Slashdot Mirror

something tells me I've read this before.

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/p... (viability study from this year)
http://www.neowin.net/news/78-... (MSCI corporate venture to provide 3G backhaul from LEO (news from 2011). To date, I think about 0 have been actually deployed).
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/h... (oh yes, this is one of the more recent ones by Google - again, nothing came of it).

I don't think any of the microsats being launched from ISS are intended for trunking wireless. ICBW.

We don't have to break the treaty. We can withdraw from the treaty instead. From the treaty

Article XVI
  Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the
Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary
Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of
this notification.

Some followup, via http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/09/can_the_us_create_a_national_park_on_the_moon:

The 1962 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space prevents states from asserting claims over parts of outer space, including the Moon.
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/gares/html/gares_18_1962.html

However, according to 18 USC 7, spacecraft in flight (that is, that haven't returned to Earth) are US Territories.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7

So Congress could theoretically declare that the spacecraft we abandoned on the Moon are a National Park, but they have no jurisdiction over the areas around them that were explored by astronauts.

We can simply pass a United Nations resolution and sign a treaty to keep nukes or for that matter all weapons from space. Doesn't that work? Won't all spacefaring civilizations have such a similar attitude?

Only in its dreams. Ownership of the moon was settled by the UN in 1967. Details can be found here.

Go to this site http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outerspt.htm to see a synopsis of the Space Treaty from the UN Office in Vienna . You can also read the whole Space Treaty here http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outersptxt.h tml .
Also you can Google or Yahoo! "space treaty" and see similar pages from the US government , NASA , FAS and others .


Regarding the property on the Moon issue ...

- "Outer Space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States (=the countries signing the Treaty) 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. " (Article I)

- "... The activities of non-governmental entities in Outer Space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty . ..." (Article VI)

- If some people think there is a loophole ... "Any State Party to the Treaty may propose amendments to this Treaty. ..." (Article XV)

- if the countries really disagree with something on the Treaty ... "Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments . ..." (Article XVI)

- How selfish can a person be to claim something that he did not find first or travelled to before everybody ?

- The general idea behind this (nonarmament) Treaty , which was ratified by 125 countries , is that Outer Space is FREE for all mankind , for the benefit of all mankind .

- If a person does not respect the UN and those 125 countries why should they respect him , or his claim , and not expel him from an area that is not his own , but a FREE area for EVERYBODY . Even if he goes there and he tries to fight for something that he can't own (according to Article II) , can he compete with the most powerful countries on Earth ? And if so , for what reason since he then won't be able to enter these countries , not to mention commerce with them ?

- UN legal experts state that the Moon falls under the legal concept of res communis , which means everyone owns it (the concept is also applied to International Waters) .

- How does a person hopes to find $60,000,000 from a company while according to the Treaty any non-governmental entity needs the authorization of the the appropriate country ? Why would they give authorization for a journey to the Moon , especially since it might possibly cause legal battles between a company claiming it got there first(?) and all the countries that have signed the Treaty . According to Article II , sovereignity on Outer Space cannot be claimed by means of use or occupation or any other means . Not to mention that no company would risk $60,000,000 while it cannot profit from the investment since it would contradict with the free character of Outer Space . Alternatively , which company would risk fighting with the UN and the 125 countries by disregarding the Treaty .

- He still waits for an answer from the US and Russia for the last 25 years . The fact that he demanded them to answer if they have objections with his claim does not mean they would dignify his letter by answering it . If a person sends a claim for the internatational waters or the air around Earth I don't think they would answer him/her either ... (they might sent a phychiatrist over though ...) .

- The fact that he probably sent "deeds" as gifts to all these fa

Go to this site http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outerspt.htm to see a synopsis of the Space Treaty from the UN Office in Vienna . You can also read the whole Space Treaty here http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outersptxt.h tml .
Also you can Google or Yahoo! "space treaty" and see similar pages from the US government , NASA , FAS and others .


Regarding the property on the Moon issue ...

- "Outer Space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States (=the countries signing the Treaty) 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. " (Article I)

- "... The activities of non-governmental entities in Outer Space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty . ..." (Article VI)

- If some people think there is a loophole ... "Any State Party to the Treaty may propose amendments to this Treaty. ..." (Article XV)

- if the countries really disagree with something on the Treaty ... "Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments . ..." (Article XVI)

- How selfish can a person be to claim something that he did not find first or travelled to before everybody ?

- The general idea behind this (nonarmament) Treaty , which was ratified by 125 countries , is that Outer Space is FREE for all mankind , for the benefit of all mankind .

- If a person does not respect the UN and those 125 countries why should they respect him , or his claim , and not expel him from an area that is not his own , but a FREE area for EVERYBODY . Even if he goes there and he tries to fight for something that he can't own (according to Article II) , can he compete with the most powerful countries on Earth ? And if so , for what reason since he then won't be able to enter these countries , not to mention commerce with them ?

- UN legal experts state that the Moon falls under the legal concept of res communis , which means everyone owns it (the concept is also applied to International Waters) .

- How does a person hopes to find $60,000,000 from a company while according to the Treaty any non-governmental entity needs the authorization of the the appropriate country ? Why would they give authorization for a journey to the Moon , especially since it might possibly cause legal battles between a company claiming it got there first(?) and all the countries that have signed the Treaty . According to Article II , sovereignity on Outer Space cannot be claimed by means of use or occupation or any other means . Not to mention that no company would risk $60,000,000 while it cannot profit from the investment since it would contradict with the free character of Outer Space . Alternatively , which company would risk fighting with the UN and the 125 countries by disregarding the Treaty .

- He still waits for an answer from the US and Russia for the last 25 years . The fact that he demanded them to answer if they have objections with his claim does not mean they would dignify his letter by answering it . If a person sends a claim for the internatational waters or the air around Earth I don't think they would answer him/her either ... (they might sent a phychiatrist over though ...) .

- The fact that he probably sent "deeds" as gifts to all these fa

No, there are treaties on Space and the Moon

"Though several flags of the United States have been symbolically planted on the moon, the U.S. government makes no claim to any part of the Moon's surface. The U.S. is party to the Outer Space Treaty, which places the Moon under the same jurisdiction as international waters (res communis). This treaty also restricts use of the Moon to peaceful purposes, explicitly banning weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons) and military installations of any kind. A second treaty, the Moon Treaty, was proposed to restrict the exploitation of the Moon's resources by any single nation, but it has not been signed by any of the space-faring nations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Legal_status

"Ownership of the Moon (and other celestial bodies) is governed by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the 1979 Moon Agreement. U.N. legal experts state that the Moon falls under the legal concept of res communis, which means everyone owns it (the concept is also applied to International Waters). Article VI states The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. The effect of the Outer Space Treaty to restrict control of private property rights, in the way that the law of the sea prevents anyone owning the sea, is often disputed by those who claim the ability to sell property rights on the Moon and other bodies, but this dispute has never been tested in a court of law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outersptxt.h tml

According to http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/treat/ost/ost.html/, they can't. Then again, just wait until someone finds some energy source on the moon or other useful raw material. Then watch the gold rush.

... that international law and treaties is of no concern for the United States...

Outer Space Treaty of 1963

Yes, I know those "space weapons" will (officially) not be nuclear. Have a look at article 8, however. I doubt the US wants to pay for foreign satellites, development and launch costs.

Overall, I think if the US would finally stop bullying the rest of this planet around, they would be a lot more liked.

There are legal restrictions based on the space treaty:
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outersptxt.h tm

But realistically, the only reason we don't exploit other planets or antarctica is that its too difficult compared to expoiting something on our own territory. Believe me, if they discover massive amounts of oil in antarctica, and an easy way to extract and ship it, we'll be doing it as fast as possible.

By international treaty, no nation can own the moon.

Whilst it looks like the grandparent believes that the USA should own it, having been the first country to land people on it, as a non-US citizen I have to wonder if the US would abide by the terms of the treaty should you have the chance to claim the moon for your own.

Given the current US administration's disregard for every other treaty that got in their way, I'd have to say that I don't believe that the USA would adhere to it's treaty obligations.

Face it; whilst we (the people of the world, cooperatively) have agreements in place which should ensure that any developments on the moon or other bodies in the solar system 'shall be the province of all mankind', the world outside of the USA knows that your government has no respect for said agreements.

The tone of your post suggests to me that you're a decent human being; that you agree that the moon, mars and anywhere else we can get to shouldn't be owned by any earthly power. I'm heartened by the fact that there are US citizens who feel as you do (and I'm not being sarcastic). But the straight-up fact of the matter is that if there's a profit or military advantage to be had, recent history has shown that the government of the USA will be at the forefront of those trying to work their way around any applicable treaties, simply because you have the muscle to do so.

And that sucks, because most of the people I've met from the US are people like you, and I'd like to think we, as a species, have a chance.

There indeed are millions, billions, even Trillions and extillions ( ;) ) of dollars to be made up there . But there are significant problems

Not the least of which is the UN.

(dont get me wrong i like the UN )

The UN space and seafloor treaties. are while good in some ways both a major obstacle for any kind of commercial "exploitation" (to use the correct terminoligy) The sea treaties are all well and good. i dont want the seaflood being used as a comercial landfill at least while im alive. I like clean water :P

There is a lot of very shaky ground on this but there are full copies available here http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/treaties.htm l
for anyone interested in the laws regarding space in general :)

and IANAL but to me it seems that the ability to personaly proffit off a celestial body is quite limited under those treaties. Feel free to correct me cause ill be damn happy to find out .. this topic has always been a passion of mine :)

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsContro l/Space.asp
"The exploration and use of outer space ... shall be for peaceful purposes and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development. ... [The] prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security"
-- Prevention of an arms race in outer space, United Nations General Assembly Resolution, A/RES/55/32, January 2001. (PDF Document)

How do you figure that when you consider this treaty from the UN general assembly stating "States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner"? And to correct both your short and long answers, refer to the status of the treaty and note that the United States is listed as having ratified it.

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes, you did.

How do you figure that when you consider this treaty from the UN general assembly stating "States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner"? And to correct both your short and long answers, refer to the status of the treaty and note that the United States is listed as having ratified it.

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes, you did.

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/isis/pub/sdtechrep1/s ect03b1.html
Why do you think Hubble is required to be repaired after an interval of time?

Many of us looked at the unemployment rate in Iraq: it's still as high as 70% in some areas, while Bechtel and Haliburton are importing Euro-American technicians and serfs from safe nations like Bangladesh. In that other shining example of Freedonm on the March, Afghanistan, opium production has jumped from the Taliban's zero tons per year to 4,200 metric tons in 2004 -- and not because they are all drug-loving hippies.

Article III

In the event of damage being caused elsewhere than on the surface of the earth to a space object of one launching State or to persons or property on board such a space object by a space object of another launching State, the latter shall be liable only if the damage is due to its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is responsible.

If the US Armed Forces wants to fill Near-Earth Orbit with fatal lumps of metal, ie, high-speed shrapnel, they are liable to everybody who stands to lose from this stupidity. They deserve to be taken to the cleaners by every insurance house and brokerage and underwriter etc, on hte face of the planet.

That's what we're talking about - a massive raid on the Pentagonal finances from aggrieved accountants.

I have spoken!

DONE in triplicate, at the cities of Washington, London and Moscow, this twenty-seventh day of January one thousand nine hundred sixty-seven.

The same goes for the Geneva Convention, and US strong opposition to the International Criminal Court. In Bush & Co.: War Crimes and Cover-Up we have

But evidence of war crimes by the Bush administration - notably Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush - continues to emerge. And in spite of Bush's renunciation of the International Criminal Court, many people around the world are clamoring for Bush and his deputies to be held accountable. In the words of Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman: "It is one thing to protect the armed forces from politicized justice; quite another, to make it a haven for suspected war criminals."

You are not allowed to do this But since Bush thinks the UN is worthless, the rules fly out the window and the shit hits the fan. And people say Iraq didn't have international consequences.

You're thinking of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (eek, what a wordy title).

Unfortunately, there's nothing directly on this topic. There's things like :In carrying on activities in outer space and on celestial bodies, the astronauts of one State Party shall render all possible assistance to the astronauts of other States Parties. ... but that would only govern the activities of the Soviets in space.

Likewise:

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

Putting nukes in space is off limits, as is military activity on the moon.

I agree on the assholes part. The Russians were strongly convinced the Shuttle was a military vehicle, though. (And in fact, some of the capabilities of the Shuttle were required by the Air Force so they could go steal Russian satellites if they felt like it). IMO, though, pointing a laser at the crew of any aircraft or spacecraft with sufficient power to temporarily blind them is equivalent to showering them with gunfire; that is, an overt act with a strong possibility of killing or injuring the crew that could be considered an act of war.

There is some seriousness to this though - what are the legal implications for something in orbit? United States law does generally not apply in outer space. The COPUOS website (COPUOS being the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space) has some interesting information, as well as links to some (albeit not all) of the relevant treaties. Some countries claim jurisdiction over their citiziens regardless of location though.

Every single one I run into claims that the UN treaty prohibited government from claiming land on other planets or celestial bodies, but not individuals... but they are wrong.

The Treaty states:

"States bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, whether carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried on in conformity with the principles set forth in the present Declaration. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the State concerned..."

Which basically means you can claim some land somewhere, but there's no way you can "back it up," so to speak. So what good does that do? That's the whole point of a government/nation... to protect your land and private interests.

Also:

"Outer space and celestial bodies are not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

Notice how the used the term "nation" here, not government. This allows any group to be affected by this clause. For instance, the "Lunar Embassy" crack pot that sells land on other celestial bodies is concidered a nation (a relatively large grouping of people... grows with each idiot that buys land from them), and thus falls under this clause. Even if it were necessary for a group to be a government for this to apply, going by the definition of a government, this "company" would be catagorized as such.

I'm with the Christian Scientists on this one...

There are laws--international laws. One link: Space Laws and Treaties do a google search for others. So no matter where a vehicle is launched, an entire nation is liable. Though to date, most launch accidents have killed citizens of the launching nation only. Shuttle Columbia was I believe the first time this was not true, but the Israeli was a willing passenger who knew the risks.

Within the US, commercial launchers require licensing from the FAA. To launch from a government range, the launcher must also follow all sorts of government oversight and requirements...which is why they launch overseas when they can.

Insurance is expensive. The insurance is required because of the dangers at liftoff through orbit insertion. Not only that, but there are also the end of lifetime dangers of the satellite/rocket.

Russia was sweating bullets when Mir came back in. Fortunately they had a good plan, and the thrusters functioned well enough (a definite question mark) to get it on the trajectory they wanted. While small satellites will likely burn up on the way in, parts of MIR survived to impact.

AFAIK, there is no international treatys which restrics who that can fire lumps of metal into orbit - but there is a treaty describing what's not allowed. Only caveat there is that it's a "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States
in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", meaning it may or may not apply to you as a private person.

The main trouble I see is that you need to travel thru someones airspace to get there - and to fly thru controlled airspace you need permission from the relevant autorites in your country. As others have noted in reference to the article, in the US you need a waver from the FAA. In other nations you need to apply to the local aviation autority to launch somethign that passes thru the regulated airspace, providing you can get permission at all.

International law is not whats stopping you - it's the local laws that are the nail in your plan.

Let's not forget the devastating effects of one of the first big space-related treaties: the Outer Space Treaty, which prevents any nation from laying claim to any celestial body. While it may theoretically have done us some good by preventing wars on the Moon, the negative impact is far more profound: by taking away the major incentive for a country to rush into space, i.e. resource ownership, it set the cause of space exploration back decades. Remember all of those Heinlein stories full of humans in outer space by now? They were there because the government went there, and those governments went there to *own* what they found.

Now I admit that I'm not a fan of the large-scale militarization of space...I think that would be a terrible thing, especially since we're finally getting close to a point where private citizens/enterprises can really blast into space exploration. I just would hate to see a rush on the other side of the coin from militarization that held us back as bad as the Outer Space Treaty did.

No. They're owned by whomever sent them up, afaik. Also, see the UN faq on this. This faq takes the question of lost satelites, but then again, if it applies to lost satelits, I'd guess it applies to still working ones.

The treaties control space-related activities of States. What about non-governmental entities active in outer space, like companies and even individuals?

The Outer Space Treaty states that States Parties shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried out by governmental agencies or non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the treaty. The Treaty further states that the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party.

The treaties control space-related activities of States. What about non-governmental entities active in outer space, like companies and even individuals?

The Outer Space Treaty states that States Parties shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried out by governmental agencies or non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the treaty. The Treaty further states that the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party.

White Sands is on the ground, not in orbit. HELTF doesn't violate UN Resolution 2222 overview, text, which the US has signed (but the Senate has not ratified). This would. So it's not mindless Bush bashing crap, it's an awareness of the fact that the Bush Administration is perfectly willing to do the same thing (violating UN Resolutions) that it considered to be a causus belli when Iraq did it. (And you can forget the arguments about how we went into Iraq to topple a vile dictator, if that were the real reason we'd be at war with N. Korea.)

White Sands is on the ground, not in orbit. HELTF doesn't violate UN Resolution 2222 overview, text, which the US has signed (but the Senate has not ratified). This would. So it's not mindless Bush bashing crap, it's an awareness of the fact that the Bush Administration is perfectly willing to do the same thing (violating UN Resolutions) that it considered to be a causus belli when Iraq did it. (And you can forget the arguments about how we went into Iraq to topple a vile dictator, if that were the real reason we'd be at war with N. Korea.)

Umm.... I don't recall signing that treaty.

Indeed - only 8 countries were signatories of the Moon Treaty(1979), which didn't include the United States. However, the Outer Space Treaty (1967) was signed by 91 countries and has similar principles to the Antarctic Treaty (1959).

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet. The Moon Treaty forbids the exploitation of Space, the Moon and other celestial bodies for profit motives. According to the Moon Treaty, individuals may not claim the Moon and other celestial bodies.

However, there's just one small, minor problem: The Treaty was never ratified. Of all the approximately 185 member states of the UN only six states supported it. All others, including all space faring nations (USA, Russia, China etc) refused to sign it and did not sign it. That is something that does not seem to be well known. The USA explicitly refused to sign it as it would inhibit the exploitation of Lunar and other celestial resources for profit by corporations and individuals.

Dreams that outside Earth surface humans turn into a combination of angels and communists are just that - dreams, good for kids. Saying that there should be only peaceful science-gathering in space is wishful thinking - and a very stupid one. Politics are not for kiddies or wishful thinkers.

Are you sure about that? IIRC it states that no country can claim extraterrestrial territory. I'd bet that if you were to mount a private mission to Mars and staked out and improve a reasonable claim (a few hundred or thousand acres, as opposed to, say, the entire planet), I would guess that the governments that matter would recognize it.

It's interesting what you write here. Unfortunately, wording of the treaty is very strict in that respect:

• Article 11, point 3: Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non- governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person. The placement of personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on or below the surface of the moon, including structures connected with its surface or subsurface, shall not create a right of ownership over the surface or the subsurface of the moon or any areas thereof. The foregoing provisions are without prejudice to the international regime referred to in paragraph 5 of this article.

Fortunately, the treaty only applies to bodies within the Solar System so theoretically claiming ownership of or on celestial bodies outside of it is allowed by it.

However, I sustain my previous opinion that as soon as a planetary settlement will become self-sustaining this treaty would be simply ignored. Of course, it would be better if it was to some abolish right now and replaced by something similar to the rules that govern the geostationary orbit - assign pieces of land to each country in relation to its size or/and population and then let it govern such land internally. That would in turn allow for buying pieces of land on Mars or Moon by private entities which would then have private interest in exploring their own land.

Some very interesting stuff on the UN Office for Outer space affairs' website:
here

Interesting blurbs:

1 Outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means

The thinking being, "it's everybody's good, so the lunar and martian surface -and all other planets for that matter- can't be anybody's property".
I think they also ban the commercial appropriation (selling / buying) of land on outer space.

The UN body also states:
2 "the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind"
Does that mean that if you start mining the moon, you have to redistribute your profit to all the other countries?

but also states:
3 "outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States"
so you *do* have a right to mine the moon...

and (interesting stuff):
4 "States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies."
Which means you're not supposed to pollute the planet you're mining (does that mean bringing back toxic waste on earth, or putting it in orbit?)

Hmm... the countries that signed these treaties are legally bound by them, so things could get messy :p

...wether he can claim ownership or not, but about wether NASA has access or not. It rather neatly bypassed the issue of wether or not a private induvidual can own stuff in space. It simply state that all (nation)states has the right to explore any celestial body with no discrimination and with free access.

I would suggest reading the rest of the treaty as well, as it's plenty interesting. I got a couple of other snippets you might actually like:
Article I, third paragraph: "There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such investigation."
Article II, entire article: "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
Now, while INAL, the language here is very clear. Space is open for anyone to explore, and no nationstate can make a claim on any celestial bodies (so you can't go around saying the moon belongs to the USA). No mention is made to the effect that private persons can or can not stake a claim on anything up there. But, if they can stake a claim and have it accepted as legal, they cannot ask for money to let a scientific probe land there - Article I, second paragraph, demands free access to all areas of celestial bodies for the purpose of exploration.

Interstingly enought, the treaty also allows one (ntion)state to inspect the 'stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles' of another (nation)state on the moon or any other celestial bodies, ref article XII:
"All stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles on the moon and other celestial bodies shall be open to representatives of other States Parties to the Treaty on a basis of reciprocity. Such representatives shall give reasonable advance notice of a projected visit, in order that appropriate consultations may be held and that maximum precautions may betaken to assure safety and to avoid interference with normal operations in the facility to be visited."

Now, I'm getting curious - how do one 'establish a claim' on a piece of rock that's orbiting the sun? If it's just a cause of calling dids and grabbing what you can, I think I'ld like to claim ownership of Europa (no, not the continent, the ice covered rock thats up there). Not only can I charge NASA for parking there, but if they do find life, I can sue those organisms for not paying rent as well...

Seriously thought, someone should brief these fellows on the international agreements that relates to 'Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies'. Pay particular attention to the second paragraph in article I, qouted in full;
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.
In short, if NASA or anyone else can land somewhere, they are free to do so. End of story.

the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;

outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;

outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;

See Outer Space Treaties

An interesting read is the 1967 "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies:"

Article IV
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

Article VII
Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts on the Earth, in air or in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies.


Yes, China has ratified it.

An interesting read is the 1967 "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies:"

Article IV
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

Article VII
Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts on the Earth, in air or in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies.


Yes, China has ratified it.

There are several treaties about space exploration. The one relating to the moon was never ratified by the USA. The treaty binds only those nations which have either ratified it, or subsequently "acceded" to it.

Furthermore, all of these treaties contain a clause that lets a country withdraw from it by giving notice. See, for example, Article 20 of the Moon treaty.

Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification.

I know you did not do this, but, just in case anyone wants to raise the moon treaty, "please note that the United States is a signatory to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, but did not sign the 1979 Moon Treaty." . I do not know if China is a signatory to either of these treaties.

That can't happen. The United Nations signed a treaty in 1967, "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies".

You can find a status here.

Anyway, Article I states that: "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."

Furthermore, Article II: "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

But the real kicker is Article IX: "If a State Party to the Treaty has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by it or its nationals in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities of other States Parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, it shall undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding with any such activity or experiment."

That basically says that you can't do anything that would harm other nations' rights to explore the moon. The question is whether stripping the natural resources counts as hindering/harming others.

That can't happen. The United Nations signed a treaty in 1967, "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies".

You can find a status here.

Anyway, Article I states that: "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."

Furthermore, Article II: "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

But the real kicker is Article IX: "If a State Party to the Treaty has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by it or its nationals in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities of other States Parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, it shall undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding with any such activity or experiment."

That basically says that you can't do anything that would harm other nations' rights to explore the moon. The question is whether stripping the natural resources counts as hindering/harming others.

Article VIII

A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.

Plus the applicable U.S. code

"Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or..."

NASA has never relinquished control of the spacecraft, in case you hadn't noticed.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I suffer fools lightly...

Actually, I believe the UN is stopping them with The Convention On International Liability For Damage Caused By Space Objects.

Which raises an interesting question.. when will countries start claiming territory on the moon?


The U.N. has specifically declared space to be "the province of all Mankind". Since all of the space capable nations are members of the U.N., my answer would be not anytime soon.

So let me get this straight. Since the U.S. was the first to land there, we own the moon?

Not quite: see Outer Space Treaty. Pay particular attention to Article VI.

TransOrbital, Inc. is a US company which gives the US government jurisdiction.