A discussion of the implications of the Outer Space Treaty for mining, with Frans von der Dunk.
8 thoughts on “Who Owns The Asteroids?”
Comments are closed.
A discussion of the implications of the Outer Space Treaty for mining, with Frans von der Dunk.
Comments are closed.
I am becoming fond of the theory that at least the smaller asteroids are chattel (personal) property rather than real estate and therefore not subject to the Outer Space Treaty’s provisions on appropriation, however you construe them. In the Latin languages the word for real estate means, literally, “un-movable”. If you can move it, it’s personal property, like furniture.
Whoever can put the most troops on (or in this case, around) them. That has been true of every natural resource in human history; I see no reason to assume it will be any different in space. Academics tend to forget that a treaty is only valid so long as the guy with most guns chooses to honor it. When the true magnitude of the wealth in the asteroid belt becomes apparent, (and when practical exploitation is possible, which it won’t be for many decades yet), you’ll see a war that will make WWII look like a school yard spat.
Thankfully, I’ll be long dead. I’ve fought my wars and have no desire to participate any further. But you can be sure it’s coming. That there will be another war is the only absolute certainty in human existence. It’s just a matter of what drops the spark in the tinder.
Don’t tell Jim about this guy. He obviously broke dozens of A.I.S. laws.
Luddites will win in space if we let them. The OST limits nations, not people. The nanny state wants to control people, but with space we’ve got an opportunity to ignore them. They should be fought every inch of the way. Don’t accept their rules. It’s not their game.
To avoid wars, just make the terms good for the colonists. The nanny state has not clue about the real assets out there and once they do we should make sure they don’t tax it away. We just can’t give govt. that kind of power which would dwarf anything seen before.
Congressman Frank Wolf (R-Va.), last week expressed measured support for NASA’s private astronaut transport competition, a switch from his earlier skepticism.
This just sounds like running to the front of the parade. Be afraid when they express support… it just means they are looking at it from the tax angle.
More about wars: The solar system is worth a lot and yes, that could lead to war. The settlement charter diffuses that by distributing the wealth to everybody that risks their lives. They’re is so much real estate that it would be silly to start a war over it. Especially once we establish that anybody could have their share simply by possession.
Currently, no govt. owns space. Don’t let the camels nose in the tent.
Any pressure govts. put on companies supplying colonists can be countered by good public relations for the heroes of humanity risking their lives to expand the human sphere.
I am interested in what the actual consequences of various courses of action will be. To raise money in the US, you need to have an adequate disclosure of risk, including legal and regulatory risk. Right now, the legal/regulatory risk section of a placement memorandum for an asteroid mining venture will have to describe the lack of any certain title to the assets you intend to exploit, no matter what (untested) legal theories you may advance. When you go to launch the mission, you will need an FAA launch license and one of the things that will happen in the application process is that it will be circulated by the State Department for comment, and they will note that (at best) the compliance with international treaty obligations is disputable, which would probably cause the license to be denied. US legislation to confirm property rights, by whatever theory, would remove the threat of SEC action for securities fraud, and the State Department could be directed to uphold the property claims internationally. So as a practical consequence either the individual claims theory or the moveable property theory, or some combination of both, would advance space settlement. What colonists may or may not do once they are independent of terrestrial political power is purely a matter for long-term speculation.
The time to define ownership for the asteroids isn when the demand for asteroids starts to approach the supply of same, and even for the most favorable subclasses of asteroids that time is generations off. So long as there are only a few herds of cattle on the open range, a handful of fishing boats on the high sea, what you need is not to own the territory but to be free of interference in extracting wealth from it.
The OST secures non-interference, which is what we need for now. Real property rights would be at best overkill, and if poorly implemented could be a substantial obstacle to the development of space. Leave that until we need it – and, incidentally, have enough experience to know exactly what it is that we need.
Who owns the asteroids? Easy. I do. That is, until someone takes one upon which I cannot defend my claim, at which time that person owns that asteroid. But until that time, for an easy shorthand, you can answer anyone who asks that the asteroids are owned by Ed Minchau.
This is the correct answer. Unless you believe talk allows you to control other peoples lives or believe anything with ‘united’ in it’s name actually is.