Slashdot Mirror
Canadian, UK Law Professors Condemn Space Mining Provisions of Commercial Space Act (examiner.com)
MarkWhittington writes: The Commercial Space Launch Act, which includes provisions allowing American companies the right to keep resources that they mine in space, was recently signed into law by President Barack Obama. While the act has been hailed as groundbreaking in the United States, the space mining title has gotten an angry reaction overseas. In an article in Science Alert, Gbenga Oduntan, Senior Lecturer in International Commercial Law, University of Kent, condemned the space mining provisions as environmentally risky and a violation of international law. Ram Jakhu, a professor at Canada's McGill University's Institute of air and space law, adds that space mining is a violation of the Outer Space Treaty and should not be allowed.
Any treaty that is unenforceable isn't worth a damn. If the US, China, Russia or anyone else wants to go mine an asteroid, there's precious little anyone else can do about it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It prohibits the militarization and/or colonization of space. It says fuckall about what to do with any stuff we collect there. What a disingenuous asshole.
The idea that the USA - or any other nation state alone, for what its worth - could have the power to grant anyone property rights of extraterrestrial bodies is ridiculous anyway.
"Meanwhile, the Moon Agreement (1979) has in effect forbidden states to conduct commercial mining on planets and asteroids until there is an international regime for such exploitation. While the US has refused to sign up to this, it is binding as customary international law"
This guy is a specialist in international law? You didn't sign up for a treaty, but it's still binding? Sure we'll see how that goes.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
They already have a friend building them the Big Red Rocket to take them into space to mine gold in the asteroid belt.
That would mean that anyone that mines anything anywhere has no right to it? Earth or space. What's the difference? Used to be any country that landed on a newly discovered land claimed it as their own. Why would space be any different?
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
This "Space Treaty" restricting mining is a complete joke and an attempt by the world's bureaucrats to hamstring civilization into a highly pointless "approval" process fraught with do nothing committees making the entire process needlessly expensive. The first country that figures out how to cheaply get a payload in and out of the atmosphere will become the next thousand year empire with all others bowing to its feet. Dare I say it a galactic empire beyond our wildest imaginations.
Whether it's Russia, China, USA, or Sealand is a moot point. The potential riches are unfathomable out in space once the small problem of propulsion is well figured out!
He an evil mastermind set on world (Mars) domination. Didn't you see the Colbert interview?
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
They're just jealous that they can't exploit space for the enrichment of a few funded by taxpayers.
There are two distinct issues here. First, the common law says that if a person harvests a wild animal, plant, or other thing, it is his to eat or otherwise use. That's about ownership of an object.
A different, though related concept, is that the first -country- to start using some territory has a claim of sovereignty over that territory. Meaning essentially that the area becomes part of that country.
The treaty says that -sovereignty- rules are different in space, no country can claim the moon or another planet as part of their country, by colonizing it. The treaty's Article 2 reads, "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to_national_appropriation_by_claim_of_sovereignty_, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
The treaty says that Mars wouldn't become part of the the USA if the US colonized it. It does NOT say that you can't go to Mars, pick up a rock, bring it home, and then own that rock. That's ownership of an object, not sovereignty over territory, and the treaty doesn't prohibit ownership of an object.
Let me guess...the Asteroids belong to Everyone!
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Mining Ceres pollutes the oceans there and makes the land bad for the little green Ceres boys and girls.
It is had not to agree with Ricky Lee of Australia, who wrote his thesis on the subject:
Quite.
I went to the House hearing for this Bill, and also talked to various staffers and actual space lawyers (as opposed to professors) about it. I feel, and they seem to feel, that the 2015 Space Act is entirely consistent both with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which says
and also with the precedent set by the US, Russia and Japan, all of which have material returned from celestial bodies. The reality is that these three countries have all treated those materials as property, which can be and has been traded. That is the actual customary international law here, not the Moon Treaty, which has been ratified by no major space-faring nation, and which is a dead letter. In addition, each state gets to set the laws on actions by their citizens in space, and are responsible for those actions (say, if they cause damage to another country's spacecraft).
Finally, the 2015 Space Act itself says
So, despite most of the headlines announcing this law, it doesn't (and couldn't) allow for the ownership of asteroids, just of material extracted from asteroids, exactly as is allowed for in the Outer Space Treaty.
I have to say that the space lawyers I have talked to share my puzzlement as to what the professors say things that seem so ungrounded. (They are of course welcome to disagree or oppose, but you would expect that they would have arguments grounded in facts.)
Note, also, that none of the other space powers has complained about this act, which they were and are certainly able to do it they feel it violates the '67 Outer Space Treaty.
The law is based on the same idea as old-fashioned mining claims: Whoever discovers and get their first gets to claim it as their own. It doesn't claim anything in space for the US - it says that under US law objects in space may be claimed as private property. It's an approach that worked in the past, as it creates a profit motive for exploration and expansion - advocates point to the manner in which private ownership of claims lead to investment in the expansion westwards during European colonisation of the new world and exploitation of the resources found there. The gold rush may have lead to some lawlessness, but it certainly found the gold.
Theyre mad because the US will be mining and gaining recources while they are still cobbling a spaceship together.
All your space rocks are belong to us.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It is to the benefit of all mankind for the supply of these rare resources to become less constrained on the supply side, thus driving the prices down. Imagine rare-"earth" minerals mined by the cubic meter from off-world bodies, vastly increasing the supply for land-side electronics while simultaneously driving their prices down and moving the environmental impact somewhere with essentially no environment, and thus no impact.
Space Treaty says in part: ... "Such exploration and use shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries ..."
Communist: Individuals mean nothing and only governments decide allocation of resources. Space has limitless resources, hence it must not be touched - it would erode the power of governments.
Capitalist: exploration and use will create limitless resources, benefiting all mankind in a free market economy by reducing costs, pollution and poverty.
Personal Opinion: Making the whole universe off-limits to individual use is a long term impossibility unless every individual is enslaved.
I don't get what all of the fuss is about...
It'll probably take a million years for us to suck our solar system dry if not longer and by then we'll have colonized many other solar systems.
The fuss is because there are those who view humanity's very existence as a bad thing. Exploitation of resources in space extends humanity's time and allows for expansion and growth which they see as a bad thing.
The fuss is also about political power. Environmental groups who have used their political power to control if, how, how much, and by whom the Earth's limited natural resources are exploited as a political/economic weapon and means of control over populations see the exploitation of unlimited natural resources in space as eventually making their weapon powerless and destroying their ability to control populations.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Really, Slashdot, isn't there a better way to do this?
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
Guess you never heard of The Andromeda Strain, then.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The criticism is justified. We can't let a few powerful entities control the spice.
"Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
Green wackos believe that the whole idea of exploiting space resources is a space nutter fantasy that will never happen, so what are they worrying about? This "angry reaction from overseas" is the voice of one law professor who is incensed at the idea that some place exists, however potential and distant, that Greenpeace cannot control.
He is in any case wrong on the law. The Space Treaty forbids Earthy governments from extending their sovereignty into space. It does not prevent private organizations from settling, establishing local law, and exploiting resources.
Everything stops growing. You did.
Upwards, at least.
The law is based on the same idea as old-fashioned mining claims: Whoever discovers and get their first gets to claim it as their own. It doesn't claim anything in space for the US - it says that under US law objects in space may be claimed as private property.
No I didn't see anything like that,
even one of the critical articles doesn't imply any kind of claim, it's go out there collect some booty and haul ass home; wash, rinse repeat.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
These countries are just upset because they don't have a space program that their own mining interests could use or build on their own to go do mining.
They are going to be locked out of this market. They have rocket envy. Maybe Canada Pharma can work on making space Viagra for when you don't have a rocket.
Anyway the OTHER reason these countries don't like this is that they all have big mining interests. Finding a cheap way to mine in space and get those resources back to the Earth would devastate the value of minerals mined on the Earth. Who the hell will need De Boers if space diamonds are found in abundance? A diamond FROM SPACE might even be worth a lot, but not to De Boers.
This brings to mind that a LOT of Earth companies would be happy in these space mining efforts blew up on the launch pad or failed in space. Those who go to do this space mining are going to have to watch their backs all the time. There is far too much money in the hands of companies on the ground who would be happy if a loose bolt or something caused a failure. Probably no proof, no way to trace it.
Sig for hire.
No the fuss is there because the USA is trying to claim sovereignty of stuff in space by assigning ownership rules.
Sounds more like you want to benefit from other people's investment, risk, and labor for free (invest in your own damned space mining!). Or that you want to make all resources off the Earth forbidden for anyone to use which is Luddite in nature to the extreme.
I object on the grounds of the USA unilaterally extending its powers into space without reference to the rest of the world.
Nobody is going to declare the Moon or some other celestial body a US Territory or Possession. It specifically says that in the bill that was passed. All the bill that was passed says is that if you extract resources from some celestial body you keep what you've taken risk, invested large sums, and worked hard to obtain. It doesn't stop anyone else from setting up their own operation right 'next door', as it were.
You are objecting to fantasies that reside only in your mind.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
There was a time when conquests could only be made if you landed on at least a tiny beach, regardless of the size of the landmass, and if anyone's already living there. Now, those grasping for ultimate control, especially so no one can be free if they escape their regimes on earth, claim what they've never touched, might not even have ever seen, and have no plans to ever visit and plant the flag on. A transparent attempt to ensure that only government can own anything at the end of the day, not individuals.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
It is called the Rule of Capture in English, and has been recognized common law in British empire for hundreds of years. The first known written statute stating the principle was from Sparta, over a thousand years ago.
An interesting and well-known case on the application of Rule of Capture in America is Pierson v. Post.
"Economic growth" can't be sustained forever. A new social model will have to replace that idea. So sorry.
So what when there are at the least, centuries of growth left? After all, not everyone currently enjoys a developed world lifestyle. That's one avenue for growth. Not every society is fully industrialized. That's another avenue. We don't live indefinitely; we don't have massive space civilizations; we don't have post-scarcity conditions; we don't fully understand the universe; we don't have a host of things which we can put into our grasp eventually.
There's plenty of room for growth and it makes no sense to talk about imaginary "new social models" which are irrelevant to a world in growth for the practical future.
He an evil mastermind set on world (Mars) domination. Didn't you see the Colbert interview?
And he's obviously played waaaay too much Kerbal Space Program.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
It doesn't even have a physics department anymore. Sad to go back to where I spent so many years of my life and find it replaced by an architecture department. I think they abdicated their claim to have a say.
While I don't have any issue with "Whoever discovers and get their first gets to claim it as their own". The problem you are going to have is do you mine and keep the resultant products in space for future use or send them back to our planet? Sending the results of mining back to our plant is very problematic, send too little and the cost is prohibitive, send too much and you may have a huge glowing hole with quite a few ICBMS being sent back at as payment. :-)
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Surely as the only international space treaties the US has signed largely prohibit creating territories in space or weaponising the same the recent "Space Mining Provisions of Commercial Space Act" is bunkum as you can't have jurisdiction without territorial rights and it is therefore in contravention of pre-signed treaties.
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 concern over this is bizzare. The way these people talk as if you can only use an asteroid for scientific means is insane. These people are worried about mining some lifeless rock when we are turning areas of the earths surface into moonscapes for mining? If we have a way that we can alleviate the strain on limited terrestrial resources, and reduce the impacts of mining on terrestrial ecosystems on earth, I think we should go for it. The idea that private companies should not be allowed to invest and be able to recoup their investment and make a profit by making their product available on the open market to benefit consumers is nuts. Here we have a way to mine a lifeless body in space instead of mine some rainforest on earth, if someone can figure out how to do this, kudos, if its a private company, thats great, everyone will benefit. Private investment helps fund these kinds of things without need for as much taxpayer confiscation.
No, as I recall all it says that the US will recognize property rights of space resources brought back to the US. Very different thing. It does open the legal possibility of economic space mining since miners don't have to worry about doing all the work and hauling their Earth-valuable minerals back to the surface and having the government or someone else immediately claim them as their own. It doesn't say anything about the asteroid itself, or any mining equipment, habitats, etc. built in space from "native" resources.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Forever? Well, you're right there, nothing lasts forever. Heat death, random chance, or the Big Crush will stop anything eventually.
On a practical timescale, however, the economy can keep growing pretty much indefinitely. Advances in technology allow us to become more and more productive and raise the standard of living for everyone, including pre-industrial societies. Medical technology could definitely still be improved, that's economic growth too. FYI, most trees keep growing pretty much as long as they're alive. It's less dramatic growth, certainly, which might be what we see in our society in the future, but they still grow.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
No, it says that if someone goes to space and brings something back to America, the American government will recognize those property rights. It doesn't say anything about assigning property rights when the material is still in space.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Not really - its only in the last couple centuries that "perpetual" growth was even possible. For the entire history of humanity up until then, stable business models were the only real option, and quite often jobs were passed down through multiple generations.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Forget grabbing land. What you need in space is a way to provide oxygen and water to support human life. Can you "claim" anything in space with a probe/drone?
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Yeah, but it's all well and good until we start moving the extraterrestrial life forms into reservations on the crappiest asteroids and moons so that we can take the resources underneath their sacred burial grounds...
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Yeah, except that economic growth is fueled by gains in efficiency.
Are you saying that our technological level is at it's peak, and we'll never see any more gains in efficiency? If you are, then you're an idiot.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Nope.
The US law says that whatever someone brings from space back into US territory is their private property. They are reinforcing the already-ratified Outer Space Treaty in that they (the government) have no claim to it.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Hate to remind you guys, but space is outside of the Jurisdiction of the US Government. It can only make laws that apply to US Citizens up there. A treaty is a solemn and formal agreement between countries. It does not have to be enforced by military power. It can be broken, but a signatory country that does that becomes a rogue and a pariah that cannot be trusted in any contract or agreement. The USA is not quite that bad: yet.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
If you guys find any natives in space, feel free to attempt to bring democracy to them :D
Requiem for the American Dream
If the Romans had had a way to listen to every conversation on the planet and steal all those ideas, there's no telling the depths of depravity they could have descended to nor to how long they could have resisted decline.
Requiem for the American Dream
What about the Larkin Decision?
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
They will bring entanglement to us.
Just look what happened to the Klingon Empire!