Bigelow: Moon Property rights would help create a lunar industry

[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.

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

Fourth grade humor.  I remember fourth grade well.  It was the best four years of my life.

[Lobo]

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.

Yup.  If the US wants to keep some territorial claims to the Moon, then we need to be there to hold our claim.  If we abandon our claim, then we abandon it...

[Lobo]

So...if Bigelow really wants to land one of his inflatable habs on the Moon, presumably for commercial use per the article, rather than for NASA, then how's he going to get people to and from it?

I know there's been various specualtion on lunar missions using EELV's or FH, and the general consensus is you'd need at least two FH's for a very minimal lunar mission.
But...if you were only ferrying people to and from the surface, and your lander didn't need to be your exploration outpost, just a taxi to the Bigelow hab, how might a commercial transit system look?

Elon's made comments that he might go around the moon to prove capability, but the he's not that interested in it.  But...if there were a paying customer he might provide a service.
FH to send a BLEO version of Dragon in lunar orbit, and then some sort of reusable lander that would take people down to the surface and back up?
Or would there be a way to land Dragon directly on the surface in a single FH launch?  (I doubt it).

Not sure how, but there'd have to be some way Bigelow would have in mind to get people to and from his base.  SpaceX would be the most likely partner for that I'd think.

[ChefPat]

So...if Bigelow really wants to land one of his inflatable habs on the Moon, presumably for commercial use per the article, rather than for NASA, then how's he going to get people to and from it?

Infrastructure. An LEO Station, a Cycler, an LLO Station, a reusable lander & the Lunar Surface Station.

[R7]

Call Golden Spike ?

[LegendCJS]

“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.)

Using distance or time as the metric of "difficulty" ignores more physically accurate and relevant metrics: like delta-v.

I think we should go put a base on the moon for science, and it'd be fine to go looking for nice chunks of shiny platinum just laying there in the dust if there are any, but thats just getting lucky. Driving by and picking up surface rocks won't need much fixed infrastructure, lessening the property rights complications compared to a strip mine I'd think. However, if you want large scale mining, most of the impact debris are going to be all mixed up with worthless regolith in low concentrations because the place isn't geologically active, and at the bottom of a substantial gravity well.

On earth there are natural processes that serve to move material around that are selective based on physical characteristics, leading to re-concentration of valuable elements from impacts. Most platinum deposits on earth are secondary alluvial deposits created by water washing through impact planes for millions of years.

[go4mars]

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...

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...

Somehow, the retaliation to the non-existent Aug 4 Tonkin attack (false flag operations in general) should enter this discussion. 

And "Freeman on the Land". 

And "Squatter's Rights". 

And the definitions/history of countries, citizenship, etc.

Hat tip to Bigelow for forcing some new discussion! 

Great articles! 

This site keeps me coming back.  It's a focal point where people discuss, much more than elsewhere, the magnitude of our plausible future.  This thread is yet another great example. 

[JohnFornaro]

Using distance or time as the metric of "difficulty" ignores more physically accurate and relevant metrics: like delta-v.

From here to Mars is about 6 months; from here to the Moon about three or four days.  What is the accuracy and relevancy of your preferred metric?

[Hop_David]

Using distance or time as the metric of "difficulty" ignores more physically accurate and relevant metrics: like delta-v.

Delta V is just one of several quantities that should be looked at.

Others include:
1) ore quality
2) trip time
3) frequency of launch windows
4) light lag latency
5) bandwidth

Looking at 1):

If the moon's PSRs do indeed have two meter thick sheets of water ice, then that's a better ore body than accessible asteroids can give us. If PSRs are water poor, hydrated clays in carbonaceous NEOs might be a better water source.

So far as PGMs go, intact asteroids in space will have better ores than asteroids smashed into lunar regolith.

Considering 2) and 3):

We are complete newbies at mining extra-terrestrial resources. It will be a process of trial and error. Therefore establishing mining infrastructure would take multiple trips. When launch windows are years apart and trip times are half a year, it could easily take the better part of a century to do the multiple trips needed to establish a functioning mine. When it comes to revisit times, the moon is far and away the leader.

A mine that has high throughput is more profitable. Long trip times and rare launch windows would be a major bottleneck for asteroid mines in heliocentric orbit.

Considering 4) and 5):

Robotic mining seems much more plausible than human miners. For robotic mining, low latency and high bandwidth are desirable. Signal strength falls with inverse square of distance, so closer work sites enjoy better bandwidth. For these metrics the moon beats NEOs in heliocentric orbits by a country mile.
 

[Lobo]

Using distance or time as the metric of "difficulty" ignores more physically accurate and relevant metrics: like delta-v.

Not necessarily.  An asteroid may require less total dV, but could involve a long duration trip, a long stay at the asteroid to actually mine and then a long trip back.  And you are of course at the mercy of the asteroid's orbit which could be a long time before you can go back and have another go at it if it's ore-rich.
rotation period is a huge factor too.  Not to mention the entire trip wil be in zero-G, with it's effects on the human body.

The Moon's always at the same distance from us.  It takes on average 3 days to get there, followed by however long you can stay on the surface with your supplies....in a gravity environment....and then 3 days to get home.  Which is particularly useful if there's any kind of an emergency.  If you are a long way out on an low dV asteroid, fast return is likely no possible.

The zero-G exposure for Lunar mining is minimal, and the lunar gravity will be very helpful in preventing the bone and muscle loss of zero-G.
Not to mention it's far easier for humans to live and operate in a gravity environment.  Things behave as they are intended...just slower and lighter.

So I think I'm using physically accurate metrics for "difficulty".  More fuel may be necessary, but fuel is cheap. 

I think we should go put a base on the moon for science, and it'd be fine to go looking for nice chunks of shiny platinum just laying there in the dust if there are any, but thats just getting lucky. Driving by and picking up surface rocks won't need much fixed infrastructure, lessening the property rights complications compared to a strip mine I'd think. However, if you want large scale mining, most of the impact debris are going to be all mixed up with worthless regolith in low concentrations because the place isn't geologically active, and at the bottom of a substantial gravity well.

On earth there are natural processes that serve to move material around that are selective based on physical characteristics, leading to re-concentration of valuable elements from impacts. Most platinum deposits on earth are secondary alluvial deposits created by water washing through impact planes for millions of years.

Well, how plentify and accessable deposites of valuable ores are on the Moon are yet to be determined.  That's the interesting point brought up by Bigelow.  That will require some prospecting and exploration.  Could be very plentiful and accessable.  Could be scattered over hundreds of square km's as dust or tiny pebbles in a low density.  But even then, robotic solar powered rovers with built in metal detectors and other scanner could roam potential debris field identifying deposits and collecting them, or GPS tagging them for astroanuts to some to the look at in more detail. 

Now, you make a good point about the natural process on Earth that are absent on the Moon.  But that can be both a benefit as well as a detriment.
For example, a heavy metal like gold tends to work itself down into the ground over time.  Water sometimes brings it out of the ground in streams and rivers (hence those being the first locations for the historical Gold Rushes), but it tends to work it way down over time because it's heavy.  On the Moon that's no longer the case, as there are no geological processes other than deposits being pounded by later asteroids.  Any deposits from ancient asteroids that struck to create the Mares would have sank into the mantel when the Moon had one.  But anything that hit since the crust solidified is still laying where it landed unless covered by later asteroid impact debris.  But you could explore a relatively new crater like Tycho, and anything of value in that asteroid should be pretty easy to get to.  And the styrations of the debris field could be followed to their termination points where there should be large chunks in tact (large chunks flying are what left those large very visable stripes out.)  There should be concentrations at the center of the crater, although it's hard to say how imbedded into the lunar rock it might be.

I would think small robotic prospectors could be sent down to the surface to drive around various craters and scan for deposits of useful ores.  Once found, a manned lander could go check it out a little better.  If it's confirmed, then maybe the Bigelow base is landed on site, and a mining operation ensues.

[Rocket Science]

The point of claiming a part of the Moon by let’s say China would have an interesting impact here on Earth. When she claimed that the international waters were hers, we had to respond in kind with our naval forces recently. If she does in kind with some future Lunar base, how are we to respond... tariffs, embargo? Nothing??

[LegendCJS]

Using distance or time as the metric of "difficulty" ignores more physically accurate and relevant metrics: like delta-v.

From here to Mars is about 6 months; from here to the Moon about three or four days.  What is the accuracy and relevancy of your preferred metric?

Sorry, maybe I should have implied that I was referring to unmanned mission difficulty. Fragile pink stuff in space makes things a whole lot more complicated.

[Lobo]

Using distance or time as the metric of "difficulty" ignores more physically accurate and relevant metrics: like delta-v.

From here to Mars is about 6 months; from here to the Moon about three or four days.  What is the accuracy and relevancy of your preferred metric?

Sorry, maybe I should have implied that I was referring to unmanned mission difficulty. Fragile pink stuff in space makes things a whole lot more complicated.

I think even unmanned missions would be more difficult.  Even if you find a good candidate asteroid that isn't tumbling quickly, and that won't be years and years before it comes back close to Earth so we could get the robot miner home with whatever it might have mined, there's the distances involved and the communications issues vs. the Moon.

Also, I think robots work better in gravity too.  A robot miner would need to clamp on to the surface somehow so it can apply force to excavate.  If there's any problem, it could drift off into space requiring another rendezvous maneuver to get back to the spot it was working on.  ore debris mined would need to be prevented from flying off into space.  etc.

Probably the only real way to feasibly do it robotically, is to find a small, ore rich asteroid and do the "asteroid heist" mission on it, and bring it into HLO or HEO where it be can easily gotten to in the future.  The dV requirements go up quite a bit obviously then, and you still have to figure out how to effectively mine it on zero-g, but at least then it could be a crewed mission which I think would be far more versitile for that kind of thing.

[Lobo]

The point of claiming a part of the Moon by let’s say China would have an interesting impact here on Earth. When she claimed that the international waters were hers, we had to respond in kind with our naval forces recently. If she does in kind with some future Lunar base, how are we to respond... tariffs, embargo? Nothing??

Probably nothing.   At least not for some time.
The difference in territorial disputes on the moon vs. Earth is those who will be able to get to the moon will be very rare.  Nations or entities making a claim will need to have a physical presence there to secure it.  If they just plant a flag and claim all that's within LOS of that flag as soverign territory for that nation, if they don't stay then the next nation can just remove that flag and put up one of their own. 
It might cause a little friction back on Earth, but there's only a few entities who we are talking about to be there, and they won't be going to war or putting up tarrifs over it.  The optics would be bad.  The one entity could just say, "We didn't disturb the equipment left there, but they claimed X amount of km's around their equipment and we don't think that's reasonable when they've left it."
Be hard in the post-cold war era to get much international uproar over it.  Maybe if another country was distrubing the equipment left by the first, but the amount of equipment left will be very limited.  The Moon's a big place.  At worst another country might come closer to another's "claim" then they want, but without any real laws on how much land a lander descent stage that's been left on teh surface actually entitles that country to claim, and very limited ability to get up there to do anything about it, I don't see there being much more than a little bluster, that might then bring a couple of nations (or companies) at odds with each other to a bargining table to hammer out territories that are ammenable to both.

[Rocket Science]

The point of claiming a part of the Moon by let’s say China would have an interesting impact here on Earth. When she claimed that the international waters were hers, we had to respond in kind with our naval forces recently. If she does in kind with some future Lunar base, how are we to respond... tariffs, embargo? Nothing??

Probably nothing.   At least not for some time.
The difference in territorial disputes on the moon vs. Earth is those who will be able to get to the moon will be very rare.  Nations or entities making a claim will need to have a physical presence there to secure it.  If they just plant a flag and claim all that's within LOS of that flag as soverign territory for that nation, if they don't stay then the next nation can just remove that flag and put up one of their own. 
It might cause a little friction back on Earth, but there's only a few entities who we are talking about to be there, and they won't be going to war or putting up tarrifs over it.  The optics would be bad.  The one entity could just say, "We didn't disturb the equipment left there, but they claimed X amount of km's around their equipment and we don't think that's reasonable when they've left it."
Be hard in the post-cold war era to get much international uproar over it.  Maybe if another country was distrubing the equipment left by the first, but the amount of equipment left will be very limited.  The Moon's a big place.  At worst another country might come closer to another's "claim" then they want, but without any real laws on how much land a lander descent stage that's been left on teh surface actually entitles that country to claim, and very limited ability to get up there to do anything about it, I don't see there being much more than a little bluster, that might then bring a couple of nations (or companies) at odds with each other to a bargining table to hammer out territories that are ammenable to both.

I’m not so concerned so much about the Apollo sites as much as China projecting her power to its people as the economy slows to a “new normal” for them... It would be like ancient Rome using circuses to distract its populace...

What are we going to do unlease John Kerry on them...

[Chris Bergin]

Stay focused on the article chaps.

[Hop_David]

Sorry, maybe I should have implied that I was referring to unmanned mission difficulty.

The topic of the thread is  "Bigelow: Moon Property rights would help create a lunar industry"

You dis the moon seeming to believe delta V is the only relevant metric. Yes, robots can endure long trip times better than canned apes.

So let's go with the assumption extra-terrestrial industry would be built solely by robots.

As I've already mentioned, low latency and high bandwidth is desirable for robots. Since signal strength falls with inverse square of distance, the moon has better bandwidth. And the moon's 2.6 second light lag latency isn't even comparable to an asteroid in heliocentric orbit.

And also mentioned earlier -- building extra-terrestrial industry will be trial and error process. We will need multiple trips to establishing working industrial infra-structure. The revisit times to asteroids means multiple trips could take the better part of a century. The long trip times and rare launch windows also severely limits the rate at which your asteroid industry can export products.

Whether your workers are robotic or flesh, other metrics are still  important. Delta V isn't the sole consideration.

[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.

[happyflower]

Well it can be said that property right is not absolute, its a flexible right, it can be mitigated by private groups and states. I think property rights is vague, what they are talking about is the right to protection of property.

The Moon maybe vast, but the important parts are going to have some hydrogen in them. Therefore it seems fair although not absolute that the first private group or state that sits hardware down on some mostly sun lit area closest to hydrogen will own the equipment and what they harvest and maintain. The radius will have to be finalized and using mining rules on Earth will be helpful there.

[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.

The FAA can them stay within its expertise by Certifying landers, (manned) rovers, spacestations and space buildings.  Space buildings exist in a vacuum so they need to be air tight and to provide life support.