed RIGHT NOW that gets opened if they were a prior non-treaty nation and had launched things like communications satellites for non-treaty nations. Legally every "cent" made by the satellite even though its "on-Earth" is subject to the "common-heritage" clause of the 1979 treaty.

Randy

[A_M_Swallow]

EDIT: That is, until space resources are actually exploited they should be "terra nullius" (free for anyone to claim) rather than "common heritage of mankind".

My point is they ARE so under the original OST without the requirement of prior national-soverignty/ownership while under the 1979 treaty they will NEVER be anything but "common heritage" which means no-one can use them...

About the ONLY reason this discussion has had any validity currently is that people are considering near-term (nearer anyway) use of some resources (Lunar Water for example) which is a good thing to be thinking ahead on but in reality it also effects some even "nearer" term issues in that under the 1979 treaty (due to the whole "common heritage" thing) PROFITS made by accessing "space" can also be considered "resources" and therefore fall under the legal disposition thereof. That means if some country were to decided to "adhere" to the 1979 treaty there's a whole can of legal worms that need to be addressed RIGHT NOW that gets opened if they were a prior non-treaty nation and had launched things like communications satellites for non-treaty nations. Legally every "cent" made by the satellite even though its "on-Earth" is subject to the "common-heritage" clause of the 1979 treaty.

Randy

Do not confuse the OST and Moon treaties.

Under the OST the firm cannot own land on Mars but it does own any iron or oxygen mined.  That saves having to buy the land.

[JasonAW3]

I think we're getting a bit far afield of the subject?

     Unless, of course, if you're discussing growth of food in a Bigelow Module...

[Chris Bergin]

Thread trimmed of absolute total off topicness.

[R7]

Really the OST is pretty "good" as far as treaties go...

Sorry Randy.  It sux in toto.  It does not acknowledge individual rights and freedoms, only those of the state.

Why should it? Déjà vu

[yg1968]

It looks like the AST agrees with Bigelow that a zone of non-interference should exist. This is huge:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/03/us-usa-moon-business-idUSKBN0L715F20150203

The Federal Aviation Administration, in a previously undisclosed late-December letter to Bigelow Aerospace, said the agency intends to “leverage the FAA’s existing launch licensing authority to encourage private sector investments in space systems by ensuring that commercial activities can be conducted on a non-interference basis.”

[A_M_Swallow]

US Federal law can bind US companies and government organisations.  Other countries may choose to respect US granted licences on a tit for tat basis.  The Outer Space Treaty gives cover for this under the non-interference clause.  Respect will be encouraged if the USA does not get too greedy and lodges a copy of the licences with the United Nations.

Different licences will be needed for buildings, roads, cable cars, mines, factories and space ports.

[SpaceDave]

This is a big deal. Maybe the mods should move this thread to space policy?

[RanulfC]

This is a big deal. Maybe the mods should move this thread to space policy?

Not sure how "big" or "huge" it is as it really only re-states what the official policy is under the OST for commercial operations. "Property rights" is covered and really a non-issue, "mineral rights" is also covered but as the article points out the US Federal regulatory infrastructure and setup are not yet in place to support such efforts and really do need to be addressed.

The "non-interferance" zone is still going to be no where near what Bigelow's (and others) consider "property rights"

Randy

[AncientU]

One advantage of going back to the Moon before other nations is to establish precedent -- property-rights are so fundamental to our freedom and individual rights that establishing them on the Moon (or Mars) would be occupying the high ground.

Contrast this to other Nations' (e.g., China's, Russia's, Iran's) potential approach if they were to get there first and establish precedent that stemmed from their world-view.

[Darkseraph]

The problem of lunar industry developing is not a legal regimen, but a business case that closes and everything else is pure fantasy. There are loads of industries that act outside of legal protection on Earth, but because they serve someone's needs and provide things people are willing to exchange funds for willingly, they survive. If someone steals your kilo of coke on Earth, you can't exactly go crying to the government to sanction the thieves. Hasn't caused those industries to collapse. In fact, modern electronics use a whole heap of conflict minerals, that are obtained from places that basically have no law and order, but it still works. I will be unpopular here for saying it and I'm not trolling, but I think the huge focus in the discussion of legal regimens for space markets is a fig leaf for the lack of a plausible business plan that doesn't get you laughed off the planet. If you blame bad laws, people will focus on them and not the serious holes in your plan.


If Bigelow wants property rights on the Moon or whatever, I think he should pay for the "moon police" himself for his plot of land! But to be honest, I think he just wants the US Tax Payer to foot the bill whilst decrying the evils of socialism!!!

/rant over.


My own prediction for this is that when it's possible to make a buck out of sending humans to the moon or using its resources, the facts will have been established on the ground by several players and the legal codifying of it will follow.