Bigelow: Moon Property rights would help create a lunar industry

[Ludus]

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.

Drug cartels are an interesting case. They wouldn't exist without laws against their product enforced at great expense by governments.  Otherwise coke or meth if legal would be a cheap low profit commodity. The lawless character of the resulting trade supports large criminal organizations to act as shadow governments regulating the market. These governments then fight wars with each other and real governments until borders and zones of influence stabilize.
I don't think you'll find too many instances in history where law and government didn't take the lead in creating new markets. Without a legal basis for the business it's very hard to secure the necessary capital. With property rights in place it's often possible to get speculative capital involved without a proven business model.

[AncientU]

It is impossible to close a business case without some assurance that what you are creating will be your to profit from.  Something of the chicken/egg issue here.

[D_Dom]

The problem of lunar industry developing is not a legal regimen, but a business case that closes ...

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.

I absolutely agree the business case is a primary concern, countries engaged in moon exploration do not have the same focus on profit as US. Treaties are written and signed into law for various reasons, I tend to think economic motivations are primary. Not sure how other countries determine cost vs benefit.

[RanulfC]

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.

Not an issue under the current treaties. "Property rights" on Earth devolve directly from government prior ownership which does not apply in space. Also nations can't "set-a-precedent" again due to those same treaties.

It is impossible to close a business case without some assurance that what you are creating will be your to profit from.  Something of the chicken/egg issue here.

Not at all, and we've been over this. While nations such as China and Russia MIGHT try and confiscate their own citizens "profit" due to signing the 1979 Moon treaty they have NO rights or legal standing to do so to any nations citizens that are NOT signatories. Further the US government can't legally do so either as any citizen (or "sponsored) mission) falls under out laws and regulations by treaty as well.

You extract it. Its yours as long as your "sponsor" nation is under the OST and not the 1979 treaty.

Randy

[yg1968]

Another article:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21642065-attempt-stake-claim-airless-desert-lunar-lunacy?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2Flunarlunacy

[RanulfC]

Another article:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21642065-attempt-stake-claim-airless-desert-lunar-lunacy?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2Flunarlunacy

Ugh, some pretty misleading stuff in there and a lot of what seems to be delibrit misunderstanding of what the OST actually says over what the writer wants it to have said. Bigelow's Michael Gold, if quoted correctly doesn't help with his hyperbole either. You don't HAVE to "own" the property to make a profit from extracting resources, (deep sea fishing killed THAT concept long, long ago) which is the point the outer space "property-rights" folks keep missing.

On the other hand, stuff like this which seem to regard space as "only" the domain of brave, steely eyed GOVERNEMNT EMPLOYEE explorers misses the bigger picture of expanded human presence and opportunity that space provides.

Randy

[yg1968]

Very good article by Jeff Foust:
http://spacenews.com/faa-review-a-small-step-for-lunar-commercialization-efforts/

[Impaler]

I find the desire of a manufacturer of habitats for property-rights to be very silly.  It's like a shipbuilder saying he needs to own the ocean to make his business viable.

Bigelow's is a manufacturer of physical HARDWARE which has already has an iron-clad ownership structure when in space and can be readily bought and sold before or after being placed in space.  Should then go on to act as the owner/operator of a habitat in LEO or on the Moon their ownership of their habitat asset is again iron-clad, they can perfectly legally operate a Moon hotel without owning the ground on which it is placed.

Now if you want to say that mining the moon requires property-rights then that is another thing all together.  Currently the legality of owning what ever you can bring back from the moon looks fairly strong and the OST prevents any claims or interference between people in space, thus mining the moon is like some of thouse 'free for all' gold panning areas, anyone can go and collect but no one can exclude anyone else other then the minimum safety buffer around any vessel or person.

Arguably some kind of prospecting and mining claim system can promote investment in mining activity above the level that the 'free for all' creates as investors will put up more capitol because of the reduced risk that some discovery of rich minerals will be gobbled up by competitors (and on the Moon their is no way to keep your activity secret so competitors are guaranteed). 

This is an argument for some kind of international body to grant such claims, something very much like the International Seabed authority which dose exactly this on Earth.  Unfortunately the Moon treaty which called for the establishment of just such a body (and a ban on mining only UNTIL such a body was formed to sanction it) was stymied by the usual libertarian nut-jobs who have likewise attacked the Seabed authority and crippled the nascent sea-floor mining industry by creating a division between international and US claims.  While the moon has no business case for mining which closes (and likely won't for many many decades) the seabed is right on the cusp of economic viability and the precedents set their are likely to be applied to the Moon someday.

[A_M_Swallow]

I find the desire of a manufacturer of habitats for property-rights to be very silly.  It's like a shipbuilder saying he needs to own the ocean to make his business viable.

Bigelow's is a manufacturer of physical HARDWARE which has already has an iron-clad ownership structure when in space and can be readily bought and sold before or after being placed in space.  Should then go on to act as the owner/operator of a habitat in LEO or on the Moon their ownership of their habitat asset is again iron-clad, they can perfectly legally operate a Moon hotel without owning the ground on which it is placed.

Now if you want to say that mining the moon requires property-rights then that is another thing all together.  Currently the legality of owning what ever you can bring back from the moon looks fairly strong and the OST prevents any claims or interference between people in space, thus mining the moon is like some of thouse 'free for all' gold panning areas, anyone can go and collect but no one can exclude anyone else other then the minimum safety buffer around any vessel or person.

Arguably some kind of prospecting and mining claim system can promote investment in mining activity above the level that the 'free for all' creates as investors will put up more capitol because of the reduced risk that some discovery of rich minerals will be gobbled up by competitors (and on the Moon their is no way to keep your activity secret so competitors are guaranteed). 

This is an argument for some kind of international body to grant such claims, something very much like the International Seabed authority which dose exactly this on Earth.  Unfortunately the Moon treaty which called for the establishment of just such a body (and a ban on mining only UNTIL such a body was formed to sanction it) was stymied by the usual libertarian nut-jobs who have likewise attacked the Seabed authority and crippled the nascent sea-floor mining industry by creating a division between international and US claims.  While the moon has no business case for mining which closes (and likely won't for many many decades) the seabed is right on the cusp of economic viability and the precedents set their are likely to be applied to the Moon someday.

By treaty any US Corporation wishing to mine the Moon or asteroid needs permission from the US Federal Government.  Currently the US Federal Government does not have any way of giving such authorisation.

[ThereIWas3]

I am under the impression that Bigelow's Earth business is in the construction and leasing of commercial buildings.  I think he wants to do the same thing in orbit and on the Moon. 

So he does have an interest in some insurance that, after he has set up a habitat somewhere, that some other operator can not come in and encroach on his property.  It doesn't mean he has to own the land it sits on, but (the way I heard it being discussed on some NPR program last week about this FAA review) that if some government issues a "licence" for a commercial operator somewhere on the Moon, with a specified boundary, that the government would not issue another "licence" to somebody else for that same plot of land.

What international process assigns Clarke-orbit positions to comm satellites?  I know that the International Telecommunications Unions is involved, but I would guess they are concerned about frequency allocation, not one satellite bumping another one out of position.

[Moe Grills]

It is impossible to close a business case without some assurance that what you are creating will be your to profit from.  Something of the chicken/egg issue here.

Amen!

Mr. Bigelow would have much more credibility and more political influence on this issue if he had potential customers lined up or interested in 'something' from the lunar surface.
As for what that 'something' could be? Let's say for argument's sake that it's HE-3 that he wants to mine on the moon and sell to customers. Are there any serious customers on Earth for HE-3?

[rayleighscatter]

I find the desire of a manufacturer of habitats for property-rights to be very silly.  It's like a shipbuilder saying he needs to own the ocean to make his business viable.

Bigelow's is a manufacturer of physical HARDWARE which has already has an iron-clad ownership structure when in space and can be readily bought and sold before or after being placed in space.  Should then go on to act as the owner/operator of a habitat in LEO or on the Moon their ownership of their habitat asset is again iron-clad, they can perfectly legally operate a Moon hotel without owning the ground on which it is placed.

Now if you want to say that mining the moon requires property-rights then that is another thing all together.  Currently the legality of owning what ever you can bring back from the moon looks fairly strong and the OST prevents any claims or interference between people in space, thus mining the moon is like some of thouse 'free for all' gold panning areas, anyone can go and collect but no one can exclude anyone else other then the minimum safety buffer around any vessel or person.

Arguably some kind of prospecting and mining claim system can promote investment in mining activity above the level that the 'free for all' creates as investors will put up more capitol because of the reduced risk that some discovery of rich minerals will be gobbled up by competitors (and on the Moon their is no way to keep your activity secret so competitors are guaranteed). 

This is an argument for some kind of international body to grant such claims, something very much like the International Seabed authority which dose exactly this on Earth.  Unfortunately the Moon treaty which called for the establishment of just such a body (and a ban on mining only UNTIL such a body was formed to sanction it) was stymied by the usual libertarian nut-jobs who have likewise attacked the Seabed authority and crippled the nascent sea-floor mining industry by creating a division between international and US claims.  While the moon has no business case for mining which closes (and likely won't for many many decades) the seabed is right on the cusp of economic viability and the precedents set their are likely to be applied to the Moon someday.

By treaty any US Corporation wishing to mine the Moon or asteroid needs permission from the US Federal Government.  Currently the US Federal Government does not have any way of giving such authorisation.

Actually the shipping metaphor is still apt here. Most ships aren't flagged in the country of their corporation and instead are flagged in (usually) Panama, Liberia, Marshall Islands, or Malta because of the lax regulations. When it comes to exploiting the moon it would be no different. If one nation won't allow a corporation to exploit it then it will create a subsidiary in a country that will.

[cro-magnon gramps]

It is impossible to close a business case without some assurance that what you are creating will be your to profit from.  Something of the chicken/egg issue here.

Amen!

Mr. Bigelow would have much more credibility and more political influence on this issue if he had potential customers lined up or interested in 'something' from the lunar surface.
As for what that 'something' could be? Let's say for argument's sake that it's HE-3 that he wants to mine on the moon and sell to customers. Are there any serious customers on Earth for HE-3?

"Mr. Bigelow would have much more credibility and more political influence on this issue if he had potential customers lined up or interested in 'something' from the lunar surface."

  Until Bigelow can prove he has the means to get off planet and create Space Stations, Lunar Outposts, or Space Craft capable of reaching Cis-Lunar and Inner Solar System Destinations, nothing will be done by Government or Private Sector Agencies, to begin securing property and resource rights in space. There is no need to, and no one will want to waste time on it.
   
   First there has to be a way to get there and back. That's the Falcon Heavy or BFR Lite; Then a few flights of foreign or domestic customers will force the politicians to act. It doesn't matter what the customers do, it will be the simple act of doing that will be the catalyst that forces agencies to start working. Because if they don't, they will be left behind by the events of the day. Constantly in Catch Up Mode. Totally ineffectual and behind the times, unless they ban the actions of those companies utilizing space in novel ways. I can't see that going over well.

"As for what that 'something' could be? Let's say for argument's sake that it's HE-3 that he wants to mine on the moon and sell to customers. Are there any serious customers on Earth for HE-3?"

This is the same situation that all Space Entrepreneurs are in. If we look at Aluminum as an example, it wasn't until cheap electricity became available that the smelting of Bauxite was possible to produce aluminum ore in quantity.

That ignited a rush of companies to get working on usages for this new metal. Such that within 50 years they were making planes and jet engines using the new metals now available. By the late 60's Aluminum was and is so cheap, that it became a throw away item, pop cans.

  If we follow that route with Space Resources like PMGs and HE-3, etc, then we will have to go out there and start sourcing the resources before people want to invest in the developing of new and novel uses. Cheap space access being the equivalent of Electricity in the 1890's. There are known advantages to both, here on Earth today, but rarity and expense keeps people from developing even those. Who would want to put in place infrastructure for use now, or before there are quantities way beyond what we have now? Even less so, why experiment to find new uses, if there is never going to be enough to make it profitable?



Gramps