Slashdot Mirror
Making Mining the Asteroids and the Moon Legal
MarkWhittington writes: Popular Science reported on a bill called the Space Act of 2015 that has passed the House and may soon pass the Senate that will allow private companies to own the natural resources that they mine in space. The idea would seem to be a no-brainer. However, the bill is causing some heartburn among some space law experts, especially in other countries. Fabio Tronchetti, a lawyer at the Harbin Institute of Technology in China, argues that the law would violate the Outer Space Treaty.
It looks like the US got bored forcing their laws on other countries here on Earth so they've moved on to the moon and asteroids. First it was refusing to honour EU data protection laws agreed to by international treaty, now it's ignoring the Outer Space Treaty. This is establishing sovereignty on the moon and asteroids by granting businesses permission to operate there and take resources from them. If it wasn't establishing sovereignty, those laws would have no effect, nor would they be necessary. As a European citizen, I really want the US to fuck off.
So make the EU outlaw asteroid mining... and give it the resources to police space. Good luck.
By the way, this is inevitable in the long run. Either we will die out or we will start to exploit resources in space. Earth is becoming too small for us fast. Space should be big enough for quite a while...
You can't assign rights you don't have. If that mineral isn't owned by USA how can it decide that it transfers ownership to a corporation?
Really, claiming territory that you cannot even get to? Any treaties or laws regarding anything beyond geosynchronous orbit are laughable, because they are unenforceable.
Heck, even here on earth, I wish people would follow a simple principle: deliberately flout stupid laws and regulations. It's the only way to get them off the books. Of course, you have to be willing to fight an enforcement attempt, and most of us would rather not. However, the alternative is for regulations to accumulate. Every time a bureaucrat has a brain fart, they add another one, and the damned things never go away.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Nope, it's the EU requiring companies to comply with its laws when they exert their activities in the EU.
There's nothing like $HOME
Any company with the capacity to profitably mine the moon, or asteroids, isn't going to give a shit about the quaint laws of an individual nation state.
Unless said companies are able to base themselves outside the territories of all nations on the planet, they will have to pay attention to the laws of some country. And of course, since a large company requires to trade in many nations to survive, they will have to follow the rules in those nations. And so on.
But there is an interesting twist to this line of thought: if individual companies become, in effect, their own nation states, should we require that they are run more like nations - with all it entails, including citizenship, democracy, social security, infrastructure paid for by themselves etc?
And, if the difference between nations and businesses become ever smaller, why is it actually that nations are not allowed to compete in the market like businesses do? In the past, the argument was that the state would have an unfair advantage over national businesses both because of their size and the fact that they decide the laws etc, but if that national laws are now powerless against transnationals, there is no longer a good reason for states not to compete with business.
as if the US has anything to say about mining the moon or an astroid..
If I want to mine the moon/astroid, there is nothing that the US can do about it..
China can currently get to the moon, the USA can't ...
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
"Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person."
( Article 11, paragraph 3 ).
On "other celestial bodies" however, e.g. asteroids, the Treaty is silent regarding property and appropriation.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Over simplifying, the laws generally say that you can't own real estate in the sky, but you can extract minerals from them. Nobody raided NASA to take their share of the moonrocks returned. But NASA has no claim on the moon as the first there. So the first that can mine an asteroid will "own" it in fact, but not in law.
And because these laws are only theoretical, there is no punishment for violating them, so why would someone need to avoid countries where it's theoretically illegal?
Learn to love Alaska
In reality the US isn't trying to force anything, while the EU is trying to force foreign companies to solely follow EU rules for activities conducted within the EU.
The problem is, EU law does not exempt foreign companies from their domestic jurisdictions, so their home countries can still require them to follow their laws - which can bring them into conflict with the EU.
Unless an agreement is signed between the countries, its up to the companies to resolve the conflict between the two jurisdictions they are simultaneously operating in. They can't simply ignore one jurisdiction because the other jurisdiction says they have to.
The problem is, if there is no ownership over the celestial body, there is nothing stopping a third party from stepping in once the hard work of prospecting and removing the overburden has been accomplished and doing the easy mining - after all the original mining company doesn't own the land so they can't stop someone else mining it at the same time as them.
I kinda want to write some amateur sci-fi on this topic... if I actually had any modicum of talent for writing.
If a corporation / country starts mining an asteroid for materials to use in space, what is anyone going to do about it? Tax them? Declare war on them?
There isn't THAT much unobtanium in space that's usable here on Earth which would make it worth deorbiting. The value of mining stuff in space is so you can build things in space. It's pretty expensive to boost water into orbit. So it seems like it could be pretty lucrative to hijack a few tons of ice comet, wrap it in insulation, and gently tow it into a usable orbit somewhere on the lagrangian transport network over the course of a few years or even decades. From there it could become a nice resource of raw materials to have to help supply a good-sized space station, available to the highest bidder.
Once something like that is set in motion, who's going to stop it? Only another corp with the ability to launch another robotic probe to hijack that hijacked comet. If one probe disturbs another probe, is that an act of war? Probably not, even if they're both pretty expensive. Should it be legal for one probe to "steal" another probe's towed cargo? What if they were just two separate microfactories that landed on the same asteroid and were mining it for minerals? Seems like they should be able to "share", and shall the fastest probe harvest most of the asteroid. But at one point does one probe manage to "stake a claim" on an asteroid, and is programmed to take defensive measures against anything else that approaches to interfere? Knowing that if there were a bunch of territorial probes roaming the solar system, they could all trivially wipe each other out with relatively small lasers or projectiles or explosives if they were at all aggressive. So they would likely be programmed to cooperate as much as they possible, since their missions were so expensive. But they'd have a self-destruct that would take out whatever it is they were carrying and any enemy probes in the area, to discourage probes from trying to "steal". At some point, our fleet of mining probes may have spread out far enough to encounter alien probes, which may as well have been programmed with similar rules of engagement, and it will be interesting to see how they manage to autonomously interact and communicate their intentions to each other.
Back to the subject of actually staking claims, it would be interesting if corps / countries would be required to have a human present to actually plant a flag on asteroids they wished to mine. The logic being if a probe attacked a competing probe in space, it's just business. But if a probe attacks a human in space, that's an act of war, and the companies can go to court down here on Earth or the countries can go to arms or whatever it is they'd do back in the days of imperialism. So it will be neat if that manages to be the impetus to put long-term human colonies in space, if just to be homesteaders. Wonder if they even have to be awake for the trip... or even fully alive for that matter. It would likely be pretty depressing, to have countries scrambling to put just one or two people per asteroid to stake claims and squat in space and try to hang on to survival and maybe sanity for decades at a time. Space cowboys.
An agreement has been signed. The USA refuse to be serious about enforcing it.
There's nothing like $HOME
"Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person."
( Article 11, paragraph 3 ).
On "other celestial bodies" however, e.g. asteroids, the Treaty is silent regarding property and appropriation.
The US'll just 'unsign' it like it did the Kyoto treaty.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
The amount that we'd bring back to Earth would be insignificant. The global shipping weight is about 1.4 * 10^6 kg (Source). The weight of the Earth is 5.972 * 10^24 kg. If we assumed that we brought the entire global shipping weight from asteroids to Earth annually, it would take 42 billion years before we brought even one millionth of one percent of the Earth's current mass. I think, at that point, we would have bigger problems than simply "we're making the Earth too heavy."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
It forbids Earthly nations from extending their sovereignty out into space. It does not forbid private entities from exploring and exploiting asteroids and other resources, and it does not prevent them from establishing their own sovereignty by custom of usage as this process develops.
Uhh, yes the USA very much can (as demonstrated by the fact that NASA has sent quite a few impactors/orbiters there over the past ~10 years). Right now, no one can send a manned crew.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Read it more carefully. It says "natural resources in place". In other words, you cannot claim ownership of an iron deposit or gold seam. But you can claim ownership of rocks or natural resources removed (by you) from the surface (or at least it doesn't say you can't).
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
It looks like the US got bored
And it looks like the moon will get bored too.
At what point will we have mined the moon to where its mass is reduced and our weather gets totally fucked?
Under its constitution, laws and treaties have equal footing, with the Constitution itself standing above both.
Just as one law can supersede another law, or a new treaty can supersede a past one, a law can have the effect of the US withdrawing from a treaty and a treaty can have the effect of rescinding an existing law.
If other countries don't like it, they are free to implement reprisals, up to and including declaring war on us and, if they have the wherewithal, launching every nuke they have at us (note to any country stupid enough to nuke the United States: You likely won't survive the attempt - and if you have a lot of nukes neither will human civilization).
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.