Business, Economics, Space

Tomorrow’s Announcement

61 Comments

Here’s a WSJ piece on it. If they do actually move an asteroid, under current precedent, they’d own it.

I won’t be covering it in real time, because I’ll be at a workshop at JPL giving a talk on propellant depots. Interestingly, Dennis Wingo gives a talk following mine on extraterrestrial resource utilization. It seems like a lot of things are coming together at the same time.

[Evening update]

Sorry, workshop link was wrong. Fixed now, I hope.

61 thoughts on “Tomorrow’s Announcement”

  3. I’m guessing they are looking to Maritime Salvaging Law as their precedent.

    If you get a line on and board an abandoned ship or boat, its yours I do believe. Here’s hoping it works out. Who KNOWS what they can find or find out.

      1. G’day,

        Trent, they as Americans have an advantage we Australians don’t. The USA didn’t agree to the Moon Treaty, we did. Australian companies couldn’t claim a asteroid as its supposed to be “the common heritage of mankind”.

        ta

        Ralph

    2. If you get a line on and board an abandoned ship or boat, its yours I do believe.

      You believe wrongly. A salvor is entitled to a salvage fee, nothing more. You are confusing salvage with the law of finds, as many people do.

      1. Edward,
        I was going to look it up and prove myself right.

        Nope, you were. Thanks for setting my right.

        What I confused from misreading my history and adventure books long, long ago as a lad, was that Salvage Crews in the 18th and 19th Centuries often took parts of the salvaged cargo AS their fee. I ass-u-med that they were taking it all, ergo, and as you said, my misunderstanding.

        I’m always on the hunt for the right information, regardless of the topic.

  5. If they do actually move an asteroid, under current precedent, they’d own it.

    I’ve been looking for some verification or reference that this is true. All I know for sure is if you find a meteorite on your property you do own that. (Target practice anyone?) How much do you have to move it? (because every time I move, the universe moves a very small bit as well.)

    1. I presume Rand is talking about the Moon rock precedent. They became the property of the US government when they were removed from the Moon.

      Although, a lawyer might argue there’s a difference between moving a fraction of a body, such as a rock, and moving an entire body. Then a judge would have to decide.

      Although, in this case, I think possession is 9/10 of the law unless there’s someone else who has the technology to take it away.

      1. You know my position. Possession is 100%. However, sometimes people don’t agree with me (imagine that?) Is there any case law that actually supports that other than what I’ve found regarding meteorites?

        1. A factor to consider is “standing to sue.” Basically, if Abe has the rock and Ben wants to argue the point, Ben needs to show that Abe’s possession has in some way harmed Ben.

      2. Edward, possession has two elements: intent and control. The former is trivially obvious. Moving a body from one orbit to another would clearly demonstrate the latter.

    2. Ken,

      I will have to dig into my old notes as the source was commentary and legal articles from the 1960’s when the OST was created. Most is probably not online. I know my copies came from various legal libraries I went to for research in California, Texas and Virigina while working on my Dissertation on Commercial Spaceports in the 1990’s.

      1. It’s a lot to ask, but I’d be interested in a list of those sources (a bibliography, if you have one). I’m getting together some material in this area.

        1. It will probably be a couple of weeks as its nearly the end of the semester, but I would have no problem emailing them if I knew where to do so.

  6. I won’t be covering it in real time, because I’ll be at a workshop at JPL giving a talk on propellant depots.

    I missed it by one week. I was at the Museum of Flight last Tuesday, so the only press conference I got was for the SSME unveiling.

    Interestingly enough, I was up there to talk about a planetary defense experiment, of sorts. 🙂

  9. A more important issue than recovering rocks is recovering costs. If they can do that, then a new “space race” –more gold rush than cold war– can begin.

    1. Even if only partial costs are recovered that could be an enabler. Any idiot can do something that’s been shown profitable. Real genius and vision is to see that partial recovery of costs can be part of a bigger picture.

      Once we have a rock circling the moon a lot of the giggle factor goes away. It becomes something real that people can give serious thought to… not just us space cadets.

    2. For example: I read once about a hospital supply company. They would send out vans with supplies when enough hospitals had orders. New guy takes over the company and tells them to send vans out every single day whether they had enough orders or not. Turns out the hospitals liked this new level of service and the company became much more profitable even with occasional daily losses.

      This guy saw the big picture when all around him didn’t.

  10. The resources of Earth pale in comparison to the wealth of the solar system

    Everybody in the class needs to write this on the chalkboard 100 times. Because when you don’t factor in this fact you come to the wrong conclusions. Like…

    “We have to fix the earth first before we go out and destroy the universe.”

    1. The solar system has NO resources if they cannot be profitably exploited. The enthusiasm is encouraging, but that doesn’t put numbers on the bottom line. I think the current cost/benefit analyses –when promoters even bother to try to produce them– are unrealistically optimistic. But if that changes then, yes, there is no “earthly” reason to hold back.

      1. The solar system has NO resources if they cannot be profitably exploited.

        That is the sober assessment of someone whose feet are firmly planted on the ground. The thing is, they can be profitably exploited. At today’s cost. A cost which absolutely will go down as we venture forward (certainly not because of anything government does.)

        The problem with making things profitable is not that it cost too much. It’s that we can’t get enough people out there fast enough. The day will come when people look back and wonder how stupid humans were in waiting so long.

        1. “Today’s cost” is something you cannot describe –no c/b analysis. Costs generally come down as efforts are scaled up. But scaling something up (“get enough people out there”) to generate revenue without fundamental profitability to begin with is the definition of a Ponzi scheme. ‘Scaling up’ a zero still leaves you with zero. And my sober assessment will beat your faith-based assessment in any market you can name.

          1. Sure I can. Done it here lots of times. 😉

            Break even is part of c/b and it’s usually the first thing I look at.

            Ponzi scheme is a good way to discredit something, but the dirty little secret is they are everywhere. If the wealth is out there, but you have to take a loss to get to it… then you take a loss. But the thing is, we don’t have to take a loss. We are already at the point where we can make it close enough to break even to go for it.

            Take some cost to get a starter colony on mars so that the only thing they need is more people. Let’s say that’s a thousand people at $50m each (todays cost… oops did it again) or $50b. Or Musk’s 10k at $500k each. Whatever.

            Just developing that one world is magnitudes more than that cost and that doesn’t even scratch the surface of what’s out there.

            You just have to look past a quarterly report.

  11. This might be more analogous to the age of exploration, when new lands would be claimed in the name of one or another monarch. Of course, that requires a monarch able and willing to defend the claim.

    1. As George pointed out in a different thread, we are at a point where a group of individuals could successfully defend claims even from the power of a nation. Assuming the nation isn’t willing to face the backlash of just wiping the colonists out with a missile strike.

      Moving them from their claims would not be an easy proposition.

      Claim; Defend. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

      1. The problem with “defend” is that no specific government can enforce a private claim without territorial jurisdiction. Private use of force would constitute piracy. It’s a tenuous position for Earth-bound actors.

        1. Titus,

          The key point is that once an asteroid is moved out of its original orbit it ceases to be a Celestial Body and so Article II no longer applies. It becomes the property of the entity that moved it out of its orbit and by default the country the entity is regristered in now has legal sovereignty over it.

          Its really no different then the Stardust Mission in a legal sense, just it is one big particle rather then millions of small ones 🙂

          As a side note, think of the income taxes the U.S. will collect.

          1. The problem with that definition is that somebody might want to exploit an asteroid right where it is without moving it. The definition of claim should just be the first to physically reach it and not abandon it to others.

          2. Ken,

            I suspect you could claim use of it and invoke Article IX in that case, but I thought you space advocates wanted to get title to the asteroid itself 🙂

          4. The problem with that definition is that somebody might want to exploit an asteroid right where it is without moving it.
            Yeah, that’s what I thought you meant. Given the paucity of test cases, it seems your best shot at defense is to load your mining drones with durable instruments and make_it_look_like_an_accident.dll.

        2. The problem with “defend” is that no specific government can enforce a private claim without territorial jurisdiction.

          The United States Navy has protected the claim of shipowners to ships at sea for centuries, without ever claiming territorial jurisdiction over the high seas.

          I don’t understand why so many people think governments can only enforce the law within their own territorial limits. The Texas Rangers pursued John Wesley Hardin all the way to Florida. That doesn’t mean Florida is part of Texas.

          Private use of force would constitute piracy. It’s a tenuous position for Earth-bound actors.

          You have it backwards. Defending one’s property does not constitute piracy, even on the high seas. Piracy is trying to take someone else’s property.

          1. Edward,

            Just because they chased him there doesn’t mean they had legal authority 🙂 But in those wild and woolly days it didn’t matter 🙂

          2. What the USN is defending is “freedom of the seas” – the ability of all ships to pass through international waters. It is also defending ships that it has a territorial claim to – ships that are registered in the US. It can also defend ships that our allies have territorial claims to, based on flag of registry.

            The better analogy would be the USN putting Marines ashore on some island. Either we’re making a claim on it or we’re (de facto if not de jure) recognizing somebody else’s claim on it.

            Regarding piracy, “piracy” is defined as “unlawful maritime activities.” Here, under the OST, if a US company is doing something in space, then the US government is held responsible for supervising them. So, defending a private claim would not be piracy, but it could be against the law of the nation that is supervising whatever the private company is doing.

            This is one of the big arguments for registering your company under a flag of convenience. If you’re officially a Panamanian company, then anybody unhappy with whatever you’re doing needs to take it up with Panama. Since, as a practical matter, Panama can do little if anything to enforce its will outside its borders, the private company gets complete freedom of action.

          3. What the USN is defending is “freedom of the seas” – the ability of all ships to pass through international waters.

            The Navy doesn’t defend “all ships,” only ships that it’s in US interests to defend.

            Do you think USN convoys protected Nazi freighters during World War II?

            The better analogy would be the USN putting Marines ashore on some island. Either we’re making a claim on it or we’re (de facto if not de jure) recognizing somebody else’s claim on it.

            So, we sent special forces into Pakistan to recognize somebody’s claim, rather than to get bin Laden?

            I don’t think so.

            Regarding piracy, “piracy” is defined as “unlawful maritime activities.”

            No, it’s a specific type of unlawful maritime activity. Mutiny, dumping garbage, and having an expired Master’s ticket may be illegal, but they’re not piracy.

        3. Ah, but you forget the Enemy’s favorite tool: the “coalition force”. One pisses off the wrong people and one finds oneself looking down the barrel of UN Resolution 666 declaring his claimed ownership of Space Rock XYZ an “intolerable threat to international security”. The next thing you know UNSPACEFOR is knocking at the airlock door, guns in hand. They come in peace for all mankind!

          In today’s world, the Powers That Be don’t t need much to hammer down a nail that sticks up too far. They just hang a sign around that nail, a sign that reads “terrorist”. Do that, and all the world will cheer as the PTB burns down the “terrorist compound” and grinds the “terrorists'” children under the treads of their tanks.

          In reality, the Man won’t have to do any of this. If he decides that the asteroid miners ar out of line, he’ll simply get a court order and seize their Earthside facilities, freeze their accounts, and arrest their shareholders and employees. No Space Marines required — U.S. Marshals and IRS agents are more than up to the task.

          If one wants to be an asteroid miner, the smart thing to do would be to emplace enough charges on one’s rock to give it sufficient delta-vee for deorbit. One then informs the Man that any attempt to seize or interfere with one’s property — Up or Down — equals Deep Impact. Nothing spells “respect” like an unstoppable chunk of nickel-iron falling in from lunar distance at 11 km/sec…

          1. The next thing you know UNSPACEFOR is knocking at the airlock door, guns in hand.

            You mean, the combined military space forces of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Kazahkstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Morrocco, Pakistan, Peru, the Phillipines, and Uraguay? 🙂

          2. Mr. Wright, Mr. Lewis’s second and third paragraphs are also worth reading and responding to.

            This is the same admonition I give idealistic anarcho-capitalist “sea-steaders” who think they can evade the tyranny of statists by moving offshore. The main difference is that the state has way more leverage on someone flying out of Mojave than on the sea hippies. The former will be brought to heel long before anyone thinks about calling them “terrorists.” Call me when you are completely self-sufficient in space; that is the game-changer.

          3. You overlook the simple solution. All Planetary Resources needs to do with its deep pockets is hire a private security firm like Black Water. They will deal with the problem 🙂

            As a side note, this is why mining the Moon first makes sense. You already have the legal precedents in place with the Russian and Apollo samples. And if the Japanese are able to get away with calling their whaling “scientific research”, Planetary Resources should be able to get away with calling its Moon mining “sample collecting for research” 🙂

          4. emplace enough charges on one’s rock to give it sufficient delta-vee for deorbit

            Now that’s one area where the law really is clear. All you have to do is make the rock land on your own property and you do legally own it. Well, unless it impacts with enough force that the land isn’t there anymore.

        4. Aggressive private use of force constitutes piracy, not defensive. You could hardly call a merchantman a pirate ship for using force to repel an attack.

          Related, I understand international law allows any nation to prosecute pirates encountered on the high seas. If private party invaders to your claim of extraterrestrial real estate are recognized as pirates, one legal issue in dealing with them is resolved.

  12. I see one cost issue.

    The NASA GRC COMPASS team estimated the full life-cycle cost of an asteroid capture and return mission at ~$2.6B.

    Since their mission is designed for an asteroid of approximately 500,000 kg, that works out to $5200 a kg (about $2300 a pound). Then they have to utilize and process it at additional cost.

    Obviously cheaper launch would lower these cost estimates, but in doing so also lowers the delivered-from-Earth costs they’re trying to beat. Re-using the capture satellite by refueling it in orbit would would directly divide the costs across the number of missions the satellite could perform, but given the many years it takes to complete each mission, the mutliplier is going to work very slowly.

    However, the cost estimate is going to reflect NASA’s cost of doing anything, so it might say almost nothing about what a private firm could do.

    1. I did not do the cost-per-pound on that, but I think the critical factor is “one Atlas 5-class launch.”

      If you’re using a cheaper launcher (wonder if anybody’s working on those?) and/or building your recovery probe to a budget not cost-plus, you may be able to lower the cost. In short, it’s not an insurmountable problem.

  13. Basically this is the original business plan the late Jim Benson had for SpaceDev. Hopefully with their deep pockets they will actually carry it out, or least the first phase with their equivalent of the NEAP spacecraft. If they contract with Sierra Nevada to build a series of NEAP they could probably save a couple of years in design time.

    1. The first phase is not the equivalent of the NEAP. The first phase is a series of telescopes in Low Earth Orbit.

      They also have plans for incremental revenues at each step — renting time on the telescopes in the first phase, them selling copies of their satellite bus to NASA and other customers.

  14. Edward,

    There is already a huge data base. What is needed is visiting a few to see what they are made of. I wonder if they have another agenda with the telescopes – like a higher resolution Google Earth? If so there could be some interesting issues getting their license from NOAA.

Comments are closed.