Slashdot Mirror
The Case for Lunar Property Rights
longacre writes "Who owns the moon? In a thought provoking piece, Instapundit blogger/law professor Glenn Reynolds gives us a brief history of earthlings' discourse on lunar property rights, a topic which has stagnated since the 1979 Moon Treaty. Is it possible to claim good title on land that is not under the dominion of a nation? He goes on to plead his case for the creation of lunar real estate legislation. From the article: 'Property rights attract private capital and, with government space programs stagnating, a lunar land rush may be just what we need to get things going again.'"
In other words, property rights are unenforcable, and none of the existing governments on earth have any real say. What government is going to spend 10 billion on space hardware to settle a legal property ownership/squatting claim?
In yet other words, possession is 9/10 of the law. Go ahead and argue about the other 1/10, because you don't matter.
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
This is a Heinlein question--read The Man Who Sold the Moon, he has a lot of fun with it.
I believe that the Moon is covered by the Law of the Sea, which also covers Space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law
Thats one of the reasons that nations with space craft on the Moon, Venus and Mars are adamant about the objects not being abandoned, similar to the US listening devices clamped onto Soviet communication cables saying who owned said super-secret listening devices.
So, for example, Mars Pathfinder is not derelict, but jetsam, flotsam or lagan which is remains the property of their original owner. The American bird that was shot down by the Navy this year, might technically be a derelict and could be salvaged legally, had it come down mostly intact.
Both companies are counting on the ability to own part of this and mars. The underlying belief is that it will lead to emigration. But as to the moon, The prime real estate will be at the poles and where uranium/thorium is found. The reason is that the poles offer full and zero sun at the same time. In addition, both have some deep and steep caverans that allow for placing a ba-330 or better. The uranium is because that will allow for exploration of the moon, fast travel to mars, and of course, power on mars. Everybody speaks of he3, but it is the uranium that will suddenly become worth a great deal over the next 30 years. Keep in mind that most nations will come under fire for launching more than RTGs into space. With this on the moon, we can send it all over. In fact, we could easily put up a breeder and then send LONG lived plutonium to power all sorts of probes.
No doubt about it; Bigelow and Spacex will be pushing private ownership hard.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Put aside all the theories, bar-room lawyers, treaties that aren't worth a dam' and the fools who are willing to hand over money here on terra-firma. All that will go out of the window (or would that be viewing port) as soon as someone finds a resource there that can turn a profit. Once that happens you've got a very slow gold rush on your hands. All the people back on earth who paid for a "claim" can yell all they want, they'll be drowned out by everyone else laughing.
However the chances of anyone, or country, raising the capital to go there and set up a commercial enterprise are very small. The chances of them being able to turn whatever they find back into ca$h are even smaller and the chances of making more than the hundreds of billions they spend are infinitesimal.
That's the reason so few people live in the Gobi Desert. It's thousands of times more hospitable than the moon (or mars, for that matter) and millions of times cheaper to get to. However there's nothing there worth having.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
It isn't and it doesn't.
Mars Pathfinder isn't any of those four legal states - it is clearly and plainly the property of the USG. Period. This is plainly spelled out in the various treaties that address the issue.
This same principle is found in Maritime Law, where government property always remains government property unless the government specifically gives up jurisdiction. (This is the legal principle under which the US Government supervised the salvage of the Hunley - since the USG had assumed control of all CSA property at the close of the Civil War, and neither government had ever yielded title.)
The various treaties that address the topic are quite clear - in space, as on earth, government property remains government property forever unless specifically yields title.
No, because:
1) Columbus wasn't the first to "discover" North America. Vikings found it about four centuries before he was even born, and nomadic people from the Asian continent were already there.
2) Columbus discovered Cuba (and thought he was in India) which leaves the entire North American Continent proper up for grabs even if you ignore #1.
=Smidge=
No, Columbus was sent by the king and queen of Spain and the Pope acknowledged that all land there was the property of Spain.
Columbus never went to NORTH america - he mostly visited Bahmas and Cuba and some of the other island there and some part of south america.
Just saying it like it are.
Helium-3. Lots on the moon, little on Earth. Can be used to build fusion reactors.
http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/041126084122.6pp9f0wx.html "The moon contains 10 times more energy in the form of Helium 3 than all the fossil fuels on the earth," Kalam said.
Life is Reality