Planetary Resources To 'Claim' Asteroids With Beacons

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Planetary Resources To 'Claim' Asteroids With Beacons

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday February 20, 2013 @07:17AM from the i-claim-this-land-for-spain dept.

kkleiner writes "Planetary Resources last year boldly claimed that they would build a futuristic business out of mining space asteroids. To that end, the firm recently completed the Arkyd-100 satellite prototype. The satellite will use its telescope to look for suitable near-Earth asteroids from low-Earth orbit. Later expeditions will rocket out to prospective real estate, do spectral analysis, and if the asteroid contains valuable resources, lay claim with a beacon."

164 of 221 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not legally enforceable by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 07:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not legally enforceable, which in many ways is a shame. Until money can be made through space travel, it will never "take off"...
Mod informative, flamebait or funny
1. Re:Not legally enforceable by tgd · 2013-02-20 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Not legally enforceable, which in many ways is a shame. Until money can be made through space travel, it will never "take off"...
  Mod informative, flamebait or funny
  Of course, they could just drop the asteroid on the party complaining ... kill two birds with one stone... literally.
2. Re:Not legally enforceable by cheesybagel · 2013-02-20 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  The Portuguese tried that in the Age of Discovery. Fat load of good it did.
3. Re:Not legally enforceable by TheCarp · 2013-02-20 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Not legally no, but who cares? At this point their "claim" would easily be enforced by the same gravity well that has stopped everyone else from doing it yet. While its true, if someone else jumped their claim, nobody would likely care to enforce it and step in.... but.... as of right now.... making a symbolic claim is easily every bit as good, if not better, than having it enforced, simply because its harder to actually jump the claim than it is to ignore terrestrial powers..... so legal enforcibility is an entirely moot point.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
4. Re:Not legally enforceable by craigminah · 2013-02-20 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  It'd like calling shotgun or laying dibs on something, what kind of legal ownership does this give them? None, but it is interesting.
5. Re:Not legally enforceable by ElizabethGreene · 2013-02-24 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  1. Attach vectorable booster rockets to large asteroid(s).
  2. Sell to highest bidder as next-generation* WMD.
  3. Profit.
  4. Buy a very very deep cave.
  * Next-generation or very old school. Your choice. The dinosaurs would choose with the latter.
A bit hard to enforce.... by Deekin_Scalesinger · 2013-02-20 07:22 · Score: 1

Unless they have Space Police out there. Who knows how this would turn out, but it does raise another issue - when we finally get off of our collective asses and start a more aggressive space program(s), who the heck is gonna regulate commodities, etc out in space?

--
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
1. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  "... who the heck is gonna regulate commodities, etc out in space?"
  Smith & Wesson?
2. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 07:35 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Just because you choose space as the place to do something shitty doesn't mean you won't have to answer for it here.
  Mighty big talk from someone sitting at the bottom of a gravity well.
3. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by jythie · 2013-02-20 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  There is a good possibility of that. Property rights stem from states willing to enforce them. Take away the established state and everyone becomes a mini-state.. so your claim is only as good as your ability to stop other people from claiming it.
4. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Synerg1y · 2013-02-20 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  I always kinda figured it would be like old wild west, where the biggest gun gets you as far as the best of laws.
5. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Hentes · 2013-02-20 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Declare space outside geostationary orbit a zone where private parties are not subject to international law, and let them fight it out. The only way mining will ever turn a profit is if it's automated so there will be no casualties, and it should be fun to watch.
6. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by camperdave · 2013-02-20 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Will a Smith & Wesson even fire in the vacuum and near absolute zero temperatures of space?
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
7. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by gstoddart · 2013-02-20 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Same people who do it on Earth. Just because you choose space as the place to do something shitty doesn't mean you won't have to answer for it here.
  Wait, since when do they answer for it here?
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
8. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Joehonkie · 2013-02-20 07:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Curiously enough, yes: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2282/would-a-gun-work-in-space
9. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by CanHasDIY · 2013-02-20 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  I always kinda figured it would be like old wild west, where the biggest gun gets you as far as the best of laws.
  Wild West, hell, that's an accurate description of how global politics work now.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
10. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-02-20 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Will a Smith & Wesson even fire in the vacuum and near absolute zero temperatures of space?
  It's only near absolute zero in the shade.
  As to vacuum, yes, the propellent in a bullet is self-contained, and will work nicely in a vacuum.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
11. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Guspaz · 2013-02-20 07:53 · Score: 2
  
  Yes. Better than on earth, in fact. The gunpowder already contains the oxidizer and there isn't any atmosphere that the bullet has to push out of the way. Muzzle velocities will be higher.
12. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Joehonkie · 2013-02-20 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but the gun will get pretty hot with nowhere to radiate all that heat.
13. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by gl4ss · 2013-02-20 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Just because you choose space as the place to do something shitty doesn't mean you won't have to answer for it here.
  Mighty big talk from someone sitting at the bottom of a gravity well.
  well, yeah, sure it's possible for them to stay up there.
  then they would also need their private army to enforce their "moral" claim rights.
  and if they had a private space army - wtf do they need claims signs for?
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
14. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by bloodhawk · 2013-02-20 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Resources are so extensive once you go beyond the earth I really wonder if this will be a problem at all. Fighting over resources is only valid when their is a finite amount of them.
15. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by amorsen · 2013-02-20 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it has pretty much everywhere to radiate the heat. It is the non-radiative heat transfer which is missing in space.
  Since we are talking Western-style revolvers, I would guess that it is unlikely that they will fire enough bullets to make heat a significant problem. How quickly can you reload in space?
  Admittedly I have never fired a handgun or travelled in space.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
16. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by lister+king+of+smeg · 2013-02-20 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  one shot would not be a problem and thats all it takes to puncture a pressurized spacesuit and kill the opponent. hell in space with no gravity or friction even if the bullet does not puncture it will still send you flying away at high velocity
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
17. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Talderas · 2013-02-20 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  To avoid needing to use said private space marine army.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
18. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by compro01 · 2013-02-20 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Probably. Salyut 3 had an autocannon on it and it reportedly fired just fine.
  You'd need to make sure you're securely attached to something though, lest the recoil send you drifting.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
19. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Antipater · 2013-02-20 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  And then, once the winning corporation's mining fleet has wiped out the competition thanks to its new and advanced AI, it realizes that the greatest abundance of minable materials is on that blue rock! And the only obstacle left is that dang nuisance called "organic life"...
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
20. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by a-zarkon! · 2013-02-20 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I think the defining characteristic of space is the mind boggling emptiness of it all. Resources are not abundant, as there is a whole lot of nothing between us and anything else.
  If outer space really is the land of milk and honey, we'd be mining already. The reason we don't is because it is more expensive to do it "out there" than it is to do it "down here."
21. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Tuidjy · 2013-02-20 08:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The first shot will be even better than the one you'd get on Earth. The power already contains the oxidants the combustion needs, and there will be no air resistance.
  The rest of the shot are trickier. If the gun is an automatic, and has not been modified, you may need to chamber the rounds manually, because the lack of air resistance may mess up the automatic action.
  If the gun is a revolver, you will be able to fire all chambers as usual, but the gun will be only cooling by radiating heat AND through the contact with your gloves. That may become uncomfortable rather quickly.
  And of course, you may have problems with recoil. Unless you have anchored yourself rather well, you will start moving in very complex way, especially if you do not fire the bullet along a line passing through your center of mass and the end of the barrel.
  
  --
  No good deed goes unpunished...
22. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by dywolf · 2013-02-20 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  aiming is easier too, since all trajectories become much nearer to perfectly flat in space. the only factor that's different is the angle of elevation at the moment of firing (the reason many bullet trajectories on earth dont start at 0deg but actually upward somewhat...the line of force from the recoild isnt directly through the CG but somewhat above it). once you adjust for that, the effective/accurate range of the weapon is much higher than on the surface.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
23. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by dywolf · 2013-02-20 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  abundant compared to on the surface of the planet we call home. many of those iron/nickel asteroids have more of each than has been mined in the entirety of human existence.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
24. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by c0lo · 2013-02-20 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Unless they have Space Police out there.
  Dang! And Obama just declined to build that Death Star. What a lack of long term thinking!
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
25. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Type44Q · 2013-02-20 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  there will wars on earth over rocks in space
  There might even be wars on rocks over earth in space (dirt'll could be hard to come by, out there). :p
26. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by AmiMoJo · 2013-02-20 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  The USSR tested on aboard one of their military space stations.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
27. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Actually that concludes that it may not work but not for the reasons people would think.
  The vacuum of space isn't an issue because the oxygen self contained and sealed in the bullet would be enough, but to quote the source you linked:
  " It's certainly possible that a handgun way out in the middle of interstellar nowhere might become so cold that the gunpowder in the cartridge no longer reliably ignites and burns fast enough to produce an explosion."
28. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-02-20 09:27 · Score: 2
  
  abundant compared to on the surface of the planet we call home. many of those iron/nickel asteroids have more of each than has been mined in the entirety of human existence.
  Isn't that quite an understatement? Just look at 16 Psyche. I believe that the amount would be sufficient to cover the whole planet with a layer of steel.five meter thick. Can you spell "Trantor"? :-)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
29. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by kermidge · 2013-02-20 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  "If the gun is an automatic, and has not been modified, you may need to chamber the rounds manually, because the lack of air resistance may mess up the automatic action."
  I think not. In full or semi-auto, bolt and bolt carrier are forced back either by gas or recoil, neither of which require air resistance. Last time I looked, anyway.
  Someone with better math and physics will have to deal with the heat question. The other real issue would be with lubricants. That, or a piece with looser tolerances such as the AK-47. Either way, one would not want the lubricants to freeze nor the parts to self-weld.
30. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by skegg · 2013-02-20 09:54 · Score: 2
  
  even if the bullet does not puncture it will still send you flying away at high velocity
  The shooter or the target?
31. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by crakbone · 2013-02-20 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Watch out. Gamesworkshop might see your post. http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/13/02/06/1834250/games-workshop-bullies-author-over-use-of-the-words-space-marine
32. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Nyder · 2013-02-20 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  ... but the gun will be only cooling by radiating heat AND through the contact with your gloves. That may become uncomfortable rather quickly.
  ....
  Wouldn't that depend where you are in space? Sure, if you have the sun shinging on you, providing some heat, then the gun will get really hot fast, but what if you are far from the sun? Or the sun is blocked? Then it's really cold in space and I don't see the heat of the gun being that big of a deal.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
33. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by shaitand · 2013-02-20 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  As to the near absolute zero it seems the temperature of the gun and not the surrounding space that would determine this. At some point the springs might be cold enough to shatter when you attempt to put tension on them to cock the gun. Or the gun might shatter when the hammer strikes. If the hammer strikes it likely will detonate the bullet even if it does shatter the firing pin but the brittle chamber will explode rather than containing and directing the explosion. The bullet itself would shatter as well but it's fragments would still be propelled in the direction the bullet is intended to go because brittle chamber or no that remains the path of least resistance for the energy in the explosion. Those fragments might have enough energy to kill your target since they wouldn't lose any energy fighting air resistance on their path to said target.
  
  It occurs to me that you wouldn't want to fire a gun that cold unless it was some desperate attempt to sacrifice yourself for the chance of stopping someone trying to do something bad enough to justify that sacrifice. You might kill the target but you'd almost certainly kill yourself. Or you could just keep your gun warm.
34. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Tuidjy · 2013-02-20 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  You definitely have a point with lubricants. Yes, many would evaporate/freeze/etc...
  But you are wrong about the reloading. Quite a few guns are rather finicky about the pressure inside the gas tube. For example, the AK-47 you brought up requires attachments when you are using non-standard ammunition, because sometimes, the pressure isn't enough to cycle. Other guns will not cycle properly if they are not shouldered properly, i.e. if the whole gun is allowed to go back.
  When firing in vacuum, the lack of air resistance will let the bullet leave the barrel more easily, and will make it harder for the gas chasing it to do it's job in the gas tube. The effects will be compounded if the shooter is not properly braced (much harder if there's nothing pressing down on his soles)
  
  --
  No good deed goes unpunished...
35. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by shaitand · 2013-02-20 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Are we talking about revolvers? I thought we were just talking about guns in space.
  
  Even with a revolver you wouldn't need to reload for the heat to start being a significant factor. After one or two shots the barrel expansion would be causing inaccuracy. Of course handguns aren't especially accurate even at 10 yards to this would be a bigger issue in a rifle. I have a rifle that goes from being able to hit a tomato at 300 yards with iron sights to not being able to hit a watermelon at 100 yards after about 5 shots due to barrel expansion.
  
  A semi-auto (almost all civilian arms these days) or automatic weapon would likely start jamming in short order. Those mechanisms are fairly delicate and expansion on the order of mils in the wrong places will stop them. Some are more resistant than others though. I'd much rather be relying on an AK-47 in space than US designs.
36. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by shaitand · 2013-02-20 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  It wouldn't just send the target flying but the shooter as well!
37. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Tuidjy · 2013-02-20 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Even on Earth, gun heat can be a VERY BIG deal, and not only for automatic weapons (which have to be air/water/etc cooled) I know people who have burned themselves on their guns, and, at least in the 80s, most machine guns would have been ruined if fired even at 20% of their maximum rate. (Or at least, they would have needed their barrels swapped constantly)
  I bet you see the problem with air cooled guns that overheat even in air. When you fire them in space, there's no air to carry the heat away. It does not matter whether the sun shines or not, but it matters that the only cooling is through radiation.
  
  --
  No good deed goes unpunished...
38. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by camperdave · 2013-02-20 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  Will a Smith & Wesson even fire in the vacuum and near absolute zero temperatures of space?
  It's only near absolute zero in the shade.
  As to vacuum, yes, the propellent in a bullet is self-contained, and will work nicely in a vacuum.
  Some part of the gun is going to be in the shade, most particularly the internal mechanisms and whatever lubricants connecting the trigger with the hammer. The barrel may bend due to differential thermal expansion if one side is in the sun and the other in the shade.
  
  Also, although the cartridge is self contained, might there not be enough pressure within it to pop the slug when it first hits vacuum?
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
39. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Omestes · 2013-02-20 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  And you'd fly backwards at a rather impressive rate, too.
  Damn you, Newton!
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
40. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by slick7 · 2013-02-20 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  Unless they have Space Police out there. Who knows how this would turn out, but it does raise another issue - when we finally get off of our collective asses and start a more aggressive space program(s), who the heck is gonna regulate commodities, etc out in space?
  The real question is, "When we get out there, will those that are already there, allow us to remain?"
  Besides, I've been working on what I call the Hephaestus Project for over 30 years. Since this government of CONgressMEN have yet to balance the budget, I do not expect to see it come to fruition. But then again, neither did da Vinci of his ideas, nor am I placing myself in the same league as Leonardo.
  I'm sure someone will say, "If your idea is so great, why haven't we heard of it?"
  My response is, If all you can think of is how much will it cost or what do I get from it, then, you are not ready for it. A great man once said, We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
41. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by kermidge · 2013-02-20 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  Another argument in favour of recoil-operation. [grin] No probs there, if'n the other stuff works. And yes, load is important for recycling, gas or recoil; it shows up commonly when reloading for subsonics. Years ago and faraway, haven't even been to a range in twenty years.
42. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by bloodhawk · 2013-02-20 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  relatively speaking the resources on earth are just a tiny weenie drop even in our own solar system. Once the cost of actually getting into space and mining is solved the available resources are so vast compared to what we currently have that the idea of fighting over resources seems a little silly.
43. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by delt0r · 2013-02-21 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  Firefly was many things.. Hard sci fi was not one of them. I mean where do you start? Personalized interplanetary travel, but no food? No robotic armies? Not even proper body armor. They are all at the same time so advanced to have personal space travel, and yet so primitive that its the wild west.
  
  I really enjoyed the show. But it was never even consistent with itself let alone real physics.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
44. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by delt0r · 2013-02-21 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  When firing in vacuum, the lack of air resistance will let the bullet leave the barrel more easily, and will make it harder for the gas chasing it to do it's job in the gas tube.
  The 1 bar (100kPa) of air pressure compared to the huge pressures (>10MPa) in the chamber, this will make no significant difference.
  
  My 2c worth. Cooling. With no air to cool the barrel, it will get real hot real fast.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
45. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by GWRedDragon · 2013-02-21 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  The other real issue would be with lubricants. That, or a piece with looser tolerances such as the AK-47. Either way, one would not want the lubricants to freeze nor the parts to self-weld.
  Lubrication is not that big of a concern. The vast majority of modern semi-automatic combat-grade firearms can be safely run with no lubrication at all. The only effect it will have is to increase wear, which could start to be an issue after several thousand rounds fired at least. Certain designs, such as the Glock handgun, have been tested with upwards of 100,000 rounds fired with no lubrication and minimal detrimental effects.
46. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Tuidjy · 2013-02-21 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  The pressure that matters is not the pressure at the time the shot is fired, but the pressure at the time the bullet gets past the gas tube. 100kPa is only 1% of 10Mpa, but by the time the bullet passes the gas tube in a Kalashnikov, the pressure is barely over one megapascal.
  And it is not about the pressure differential on the two sides of the bullet. It's about the fact that the gas in the gas tube has to do some work compressing a spring, while the gas in the barrel is accelerating a bullet, which would be A LOT easier without air resistance, while the spring is not affected at all.
  
  --
  No good deed goes unpunished...
47. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by holmstar · 2013-02-21 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Earth has a big gravity well, and the vast majority of the valuable metals have sunk down into the core. Asteroids and lighter planetoids would be much better targets.
48. Re:A bit hard to enforce.... by Raenex · 2013-02-22 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  They are all at the same time so advanced to have personal space travel, and yet so primitive that its the wild west.
  The whole Western aspect is why I completely dismissed the show at a glance. Maybe it was a good show, but the whole premise just seemed goofy.
Manifest Destiny/ by wcrowe · 2013-02-20 07:23 · Score: 1

Manifest Destiny... iiiiinnnnn spaaaaaaaaaace!

--
Proverbs 21:19
1. Re:Manifest Destiny/ by i+kan+reed · 2013-02-20 07:26 · Score: 2
  
  Luckily, this time there aren't any natives to genocide.
2. Re:Manifest Destiny/ by JustOK · 2013-02-20 07:27 · Score: 2
  
  got proof of that?
  
  --
  rewriting history since 2109
3. Re:Manifest Destiny/ by i+kan+reed · 2013-02-20 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  You're really a "doomed to repeat it" kinda person, aren't you?
4. Re:Manifest Destiny/ by Mindcontrolled · 2013-02-20 09:04 · Score: 2
  
  Well, half the thread is about how well revolvers work in space and how to most efficiently shoot someone there.... I don't think that some people have advanced civilizationally in any significant manner, do you?
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
5. Re:Manifest Destiny/ by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2013-02-20 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that some people have advanced civilizationally in any significant manner, do you?
  Nope. I have a very low opinion of people in general. When I can listen to the news without wanting to revoke my membership in the human race, perhaps I will begin to change my mind.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
International traties by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-02-20 07:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

Not only not enforceable: I always thought that there were treaties against this, as in no private company from any country can claim anything outside the atmosphere without some sort of international agreement. See Outer Space Treaty.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
1. Re:International traties by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  "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"
  
  Put the nail into any private exploitation loophole : if youa re american you are under the treaty under US supervision and therefore party of the treaty too.
2. Re:International traties by the+biologist · 2013-02-20 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  The treaty and such refer to states, but since in our current reality, state power is what secures private property rights... the two are somewhat linked.
3. Re:International traties by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-02-20 07:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  So just incorporate in e.g. Lithuania, which is not party to the treaty.
4. Re:International traties by jythie · 2013-02-20 07:43 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, but then you depend on Lithuania to defend your claim.
  
  While the US might have issues, one can claim that the federal government can be pretty aggressive in protecting its citizen's interests in the international arena. Register your claim through the US, and it is backed by the US.
5. Re:International traties by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Treaties also prohibit the invasion of another nation, the acquisition of territory by force, torture, apartheid, extrajudicial killings, colonization, and ethnic cleansing. Yet these things are routinely done by those with the political and physical power to get away with it. What reason is there to believe that the Outer Space Treaty has any teeth or will stop corporations in powerful states from owning asteroids?
6. Re:International traties by CanHasDIY · 2013-02-20 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Briefly looking at the treaty, do asteroids count as "Celestial bodies"? I've only ever heard that term used for planets and moons.
  Shay-zus...
  Merriam Webster must be turning over in his grave.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
7. Re:International traties by Kjella · 2013-02-20 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Try taking some of NASA's moon rocks and say that because of the outer space treaty they have no property right claim to them and see how long it's until you're locked up in jail. Nation states can't claim it as their territory, but it's entirely unclear how or if anyone can claim mining rights on an asteroid, or if it's a race to see who can gobble up the asteroid first. "Planting the flag" might be good enough or it might not, depending on how deep pockets you have and how many big governments you can get to play by those rules.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
8. Re:International traties by dimeglio · 2013-02-20 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's simply a case of whomever has the bigger gun gets to keep the asteroid/planet/solar system. It's back to the wild-wild west era. Unless we establish a planetary government to establish and enforce legitimate claims.
  
  --
  Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
9. Re:International traties by jmauro · 2013-02-20 07:55 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Probably not since there wasn't a person called Merriam Webster name is from the Merriam publishing company's purchase of the Webster dictionary publishing license after the death of Daniel Webster.
  A Webster, yes. Two different Merriams, yes. A Merriam Webster, no.
10. Re:International traties by icebike · 2013-02-20 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  "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"
  Put the nail into any private exploitation loophole : if youa re american you are under the treaty under US supervision and therefore party of the treaty too.
  What part of "shall require authorization and continuing supervision" prohibits private exploitation?
  You need authorization and continuing supervision to drill for oil on land or at sea, yet that hasn't impeded private exploitation of the continental shelf or deep-sea drilling. This is an easy hurdle to jump. Just a few dollars in the right campaign donation bucket buys you all the authorization you need.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
11. Re:International traties by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  They can just smash it into the earth and claim it there. Problem solved.
12. Re:International traties by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 08:09 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I thought corporations were people. Can't they roll over in their grave, too?
13. Re:International traties by Firethorn · 2013-02-20 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, I'm something of a theorist of 'international law'. I'm not a lawyer or anything.
  First, my theory on international politics/law: The dealings of nations is a bit like an ancient village, where different nations are 'people' of varying size and ability. There is effectively limited to no 'police', there are no courts, etc...
  As such, 'international law' depends on the threat or actual use of force. Any given country is free to do what it wants to until other countries can be motivated to do something about it.
  In this case; in order to have any real effect, said beacon has to be recognized by countries willing to press the issue - whether in space or on the ground.
  In general, it's a lot more likely if parties in multiple countries have interests in various asteroids for exploitation - IE it's worth money, and spread out enough for a coalition to form. You'd probably see some sort of time and scope limit on the beacon claims - just because the USA put some flags on the moon doesn't mean we own the whole thing. If anything, a flag might only be good for, say, a 5 km radius, or a latitude/longitude section that the flag is in of a pre-specified size(basically, divide the planet up into lots and lots of squares; plant a flag or probe in a square to claim it). If you undertake no further activity, said claim from flag-planting expires after X years, which I'd peg at 20-40 years. If you undertake further activity, the claim becomes permanent unless you abandon said site, which would become open to claim again after 20-40 years from your last activity.
  Basically, a bit like the old homestead days.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
14. Re:International traties by foniksonik · 2013-02-20 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Who is going to stop a competing firm from taking the claim for themselves? It will be Wild West laws aka no laws at all.
  
  --
  A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
15. Re:International traties by CanHasDIY · 2013-02-20 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  I thought corporations were people.
  Damn, AC beat me to it!
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
16. Re:International traties by Dahamma · 2013-02-20 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  The same thing could be said of the oceans. No one owns the oceans, but they take resources from them. Of course whoever has the largest military presence effectively controls them, but not in any legal sense.
  Treaties may not stop corporations from *controlling* or mining asteroids, but they can definitely stop them from owning them, since ownership is just a legal concept.
17. Re:International traties by nitehawk214 · 2013-02-20 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  I thought corporations were people. Can't they roll over in their grave, too?
  Only if they are dead.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
18. Re:International traties by cellocgw · 2013-02-20 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Quite true, which is why, sort of as a corollary, nobody's going to accept a laser-tagging method of asteroid claims. If you're not sitting right there, in front of your Conestoga, w/ your Winchester loaded and ready, you ain't gonna be able to defend your claim. And no jumping the starting gun, you damn Okies!
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
19. Re:International traties by iroll · 2013-02-20 08:49 · Score: 2
  
  How about confiscating your financial resources back on earth, and convincing friendly nations to do the same?
  It's not like the US has to send law enforcement officers to every foreign country, either.
  
  --
  Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
20. Re:International traties by Belial6 · 2013-02-20 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  I was going to say no because corporations are immortals, but I suppose being buried in a grave and being dead do not always have to go together.
21. Re:International traties by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 09:18 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  How about dropping a 1,000,000 tonne rock on the UN building. Orbital bombardment is ten tenths of the law.
22. Re:International traties by GNious · 2013-02-20 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Soooo... thats a no?
23. Re:International traties by jythie · 2013-02-20 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps not, but given their comparative weakness within the EU, they might get thrown under the buss. Not all member states get the same level of collective defense.
24. Re:International traties by skegg · 2013-02-20 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect once a firm starts turning a profit from mining the asteroid, then Planetary Resources would sue them for said profits.
  Now, whether or not they are successful in their bid ...
25. Re:International traties by ALeader71 · 2013-02-20 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  This treaty appears to limit governmental actions, not the actions of private citizens. This reads more like a conservation and good behavior contract than an outright ban on for-profit activities like mining or private colonization. It may prevent nation-states from setting up colonies, but how relevant are governments anymore?
  
  --
  Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
26. Re:International traties by CptNerd · 2013-02-20 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Grant.
  
  --
  By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
27. Re:International traties by Nyder · 2013-02-20 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  I thought corporations were people. Can't they roll over in their grave, too?
  Only if they are dead.
  They are soulless, does that count?
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
28. Re:International traties by funwithBSD · 2013-02-20 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  I can see the Discovery Channel reality show now:
  Cold Rush
  
  --
  Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
29. Re:International traties by R3d+M3rcury · 2013-02-20 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  This has always struck me as an entertaining idea.
  I'm an American/USian/Uhmerkin. Now I'm an exceptionally rich bastard who's going to go set up shop outside of the Earth. So before I climb aboard my spaceship, I stop by a U.S. Embassy and renounce my citizenship.
  So who is the appropriate State Party to the treaty?
30. Re:International traties by Redmancometh · 2013-02-20 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Is this the same EU thats been crumbling and cracking for the past couple years?
31. Re:International traties by InfoJunkie777 · 2013-02-20 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  So just incorporate in e.g. Lithuania, which is not party to the treaty.
  This is one way. But the treaty states that any signatory can withdraw with one years notice. With China eyeing the Moon and the USA also considering a base, it is unlikely the US would consider working with the PRC. This would put pressure on the other main signatories who CAN put people or instruments in space to withdraw also.
  
  --
  Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
32. Re:International traties by InfoJunkie777 · 2013-02-20 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  Not only not enforceable: I always thought that there were treaties against this, as in no private company from any country can claim anything outside the atmosphere without some sort of international agreement. See Outer Space Treaty.
  You are right, but it is stupid and outdated. It was promoted in the heat of the Cold War - mainly to prevent "weaponization" of NEO and to prevent the cause perhaps of a territorial war over say, the Moon. Even thogh neither power could hardly do that at the time. There is an excellent article HERE Good credentials.
  
  --
  Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
33. Re:International traties by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-02-20 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  Ya ya, heard it all before. European governments declare they own the New World by Divine Right and guns.
  We need a new frontier that abandons the sclerotic "old world", this time an actual proper world.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
34. Re:International traties by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2013-02-21 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  the federal government can be pretty aggressive in protecting its citizen's interests in the international arena.
  
  Light Sabre Rattling?
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
35. Re:International traties by holmstar · 2013-02-21 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  If you're not a citizen of any country then you would be your own sovereign. In other words, the only think backing/defending your claim is yourself. That may be enough, as long as there are enough separate resources available to claim. But if the one you claimed is a particularly juicy target, then you better be ready to defend it.
Mandate Black Boxes by Luthair · 2013-02-20 07:25 · Score: 3, Funny

So I know whose asteroid crashed into my house.
International Asteroid Registry by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2013-02-20 07:27 · Score: 2

This Valentine's day, give your mistress the gift that's out of this world. Claim an asteroid for her...
Back it up by devnullkac · 2013-02-20 07:31 · Score: 1

Absent international treaty or a national law (assuming their competition can be assailed in the court system), anyone with a plan like this will be forced to defend their claims the old fashioned way: by force. Will the beacons have probe-disabling lasers on board? The article doesn't say. But my guess is that the cost of getting a defense system on the rock is the same as the cost of getting mining equipment on it.
A better defense plan is to scan 10 times as many rocks as you normally would and leave beacons on all of them. Then develop either stealthy or very fast mining tech for phase 2.

--
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
1. Re:Back it up by Scutter · 2013-02-20 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  You won't need space defense for your asteroid claims. If this process is held up by international treaty, you can simply control it that way. Space travel (at least at this time) isn't Firefly. You don't just hop in a grungy cargo ship and go where ever you want. It will be trivially easy for anyone who cares to track a mining ship launch to its destination asteroid. Smuggling space ore will be virtually impossible. When the poached ore is returned to Earth, the people who mined it are held accountable by whatever legal methods are agreed upon by world governments, or not held accountable at all if space is deemed a "free for all".
  
  --
  
  "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
2. Re:Back it up by medcalf · 2013-02-20 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  The beacons are at best publicity. To own something, either others need to recognize your ownership and leave it alone, or some larger power (like governments on Earth with property physically located in their territory) needs to recognize your ownership and defend it, or you need to defend it. In the hypothetical case where I have the resources and will to do it, and I come across an asteroid I want to mine that has one of their beacons on it, I'd just take the beacon, too. At the very least, the power source would be useful for something.
  
  --
  -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
3. Re:Back it up by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-02-20 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  It will be trivially easy for anyone who cares to track a mining ship launch to its destination asteroid. Smuggling space ore will be virtually impossible.
  I don't know, I've heard from a guy in Chelyabinsk that he can smuggle in significant amounts of asteroid ore right under the authorities' noses.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
4. Re:Back it up by mbone · 2013-02-20 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  As I read the Outer Space Treaty, they would have no legal recourse to usurpers, as long as they weren't actually using the asteroid. The reason is that countries cannot claim property in outer space (Article II), therefore claims recognized by one country need have no weight in another. Now, it is a no-no to interfere with the work of astronauts (Article IX), but this is worded in a very weak and ambiguous fashion, which I think is sure to lead to troubles in the future. Since countries are responsible for what their nationals do in space (Articles VI-VIII), what would really happen is, if country X interfered with your mining claim, you would have to depend on what your country was willing to do about it.
5. Re:Back it up by dywolf · 2013-02-20 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  why return it to earth at all? sure some, particularly iron and the like which are actually relatively rare in teh crust, might make it surface side to supplement what we have. but the whole point to keep it up there; mine it in space, refine it space, use it space. avoid the energy sink of sending it down to the surface, at least until we get the space elevators going.
  as for treaties...they are only enforced as long as its convenient. already the antarctica treaty has come under scrutiny due to possible oil exploration, particularly around the penninsula where the climate isnt quite as harsh.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
6. Re:Back it up by Burz · 2013-02-20 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  It fascinates me how the moment property and industrial extraction are mentioned as an imminent possibility, all the hallowed posturing about peace in space goes flying our the window and one of the first sub-threads is a discussion about whether guns w/bullets will work in space.
  If it comes to that then the escalation likely won't stop until eventually asteroids are directed against targets on the Earth.
  Space adventurism leads to a different outcome than the ones shown in popular science fantasy (and most of it *is* fantasy).
7. Re:Back it up by Mindcontrolled · 2013-02-20 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  To meaningfully own an asteroid you gotta have a way to actually exploit it. That, so far, is pure vaporware. Or vacuumware?
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
8. Re:Back it up by Thud457 · 2013-02-20 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  here you go...
  see ya next month...
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
9. Re:Back it up by meta-monkey · 2013-02-20 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder who the first man murdered in space will be?
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Why not mine what we already have? by mknewman · 2013-02-20 07:33 · Score: 2

Why bother mining asteroids when there is a bunch of pre-refined materials floating in LEO. Re-refine the materials in Proton boosters, non-functional satellites and such. Stop throwing used up stuff back into the atmosphere to burn up. Build a refinery at the Space Station.
1. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by medcalf · 2013-02-20 07:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Two reasons. The first is that the volume of materials in orbit is really, really tiny. The second is that each of these different types of space junk would require (potentially) different processing techniques, equipment and so forth. Even discounting property issues, those simply make the idea financially insane. So I expect some national government somewhere will certainly try it at some point.
  
  --
  -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
2. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by Synerg1y · 2013-02-20 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  That would actually make a lot of sense except for the international ownership issues. It would only work if we all got along and shared our resources... ... ... onto the space asteroids!
3. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by mknewman · 2013-02-20 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  I would think any asteroid with that much valuable material would require a huge refining effort. We are talking many times the size of anything ever launched. Even assuming you do a progressive approach where small refineries build larger ones you are talking centuries before much could come out of this kind of effort. I would think grabbing an asteroid into orbit and tunneling into it to build a radiation resistant habitat would be more feasable. You could use the tunneled material as propulsion mass to get it into L2 or a good orbit.
4. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by CanHasDIY · 2013-02-20 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Why bother mining asteroids when there is a bunch of pre-refined materials floating in LEO. Re-refine the materials in Proton boosters, non-functional satellites and such. Stop throwing used up stuff back into the atmosphere to burn up. Build a refinery at the Space Station.
  
  Oh, this.
  What I can't fathom is how governments and private industry can't seem to get their heads around an idea that sci-fi book and game writers have been expounding for decades.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
5. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by mknewman · 2013-02-20 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  +1 exactly.
6. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by Firethorn · 2013-02-20 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  The second is that each of these different types of space junk would require (potentially) different processing techniques,
  
  I've actually looked at some of this.
  Property issues: Go by litter rules - they abandoned the materials in space; they're cluttering up the orbitals and thus you're just cleaning up and recycling the trash
  Volume: It's tiny in proportion to even a smaller asteroid, yes, but they're already refined materials. That helps. Plus the whole 'clean up the orbitals' thing. You don't actually need that much material to help the ISS or it's replacement on quite a bit.
  Different processing techniques: Initially I'd figure on the recycling to be fairly primitive - perhaps mostly a solar fuser and some automated tools to shape the collected material into more shielding. While lead is pretty good for the thickness needed to provide protection and water is good for other reasons, pretty much anything works to provide some shielding. A lot of radiation shielding is simply a question of mass.
  In general, my policy short of humans would be 'what goes up doesn't come down'. When stuff in orbit is more costly than it's weight in gold, even some crazy recycling is worth it. Work on getting a green module* up and running to satisfy at least some of the ongoing oxygen and food demands. Etc...
  As the station grows, so wouldn't the justification for more elaborate recycling.
  *I don't care whether it's potted, hydroponic, aeroponic, or even just algae in a tank.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
7. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by Mindcontrolled · 2013-02-20 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Because any usable ore refinery would take up just about 1000 times the mass of the ISS and require a daily input of energy and consumables which no one can actually generate in situ respectively lift to orbit at a reasonable cost?
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
8. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by Belial6 · 2013-02-20 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  ISS has an internal pressurized volume of 32,333 cubic feet, or equal that of a Boeing 747.
  
  Pretty small for a refinery.
9. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by CanHasDIY · 2013-02-20 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Because any usable ore refinery would take up just about 1000 times the mass of the ISS and require a daily input of energy and consumables which no one can actually generate in situ respectively lift to orbit at a reasonable cost?
  So, basically, it's a materials problem.
  Wouldn't asteroid mining help to solve that very issue? Granted, there's going to be a significant startup cost in just getting the materials for the refinery/shipyard/whathaveyou into space, but once it's there, surely we can use space-based resources to make it nigh-perpetual?
  C'mon, we're smart monkeys; if we can speculate as to the time and cause of the death of the entire universe, surely we can figure this one out.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
10. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by kermidge · 2013-02-20 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  But one doesn't have to refine the entire asteroid in one go, surely? Just because one's brewed up five gallons of beer doesn't mean it can't be drunk a glass at a time.
  Building living quarters into the rock would be handy.
11. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by Mindcontrolled · 2013-02-20 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, asteroid mining will not solve that issue - the issue is kickstarting it, expending the energy to actually get the necessary mining and refining gear up there in the first place. To get all the minerals out of the ore and to refine it into high quality metals, build the necessary alloys and cast them under microgravity will make it necessary to lift hundreds of thousands of tons of stuff up there. Not to mention that most of our refining techniques, e.g. floatation, will not work in microgravity, so completely new ones will have to be designed. At the moment the startup costs kill the whole endeavour. We need cheaper lifting capacity first. Orders of magnitude cheaper. That's what we have to research before producing vaporware by tagging asteroids.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
12. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-02-20 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of radiation shielding is simply a question of mass.
  Well yes and no. Beyond the Van Allen belt, you're getting pinged by all sorts of energetic stuff and the choice of shielding does matter quite a lot. Pick the wrong shield and you're suddenly irradiating the occupants with enormous amounts of secondary radiation. What is stopped by the shield knocks bits off the molecules of the shield, which then pelt the people inside. Some choices of shield material are worse than no shield at all.
  Having said that, I would guess most of the junk currently up there was already chosen to avoid that side effect. Being irradiated doesn't do electronics any good either, so avoiding secondary radiation is a design concern for satellite builders, especially those aiming for geosynchronous orbit.
13. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by tftp · 2013-02-20 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably why many of those sci-fi writers mentioned previously envisioned money-less societies - apparently, the best way to make space exploration cost effective is to effectively eliminate the concept of cost.
  Money and cost are not the same. Walking a thousand miles does not become any easier just because you cannot count. Cost will remain in any case - such as in lifetime of actual humans who spend their limited time on this Earth on the project, in labs and factories, instead of walking in the forest and enjoying the nature.
14. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by InfoJunkie777 · 2013-02-20 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  Why bother mining asteroids when there is a bunch of pre-refined materials floating in LEO. Re-refine the materials in Proton boosters, non-functional satellites and such. Stop throwing used up stuff back into the atmosphere to burn up. Build a refinery at the Space Station.
  Good idea, although there may not be much material to work with. And there is the other problem. Space is BIG. Cost a lot in fuel to change orbits all the time to retrieve these materials. As opposed to say, an iron asteroid maybe even just a 5 kilos in diameter with have millions of tons of iron in it.
  
  --
  Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
15. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by CanHasDIY · 2013-02-21 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably why many of those sci-fi writers mentioned previously envisioned money-less societies - apparently, the best way to make space exploration cost effective is to effectively eliminate the concept of cost.
  Money and cost are not the same.
  No shit.
  I figured that fiscal cost would be assumed, since I was talking about a money-less society.
  Sorry that I presumed my reader didn't need me to spell out every single little detail.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
16. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by tftp · 2013-02-21 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry that I presumed my reader didn't need me to spell out every single little detail.
  It's hardly a little detail if production of 1000 spaceships of Sovereign class exhausts resources of your home planet(s), pollutes the environment and uses up lifetimes of millions of workers. Even in Star Trek spaceships were very valuable items. Elimination of personal costs (money) does not reduce societal (fiscal) costs.
  Elimination of cost is possible only when a civilization becomes godlike, one way or another. For example, it can command billions of robots who do whatever the civilization wants, including obtaining energy and raw materials. In such civilization cost would be indeed not a factor. One example of such a society would be Diaspar (and even then it has constraints.)
  Elimination of money is possible much earlier - when it becomes possible to provide basic resources on "as needed" basis, regardless of your contribution. Often that contribution is not even measurable; how do you measure value of a poet? However a money-less society still has constraints on how much one can use, just because there isn't enough to satisfy *any* desire. For example, if you want to have a mountain moved away because it blocks the view then you will need an approval of the society - at least because that would take terajoules of energy and will wear down an army of robots. But if you want to dig up a pool, that is entirely free.
  The only thing that will make space exploration cost-effective is discoveries in physics that will allow us to move materials within gravity fields without those huge losses that we incur today. It is ridiculous to spend 20 to 50 million USD to just send one man to the LEO for a week. Costs of another trip to the Moon would be in tens of billions. Costs of a well prepared trip to Mars would be even higher. The humankind cannot afford those costs, regardless of whether they use the money or toil for free as slaves of some World Government. The planet itself cannot afford it.
  I'm not saying that you don't know any of that, but the discussion is incomplete when important details are just assumed, not spelled out.
17. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by Firethorn · 2013-02-21 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Having said that, I would guess most of the junk currently up there was already chosen to avoid that side effect.
  I thought about mentioning that, deleted it during editing. Secondary radiation can be a real concern, but it's generally still a lot less energetic than the primary stuff, so even if the material isn't ideally suited to be radiation shielding, there's relatively few materials that would make the situation worse. Then you have some shielding specifically chosen to NOT be easy to irradiate, like water, behind all your recycled shielding.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
18. Re:Why not mine what we already have? by CanHasDIY · 2013-02-21 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  I believe the typical response to such a left-field post as this would be Whoosh
  Big ol' Whoosh.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
whoops,read that wrong... by Thud457 · 2013-02-20 07:51 · Score: 1

Space Bacons?

I bet in teh futuar, bacon will be a highly sought after luxury in space.
Just imagine the immense wealth for the daring astro-prospector that finds a whole asteroid of bacon.
Bets on what comes first, the maternity station (confinement asteroid for you belters...) or the bacon astro-farm?

(just as long as it's not this type...)

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Prospecting tool? by mbone · 2013-02-20 07:51 · Score: 1

I am not sure how this fits in the Outer Space Treaty, and thus what recourse they would have if (say) the Chinese used their beacons as a prospecting tool.
On the other hand, such beacons would probably make good VLBI targets.
Beacons are unnecessary. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 07:51 · Score: 2, Funny

All they need to do is lick each one. Any four-year-old knows that.
Can't they space coordinates Logged somewhere? by BetaDays · 2013-02-20 07:53 · Score: 1

Can't they just lay claim like the Bering Sea Gold Miners (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2182427/) do? They use GPS coordinates to plot an area where the claim is. Or is it the meteors move from sector to sector so that is not possible? Also in other mining places like California you can make the claim but you also have to prove that you are doing something with it.

--
Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
1. Re:Can't they space coordinates Logged somewhere? by gl4ss · 2013-02-20 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  sure.
  nobody is going to respect that registry though. anymore than these beacons.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Been done before by Hoi+Polloi · 2013-02-20 07:57 · Score: 2

People have been camping things in MMOs for years.

--
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
"This book must be out of date" by Thud457 · 2013-02-20 07:59 · Score: 2

I'm pretty sure Grand Fenwick isn't a signatory either. IMO, a much more appropriate choice.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:"This book must be out of date" by c0lo · 2013-02-20 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure Grand Fenwick isn't a signatory either. IMO, a much more appropriate choice.
  Ummm... Principality of Hutt River may not have signed it either.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Niven or Cherryh? by chthon · 2013-02-20 07:59 · Score: 1

The Belt or ASTEX ?
Will this be like patent trolling? by thelovebus · 2013-02-20 08:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

On the one hand, mineral claims have a long history and seem to have worked decently.
On the other hand, how do we prevent an unscrupulous company from doing just enough work to *claim* these asteroids, with no intention of actually following through and mining them. Then, acting as a rent-seeker when another company actually does try to mine the resources?
1. Re:Will this be like patent trolling? by Stirling+Newberry · 2013-02-20 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Adverse possession could be applied.
  
  --
  Fugue for Aaron Swartz
2. Re:Will this be like patent trolling? by femtobyte · 2013-02-20 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Many past historical claim systems require active *working* of the staked claim within some time period after initial filing --- e.g. you actually have to be digging some amount of gold out of the ground and bringing it to the government refiner/inspector to maintain the claim. The same type of mechanism could work here to prevent claim trolls --- if you don't return the material to earth, or move the asteroid into a designated earth-centered parking orbit, within 6 months of the claim, it's up for grabs again to whoever does so first.
Hey Thanks ! by Punko · 2013-02-20 08:09 · Score: 1

Thanks for marking all the valuable 'roids for our firm.

We'll let you know what we found. Maybe you'll get a finders fee, who knows ?

--
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
Exclusive claims should never be allowed by fustakrakich · 2013-02-20 08:14 · Score: 1

But that shouldn't stop anybody from mining the material anyway. You can own what you extract. You just shouldn't be allowed to "own" the raw materials.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
1. Re:Exclusive claims should never be allowed by Overzeetop · 2013-02-20 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  It's well known in any frontier location that you own only as much as you can successfully defend against other prospectors. That beacon is only useful if it can successfully repel an antagonistic party.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
2. Re:Exclusive claims should never be allowed by fustakrakich · 2013-02-20 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody has to 'defend' against other prospectors. There's plenty for everybody. The only thing needing protection is the equipment and the extracted materials.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
3. Re:Exclusive claims should never be allowed by tftp · 2013-02-20 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  If you are claiming some particular asteroid then it is different from all others (otherwise why to bother marking it?) If it is different then it is logical to presume that its uniqueness makes it more suitable for you - and therefore for me, since we are both mostly alike. Therefore it is advantageous for me to grab your marked asteroids - or at least to start with them and see for myself which of them are good and which of them are just decoys. I will not be at a disadvantage by doing that unless most or all of your marked asteroids are decoys. I would have a good chance to find that out through my mole at your HQ anyway; the costs of spaceflight are so high that my mole only needs to deliver one secret of yours and then he can retire to the $most_expensive_location. Nobody at your HQ would be able to resist. Wives and children sell out for even less. (But we, evil overlords, have our ways to deal with our trusted lieutenants.)
That may work against them by WindBourne · 2013-02-20 08:17 · Score: 1

Now, they have told the CHinese were to go dig. And dig they will. At the very least, they will scan these and know what the company is interested in.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:That may work against them by Maximum+Prophet · 2013-02-20 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  So you place dozens of beacons, and encrypt them. Only one will lead you to a valuable rock, the rest are less useful or empty space.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Lame by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2013-02-20 08:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Look, I don't care if you plant a flag or a beacon on some asteroid, if I can actually build a spaceship that can go and grab it and mine it before you do, your shit out of luck. I'll just kick your little beacon off, or move it to something else that has no value. What are you going to do about it?

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
1. Re:Lame by del_diablo · 2013-02-20 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Send a Space Hitman after you?
2. Re:Lame by trout007 · 2013-02-20 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like you agree with the Libertarian Homesteading Principle. You only get to own unclaimed land by actually using it. Putting a beacon isn't using it. Heck even if you land a robot or crew on it and start mining there is no reason another person can't land there and do the same as long as they don't interfere with your operation.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
3. Re:Lame by meta-monkey · 2013-02-20 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  Seems to me stopping someone else from approaching "your" asteroid is way easier than mining it. If you've got the ability to locate and tag it, it's got to be pretty easy to detect somebody else's launch and track their heading. There aren't exactly "evasive maneuvers" available. Tracking satellite + laser = sentry gun. Just have to burn one hole in the claim jumping ship, which will be on the same course with nowhere to run or hide for weeks. Laser doesn't even have to be that powerful. A slow burn over a week or two is just as effective. Would be mostly anonymous, too, as the source of the laser would only be apparent along its line of sight.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Eddie Izzard reference by PhxBlue · 2013-02-20 08:21 · Score: 2

Do they have a flag?

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
The UN will need to discussion claim rights by BlueCoder · 2013-02-20 08:38 · Score: 1

You can lay claim to anything you desire but it doesn't mean others will respect your claim. There has to be a consensus on what is needed to make a claim first and even that is blurry and will chance over time.
The main basis of a claim is having the resources and will to defend it and publicly declaring it.
Hydraulic empire by frisket · 2013-02-20 08:53 · Score: 1

...water is good for other reasons...
If you had a [near-]monopoly on the ready-to-use water supply in space, or even be one of several competing suppliers, you wouldn't even have to bother stripping the metals from the asteroids.
You got your asteroid in my peanut butter! by T.E.D. · 2013-02-20 08:59 · Score: 1

They'd better hope none of "their" asteriods hits the earth. The potential liability could be ruinous.
If you can claim without ability to mine by kawabago · 2013-02-20 09:13 · Score: 1

If you can stake a claim without having the ability to mine in space it allows early players to claim everything with little investment and tax mining that others develop. This would be against the best interests of everyone but the claimant. In order to stake a claim you should have to prove you can mine the resources you claim.
Re:What? by space_jake · 2013-02-20 09:26 · Score: 1

You missed the second part which is getting that which you mined into outer space.
Re:Too cheap by CptNerd · 2013-02-20 11:03 · Score: 1

Well, probably the first to mine the asteroids will also mine the asteroids. Of course they won't want proximity mines in the mines' proximity...
*kaboom*

--
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
too bad, I got there first by slashmydots · 2013-02-20 11:08 · Score: 1

Sorry, I actually called dibs first. That stands up in court just as well so good luck suing me. By the way, US law sort of works exactly like that where you flag it, it's yours, but the world/UN rules differ quite a bit. Well, down on Earth at least. The unofficial policy at the moment is you grab it, it's yours up in space.
Asteroid! by spitzak · 2013-02-20 12:17 · Score: 1

As shown in this Super-8 film made in about 1980, the claim beacon can be defeated by blocking it's radio transmissions. But if the miner has a nuclear license then watch out!
Please excuse the bad acting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPaPe3aJEPI
Homesteading? by GrantRobertson · 2013-02-20 16:25 · Score: 1

I say, go with the old homesteading laws. Someone has to move to the asteroid, live there seven years and "prove it up," as in: make significant improvements to the property.
Re:What? by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2013-02-21 00:53 · Score: 1

I suggest you look at news reports regarding China and Rare Earth Minerals (Most of which are found in China) bear in mind most of the rare minerals that are mined are extra terrestrial in origin having come to earth as meteors/asteroids/comets. As most of them are currently mined in China who is severely rationing them (Quite possibly correctly). Which is cheaper mining asteroids or going to war with a nuclear power?

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
the rich are different than you and me by Thud457 · 2013-02-21 04:15 · Score: 1

Do you consider yourself to be a better investor than Eric E. Schmidt, K. Ram Shriram, Charles Simonyi, Larry Page and Ross Perot, Jr
People like that have a lot more disposable income than I to risk on a lark on a high-risk venture.
My investments need to pay off in ~20 years so I'm not eating cat food in my old age. meow!

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Also known as "Calling It" by aztecmonkey · 2013-02-21 08:39 · Score: 1

Vacation Trip Rules apply in this scenario.
"I get the window seat! I called it!"
Generally, the nations of the world fall back on these rules when Intergalactic Law falls short.