Bigelow: Moon Property rights would help create a lunar industry

[A_M_Swallow]

Currently we can land and takeoff from any where on the Moon.  When bases and villages are set built rockets may have to be limited to using designated landing and launch pads to prevent problems with sand blasting.  Such space ports will need licensing.

[ChefPat]

In the United States the property owner also owns all the natural resources in or under his property.

Wanna bet?

[Robotbeat]

Who created the Earth? Who created the Moon? We certainly didn't. Neither should any one entity be able to withhold for itself the full rights to a celestial indefinitely merely by arriving first.

[yg1968]

A good article, but the thread is painful to read. It's full of links to other sites and I have no idea what this is all about now. It's annoying to see people trip over their own feet to post links to other sites on subjects this site has already covered!

Example..

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/09/protecting-apollo-sites-future-visiting-vehicles-nasa-evaluation/

From what I can remember, this keep out zone for the Apollo sites was just a recommendation as NASA has no way to enforce it.

[R7]

Since under the OST space resources are collectively owned, it is an interesting question whether royalties could be charged. I guess there is nothing in principle that would prevent the collection of royalties from space mining. Presumably, they would go to the UN, thus reducing the contributions that the world's taxpayer's pay for the UN's upkeep.

You seem to mix OST and the Moon Treaty.

The Moon Treaty mentions "Common heritage of mankind" and calls for establishing an international regime to handle resource appropriations (read: paying other nations for exclusive rights). In consequence it's a dead letter unratified by real space powers.

OST is more vague, there are no calls for such licensing regimes. Article I can be argued to contain text against it:

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.

I read free and without discrimination as in not required to pay other nations any "licensing fees".

[yg1968]

I agree with you. The U.N. doesn't have international sovereignty over space. I don't think that it could charge a royalty for mineral rights in space unless a Treaty would give it a right to do so (as the Moon Treaty does).

Incidentally, there is a theory of international sovererignty in which the U.N. would be allowed to grant private property rights. The idea behind it is that the OST bans national appropriation of celestial bodies but it doesn't ban appropriation by international organizations such as the U.N. But very few people believe in this theory.

[Warren Platts]

Since under the OST space resources are collectively owned, it is an interesting question whether royalties could be charged. I guess there is nothing in principle that would prevent the collection of royalties from space mining. Presumably, they would go to the UN, thus reducing the contributions that the world's taxpayer's pay for the UN's upkeep.

You seem to mix OST and the Moon Treaty.

The Moon Treaty mentions "Common heritage of mankind" and calls for establishing an international regime to handle resource appropriations (read: paying other nations for exclusive rights). In consequence it's a dead letter unratified by real space powers.

Well, Article I does say that space is the "province of all mankind". My reading is that means that the "Sovereign" in this case is mankind collectively. This is supported by Article II where it says that "national appropriation by claim of sovereignty" is forbidden.

OST is more vague, there are no calls for such licensing regimes. Article I can be argued to contain text against it:

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.

I read free and without discrimination as in not required to pay other nations any "licensing fees".

Interesting, but I think  "free access" means "freedom of access" rather than "no money shall be charged for access"

[Warren Platts]

I agree with you. The U.N. doesn't have international sovereignty over space.

The UN per se doesn't have sovereignty over space--humanity as a whole does. But what other organization can claim to represent humanity as a whole? The OST is a UN document that was adopted by the General Assembly, and the phrase "United Nations" is mentioned 10 times in the treaty. It's pretty clear that the administration of the treaty is the UN's job.

I don't think that it could charge a royalty for mineral rights in space unless a Treaty would give it a right to do so (as the Moon Treaty does).

This I agree with. The OST as presently framed does not have a mechanism for collecting royalties, but there is nothing in principle--i.e., there is would be no violation of international law--that would prevent a modification of the treaty that would allow the UN to collect royalties. This is why we should LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE. Once it is decided to modify the OST, all kinds of cans of worms will be unleashed, and there's no telling how things will settle out in the end.

Incidentally, there is a theory of international sovererignty in which the U.N. would be allowed to grant private property rights. The idea behind it is that the OST bans national appropriation of celestial bodies but it doesn't ban appropriation by international organizations such as the U.N. But very few people believe in this theory.

I see this all the time as well, but usually they say that governments cannot have private property, but private individuals, corporations, or NGOs can have private property. This doesn't even make logical sense: why should private organizations be allowed to have property but not governments? The confusion stems from a misinterpretation of the Article II phrase "national appropriation" IMO. Clearly, "national appropriation" is referring to claims of sovereignty; however, it is possible for a government to own property (dominium) that is not a part of the nation's sovereign territory (imperium). E.g., the US government might purchase some real estate in a foreign country for housing or a school for diplomats' children; the US government would own the real estate, but the land still remains the sovereign territory of the foreign nation. Similarly, NASA could claim ownership over the Apollo sites (as it has already done IMHO); but this is not the same as saying the Apollo sites are the sovereign territory of the USA.

[yg1968]

Since under the OST space resources are collectively owned, it is an interesting question whether royalties could be charged. I guess there is nothing in principle that would prevent the collection of royalties from space mining. Presumably, they would go to the UN, thus reducing the contributions that the world's taxpayer's pay for the UN's upkeep.

You seem to mix OST and the Moon Treaty.

The Moon Treaty mentions "Common heritage of mankind" and calls for establishing an international regime to handle resource appropriations (read: paying other nations for exclusive rights). In consequence it's a dead letter unratified by real space powers.

Well, Article I does say that space is the "province of all mankind". My reading is that means that the "Sovereign" in this case is mankind collectively. This is supported by Article II where it says that "national appropriation by claim of sovereignty" is forbidden.

I don't think that humans in general can be a sovereign entity. Only nation-states can be sovereign. The idea of international sovereignty is controversial. The U.N. isn't a world government; it would be against its charter to apropriate celestial bodies.

[R7]

Well, Article I does say that space is the "province of all mankind". My reading is that means that the "Sovereign" in this case is mankind collectively. This is supported by Article II where it says that "national appropriation by claim of sovereignty" is forbidden.

No, it says the exploration and use of outer space shall be the province of all mankind. The word "province" here seems to denote scope/sphere of function/interest, not actual territory.

Clearly, "national appropriation" is referring to claims of sovereignty; however, it is possible for a government to own property (dominium) that is not a part of the nation's sovereign territory (imperium). E.g., the US government might purchase some real estate in a foreign country for housing or a school for diplomats' children; the US government would own the real estate, but the land still remains the sovereign territory of the foreign nation. Similarly, NASA could claim ownership over the Apollo sites (as it has already done IMHO); but this is not the same as saying the Apollo sites are the sovereign territory of the USA.

Your examples seem different. In terrestrial case US government buys land which before purchase is already someone else's imperium. US gov is allowed to own (dominium) the land by the sovereign state where the land resides. In Apollo case the right of ownership is not negotiated with other party but dominium is declared over terra nullius. How does latter work without effectively declaring sovereignty too?

If it is viewed that humanity as a whole has sovereignty over other celestial bodies how does this compute to individual nations? Or individuals?? If it's via UN then is there fractional national sovereignty (which woud appear to contradict OST) based on how much each country contributes to UN budget? Does everyone own roughly 1/7,000,000,000th of the Moon? Who decides values? I'd like to have one million dollars from Bigelow for my share of the Moon but agree with you that the can enabling this should not be opened.

for levity: if giant impact theory is proven correct then some lawyers could argue that because Moon is piece of Earth then technically it could be seen as eighth continent not under OST therefore up for grabs 

[yg1968]

Similarly, NASA could claim ownership over the Apollo sites (as it has already done IMHO); but this is not the same as saying the Apollo sites are the sovereign territory of the USA.

NASA only issued recommendations that private commercial entities keep out of the Apollo sites. NASA realizes that it cannot actually enforce these recommendations.  See page 5 of the NASA Lunar Artifacts Document:

As such, this document does not represent mandatory USG or international requirements; rather, it is offered to inform lunar spacecraft mission planners interested in helping preserve and protect lunar historic artifacts and potential science opportunities for future missions.

http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/library/reports/lunar-artifacts.html

[R7]

NASA only issued recommendations that private commercial entities keep out of the Apollo sites. NASA realizes that it cannot actually enforce these recommendations.

It's also a request for foreign space agencies how to conduct their lunar missions near USG sites. The ISS keep-out zone mentioned in your article is similar. If Shenzhou swoops inside it all ISS can legally do is territorial threat display by wiggling solar panels and arm

Btw is there a small typo in the article, it speaks of 200km zone? Just watched Cygnus exiting the 200 meter KOS.

[yg1968]

No this safety zone (for launch) is 200 km. There is also a 200 m keep out zone but that's not the one Gold was refering to. 

See page 1 of this article:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130009700_2013009063.pdf

Current launch COLA processes screen each launched object across the launch window to determine if an object's nominal trajectory is predicted to pass within 200 km of the ISS (or any other manned/mannable object), resulting in a launch window closure.

See also page 1 of this article:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120016669_2012017317.pdf

[yg1968]

NASA only issued recommendations that private commercial entities keep out of the Apollo sites. NASA realizes that it cannot actually enforce these recommendations.

It's also a request for foreign space agencies how to conduct their lunar missions near USG sites. The ISS keep-out zone mentioned in your article is similar. If Shenzhou swoops inside it all ISS can legally do is territorial threat display by wiggling solar panels and arm

It's different, the 200 km is imposed for safety reasons prior to allowing a payload to launch. It's a requirement for launch. NASA's recommendations for the Apollo sites are not enforced upon launch of a payload.

[ChefPat]

If Shenzhou swoops inside it all ISS can legally do is territorial threat display by wiggling solar panels and arm

DAMN IT!!! You owe me a keyboard & a shirt as these have coffee all over them now!!!

[Silmfeanor]

If Shenzhou swoops inside it all ISS can legally do is territorial threat display by wiggling solar panels and arm

DAMN IT!!! You owe me a keyboard & a shirt as these have coffee all over them now!!!

Perhaps launch a few cubesats in it's general direction? 

Back on-topic - for things like the ISS, I think most of the rules are based on mutual understanding. I can imagine it being the same way for property on the moon, at least for a while, untill it gets crowded enough to cause problems. The Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson portreys a (sometimes violent) process of determining who gets what. I'm not saying we should let it come ot an uprising, but I think the question can be viewed more as a proces that has to play out, instead of something where we can just slam rules on.

[JohnFornaro]

A bit of additional reading here on this forum:

The reason that the Law Of the Sea Treaty (LOST) pertains to the eventual clarification on individual rights to own property, both real and personal, in space, per the OST or a succeeding treaty, is that the Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM) principle pertains in both cases. ...

First, a fairly good summary of some of the issues that concern me:

http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/21st_century_issues/21st_century_law/space_Law_03.htm

... Then, an expansion of space property rights into the field of ethics:

From:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v3n4/rathman.html

... Christol discusses the Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM) principle.  Extraction of selected pages attached as a PDF.

...

[JohnFornaro]

If Shenzhou swoops inside it all ISS can legally do is territorial threat display by wiggling solar panels and arm

DAMN IT!!! You owe me a keyboard & a shirt as these have coffee all over them now!!!

That is very funny.  And I know all about humor.

[Rocket Science]

If Shenzhou swoops inside it all ISS can legally do is territorial threat display by wiggling solar panels and arm

DAMN IT!!! You owe me a keyboard & a shirt as these have coffee all over them now!!!

That is very funny.  And I know all about humor.

When we had the Shuttle at least we could do a "urine dump" at it...

[Lobo]

“People talk about harvesting an asteroid, well, the Moon has been bombarded for billions of years by asteroids especially, the back side of the Moon. So there is probably no material that an asteroid has ever contained that isn’t somewhere on the Moon.”

I think this is a great quote.  I hadn't really thought of it like that, but that's a heck of a point.  There could be some very ore rich deposits at the centers of large craters on the moon.
Or there could just be little bits scattered all over the debris field.  Either way, it would probably be easier than the headaches of getting at most asteroids (eccentric orbits with intermittent Earth approach, fast spinning periods, far distances, etc.)