Slashdot Mirror


Asteroid Mining Bill Introduced In Congress To Protect Private Property Rights

MarkWhittington writes: "Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) announced on Thursday that he was introducing a bill along with Rep, Derek Kilmer (D-WA) called the American Space Technology for Exploring Resource Opportunities in Deep Space (ASTEROIDS) Act of 2014 (PDF). The act is designed to protect the private property rights for entities mining asteroids and to otherwise encourage asteroid mining. The bill is in apparent reaction to efforts by companies like Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries to locate and mine Earth approaching asteroids for their resources.

The crucial part of the short piece of legislation states that the resources mined from an asteroid would be the property of the entity undertaking the operation. This language gets around the provision of the Outer Space Treaty that says states are forbidden to establish national sovereignty over celestial bodies, which would be a prerequisite to the United States allowing a private entity to own an asteroid. It rather grants mineral rights to the asteroid, something the treaty does not mention. There is no enforcement mechanism in the event of a dispute with another country, however."

40 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. ASTEROIDS by bistromath007 · · Score: 3, Funny

    That acronym is so massive we'll need Roland Emmerich to make a movie about it hitting the Senate floor.

  2. Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How can any nation grant right over something outside its sovereignty?

    1. Re:Absurd by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's a long history of this sort of thing.

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

    2. Re:Absurd by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Informative

      How can any nation grant right over something outside its sovereignty?

      You do know what country you are talking about don't you? sovereignty (especially other peoples) hasn't generally been at the top of the list of discussion points for quite a while(*)

      * And by quite a while I mean it .. just look at how Hawai'i became a state.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:Absurd by dywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      same way they always have.
      first by force.
      then by tradition.
      otherwise known as "possession is 9/10's of the law".

      the only reason we haven't (yet) seen it in Antarctica and the treaty there has yet been observed and maintained, is there hasnt yet been a big push to produce or obtain resources down there (it's bloody cold, and the resources are under a very thick layer of ice). just wait til they decide it's time to get the oil or other BigMoneyItem out of the gruond down there, and then see how long that treaty lasts.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    4. Re:Absurd by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How can any nation grant right over something outside its sovereignty?

      This just codifies a long-standing common law treatment of international resources. Anyone from any country can take their ship into international waters and gather resources. Once the fish / kelp / crab / whatever is aboard the ship, it's their property. This just says we should treat space resources the same way.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  3. thank goodness by Cardoor · · Score: 5, Funny

    i was afraid that privateers were running out of things to rape here on earth

    1. Re:thank goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And don't worry about no enforcement mechanism if another country disagrees...we can simply go to war with them to protect the "rights" of some corporation going against the good example the US set on the moon. Bravo!

      I for one, look forward to saying how bravely my children fought and died to protect the rights of some corporation to profit by mining some asteroid's natural resoruces. Be the first on your block to have a kid killed to fight for some corporate interest in space!

    2. Re:thank goodness by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Hey, we already send our children off to die to corporate interests in the Middle East, why not space? Hell, aside from the possible exception of WWI/II has this nation *ever* fought a war that wasn't well-aligned with powerful business interests?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:thank goodness by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Yeah. It's not exactly "boldly going where no man has gone before", is it?

      Oh, I don't know ... this just seems to be one more step in codifying the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition as the law of the land and setting the tone for future space exploration.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:thank goodness by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 2

      Service guarantees citizenship!

      I'm doing my part!

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  4. Dispute procedure. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Funny

    In event of dispute, deliver minerals to other claimant. Without controlled deceleration.

    1. Re:Dispute procedure. by rhazz · · Score: 2

      Free Luna!

  5. Good. Let's go. by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Asteroid mining is the only way we're going to build large structures in space anytime "soon". There's plenty of asteroids, this issue can be revisited later.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Good. Let's go. by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 2

      Near Earth asteroids contain up to 20% chemically bound water (in the form of hydrated minerals). They don't contain water as water, because at our distance from the Sun it is too hot for water to be retained in a vacuum. To get this water out of the minerals you heat them to typically 200-300C. So stuff the asteroid rock in a closed container, focus enough sunlight on it to reach the required temperature, then have a condenser on the shaded side to turn the vapor back into liquid.

      Water has multiple uses in space as propellant, shielding, and for biology. When split to oxygen we can breathe it. Some asteroids also have a large amount of carbon, so you can reform Water + Carbon into Oxygen + Hydrocarbons, which makes an excellent high thrust fuel, but that would be a more advanced application. Simple extraction of water is about as hard as running a distillery for alcohol.

  6. Sure there is by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no enforcement mechanism in the event of a dispute with another country, however.

    Any company rich enough to get there can probably afford to hire people to defend its claim. Within a few years, they'll probably be rich enough to outright buy a company like Blackwater to serve as a small army to defend their claim if need be. That's the real danger here.

    1. Re:Sure there is by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      But it's nice if they don't have to, that there is at least some kind of rule saying "no, it's not cool to just take the shit somebody else already captured and mined." The rule may or may not be enforceable, but I think it's a good, common sense rule.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:Sure there is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It may be already profitable in near future if the point of the stuff is to stay in space. Once we start needing large amounts of structural materials beyond Earth's gravity well, lifting them from Earth is not going to be cheap.

    3. Re:Sure there is by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      barring warp drive or some sort of perfect stealth system, war in space will be mostly a staring match

      War in space will be mostly robotic.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Sure there is by gewalker · · Score: 2

      Not if you paint it black. Forget that, what kind of magic telescope do you have to see a 10 kilo slug of depleted uranium fired at 20 kps to give you any chance to see it it time?

    5. Re:Sure there is by gewalker · · Score: 2

      Go ahead a look up what kind of telescope you need for this, your choice for wavelength. Poster was saying, mass drivers were useless in space war because you could dodge. Painting it black was a joke because it does not matter at all.

      A 10 kg sphere of DU is conveniently almost exactly 5 cm in diameter. Let me save you some trouble, the Hubble has a resolution of about 0.1 arcseconds, which means a football stadium on the moon (about 384,000 km) is needed to resolve as a single pixel on the Hubble CCD's (radar has worse resolution, higher frequency gives better resolution). So for convenience, lets assume our slug is exactly 20000 times smaller in diameter, which means it would have to be 20000 times closer (19.2 km) to be imaged by the Hubble -- giving you a grand total of 0.001 seconds to dodge the incoming round. A additional problem, you have to be pointing your telescope directly at the slug in order to see it. High mag. scopes have a limited field of field. Also, due to orbital mechanics and a long time of flight you could easily lob thousands of slugs on different trajectories all designed to arrive at the time time.

      K/E weapons are truly difficult to defend against. Now, a 10 kg slug at 20 kps exceeds the capabilities for any existing railgun I know of, it won't for long though, maybe a few decades. It will still be a heavy piece of equipment for some time to come. But given sufficient motivation they will eventually end up is space unless we find something better first.

  7. Doesn't change much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This law merely codifies what has already developed as the consensus among significant space-faring nations.

    Since the world already accepts the premise that objects originating in outer space and brought to earth belong to those who retrieved them them (currently only Gov't agencies, but foreseeably private actors as well), and Article IX of the OST establishes a right to non-interference with outer space activities (outside of explicitly banned activities such as militarization, etc.), the lack of sovereignty or property rights over celestial bodies already presents no legal bar to their mineral exploitation.

    Of course, the flip side of this is that someone else could completely legally set up a mining operation on the other side of the asteroid, and provided they are not interfering with your own operations, there is really nothing you could do to enforce a "claim" in the sense that we do here on earth.

    As I read it, this introduced bill does nothing to change existing rights and duties under the current legal framework, but I suppose it does provide some assurance to prospective miners that, in the U.S. legal system at least, there will be no drastic changes to the current understanding.

    IANAL (yet) but have interned at NASA.

  8. Wait, what? by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This language gets around the provision of the Outer Space Treaty that says states are forbidden to establish national sovereignty over celestial bodies, which would be a prerequisite to the United States allowing a private entity to own an asteroid. It rather grants mineral rights to the asteroid, something the treaty does not mention.

    So, if you as a country don't have the right to claim sovereignty over these celestial bodies ... then how on Earth (or space) do you have the authority to grant mineral rights? They're not your rights to give are they?

    This is using authority you don't have to grant mineral rights to corporations. Can the US grant mineral rights to nations they don't control too? Because that's awfully special.

    This just sounds like the typical ignore the intent of the treaty and make sure corporations have more avenues to make money without restriction.

    Always nice when lawmakers pass laws over stuff they really have no jurisdiction.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because the proposed bill does no such thing. It merely states that the U.S. gov't will recognize extracted minerals as being the property of those who extracted them. Nothing in it stops others from mining the same asteroid as long as it refrains from harmful interference with other operations.

    2. Re:Wait, what? by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      Well, yes and no. I do not think the intent of the treaty was to make all resource gathering outside of earth atmosphere illegal. The intent was to not allow nations to claim the land and in particular install military outposts. And depending on the wording it might actually be completely within the treaty. The US cannot sign over mineral rights to land they do not own, but a simple statement of intent that they will consider it yours if you take the out of this land that no one owns seems to be within the treaty.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  9. Jurisdiction by rossdee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Neither the US Congress, nor the United Nations, have any jurisdiction over anything outside LEO (Low Earth Orbit)

  10. Re:Did the forget the part by cygnwolf · · Score: 2

    Seems to me they would have to pay import tarrifs to bring the resources back planetside....

    --
    Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!
  11. a couple of points by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1) First, the silliness with bill names really needs to stop; one imagines a giglling kindergartner sitting "playing" Congressman typing out stupid acronyms while lobbyists sit in the background actually crafting the legislative language.

    2) Then again, there are so many vagaries in the language of this bill, it's almost comical that it would be presented as legislation.
    First, the bill keeps referring to "asteroids in outer space" - WTF is "outer space" precisely? Anything ex-atmospheric? Above the Karman Line? Anything in orbit? Anything outside lunar orbit?
    Second, I believe even astronomers are having Platonic debates over the precise meanings of such terms as 'asteroid', 'planetoid', and 'moon'. Heck, in wiki's intro to "asteroid", the bulk of the opening paragraph sort of dissolves asymptotically trying to grab specifics. This document constantly references asteroids without bothering even to define what they're talking about. It might include Ceres or Vesta, but could it include the Moon? How about Phobos? Pluto?

    Of course, most people have comfortable working definitions of the above, insofar as they care. But when the first rover starts drilling into the Moon, or Mars, or heck, taps into an agglomeration of someone else's space junk asserting it's "space debris that's formed an asteroid" these sorts of vagaries cause massive legal issues.

    More evidence - as if the US public needed it - that our congressvermin are just idiots.

    --
    -Styopa
  12. The US won't have sovereignity by plopez · · Score: 2

    It will just protect the 'interests' of an American corporation. See the US 'interventions', the US has never invaded anyone; in Panama, Columbia, Honduras, Cuba, Honduras again, Panama again, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. And that ignores invading Mexico in the 1840's to support Texans' 'property rights', aka slavery, and on others. Oh, and that list is just up to about 1915.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  13. Re:Sovereignty is still a prerequisite by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

    You can't grant mineral rights without assuming ownership of whatever you're granting the rights on.

    "Can't?" Ok, I'll bite: what happens when you try? (Did you get an error message? What did it say?)

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  14. Re:Bullshit by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Possession is 90% of the law, defense is the other 10%

    You know, I've seen this cited several times lately.

    Show us, exactly, where the law says this.

    It's illegal to be in possession of stolen goods. This is not grade 3.

    If you can get it and defend it, it's yours.

    So, you believe if I can take it from you by force, it's mine?

    Well, here's hoping someone takes your stuff from you, and then we'll see if you stand by that statement.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  15. Not exactly by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    There is no enforcement mechanism in the event of a dispute with another country, however.

    Sure there is. Radar-guided missiles. Etc.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Not exactly by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Funny

      Missiles for a grammar mistake.

      Damn, I'd hate to be in your classroom.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  16. Citation needed. by westlake · · Score: 2

    Neither the US Congress, nor the United Nations, have any jurisdiction over anything outside LEO (Low Earth Orbit)

    You have de-facto jurisdiction wherever you have the power to assert it.

    The American Revolution was about 150 years in the making --- population in 1776, around two million, any disruption in foreign trade wounding, but not fatal. Coastal cities vulnerable, but any penetration into the interior likely to end in disaster. (Saratoga)

    The out-world colony for the foreseeable future will be and must be self-sustaining in the sense that it is in no immediate danger of running out of food or air. But it will be small and fragile --- in no position to cut its ties with the earth.

  17. Re:Did the forget the part by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

    Seems to me they would have to pay import tarrifs to bring the resources back planetside....

    .Letting someone have the high ground with big rocks at their disposal could have some interesting dynamics.

    They impose a 50% tariff, so you drop it on their head.
    "We collected 32 tons of almost pure iron today, your percentage will be arriving in 3, 2, 1..."

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  18. Re:Bullshit by WaffleMonster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Possession is 90% of the law, defense is the other 10%

    Show us, exactly, where the law says this.

    LOL

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

    It's illegal to be in possession of stolen goods. This is not grade 3.

    Seem to remember quite recently Russians and Kurds grabbing land that doesn't exactly belong to them. They appear to be getting away with it while the whole world sits watches the theft take place.

    So, you believe if I can take it from you by force, it's mine?

    There are two distinct legal worlds. Confuse them at your peril.

    1. Intra-country world where rules are enforced by state having obtained more or less a monopoly on projection of violence within state borders to those who elect to disobey laws of said country.

    2. Rouge lawless world of inter-country relationships where no such monopoly exists. International systems like the UN wield no real power. In this world your ability to project violence or develop a coalition of states willing to project violence very much dictates what you can or can not get away with.

    To put it in even simpler terms when Ban Ki-moon pleads for the bloodshed in Gaza/Israel to stop he is asking ..nicely...... he is not ordering.

    When a judge orders you to pay Palimony the judge is not asking he is ordering you to pay under threat of violence.

  19. Re:Did the forget the part by davester666 · · Score: 2

    That's some forethought....they managed to get treaties signed, what, 30 years ago, that no countries can own things in outer space. So that leaves....corporations!

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  20. Re:Did the forget the part by Algae_94 · · Score: 2

    That would be something if they had the ability to control the path of these asteroids. Something tells me that the energy costs of directing one of them at a target on earth would be ridiculous. Also, unless said company wants to then operate solely in space, there would be retaliations against any Earth based resources they possess.

  21. Re:Did the forget the part by just_a_monkey · · Score: 2

    So they better contribute enough campaign contributions to remain classified as "emerging"...

    --
    How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
  22. The upside by radarskiy · · Score: 2

    Not only will the US agree to defend your mineral extraction with a publicly funded military (by recognizing your extraction rights), they will disclaim any right to tax you on your gains (by not trying to claim sovereignty).

    Privatize the profits, nationalize the risks!