This is truly silly, and gives a bad name to those people who are seriously pursuing property rights in space. It should be simply laughed out of court.

There's no legal precedent (at least in common law), or sense to grant property rights to remote unclaimed locations simply on the basis of a stated claim. If Orbdev had actually sent a spacecraft there first, they'd have a legitimate case, and I'd applaud them, but this is as likely (and perhaps more likely) to set back the cause of private property in space than to advance it.

>>but this is as likely (and perhaps more likely) to set back the cause of private property in space than to advance it.

Yep. IANAL, but look at what was cited as why the State Department rejected the claim - the Outer Space Treaty. They didn't argue that since nobody from Orbital Development had been there that there was no claim, they reject the idea of a claim entirely. If pursued in court, it could lead to a ruling that the treaty precludes private property rights. It would be harder, IMHO, for a court to reject a claim from a group that actually had people on Eros (or the Moon, or L5, or wherever).

Fortunately, I doubt if they have the money to pursue it any higher.

http://www.erosproject.com/
It aint silly for the sake of being silly. Its done for the right reasons.
http://www.orbdev.com/reason.html

I'm not sure who left the comment with the links to Orbdev, but I note that in the second one, Greg Nemitz claims:

I strongly believe that an individual can originate property, so I originated a claim for Asteroid 433, Eros. The claim was published in a registry on March 3rd, 2000.

No matter how strongly something is believed, it doesn't always make it so.

Must be the same registry where I can name a star.

"In the view of the Department, private ownership of an asteroid is precluded by Article II of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space..."

What's unfortunate is not just the silliness of OrbDev's claim but also the State Dept.'s position that the Outer Space Treaty precludes private ownership. Article II says, in total:

"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."

Not subject to national appropriation. The OST doesn't say not subject to private appropriation. (The Moon Treaty of 1979 prohibits private property, but it's not ratified by the U.S. and other major space powers. The OST, of 1967, has been ratified.)

The OST did in practice hinder property claims, because without national sovereignty it's harder to see who would provide enforcement. But this is the first time I've heard the government say the OST precludes private property. As I say, it's unfortunate.

BTW, Rand, I don't think it's so amusing that Bush says "forget about Mars." All these things are of a piece.

Do we believe that power is derived from the state or by the consent of the governed? Is it to be the state that controls space beyond the Earth. Capitalism and property ownership go hand in hand. I can't imagine people not asserting those rights at some point. Unless we don't defend those rights and just let the state presume we have none.

Sometimes the wacko's take the lead in defending rights we should all be defending.

The other point is that what's legal and what isn't usually requires a court case to decide. Somebody has to press the case for that to happen.

I'd hate for the government (any govt.) to just assume that all rights to property in space are null and void.

The bad news is I think it's going to take the other 9/10ths of the law to establish what's right.

Has anyone proposed a futures market for property rights? Futures are an example of something, that if they didn't exist and you tried to explain them to someone, they'd definitely think you were off your rocker.

Ken (Silber, that is...), I know the post came off as amusing, but I agree. That the president is so...incurious...is disturbing, but hardly out of character for presidents. Do you think that there are any presidents who would have reacted differently (since Jefferson, or perhaps T. Roosevelt)?

There's no legal precedent (at least in common law), or sense to grant property rights to remote unclaimed locations simply on the basis of a stated claim.

How about the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) in which Spain and Portugal (with the help of Pope Alexander VI) agreed that all lands discovered west of a particular meridian would belong to Spain and all lands east would belong to Portugal? That's why Brazil speaks Portuguese while the rest of Central and South America speaks Spanish.

Michael, I was thinking of Tordesillas as I wrote that, but at least the Portuguese and Spanish had sent ships within a few thousand miles of the demarcation...

Few thousand miles ? So now when we see further with out telescopes, we should still confine us only to a few thousand miles ?
But, read carefully what the OrbDev's claim is ( its explained in his "reasons" ). He's claiming ownership until such time, when human sets foot on it. And until such time, he's committed to collect robotic landers parking fees, which materialized into $20 dollar bill for NASA.

Do you think that there are any presidents who would have reacted differently (since Jefferson, or perhaps T. Roosevelt)?

Maybe Herbert Hoover, who was an engineer...

He's claiming ownership until such time, when human sets foot on it. And until such time, he's committed to collect robotic landers parking fees, which materialized into $20 dollar bill for NASA.

Yes, making his "claim" even more legally laughable and without precedent.

It has already been determined internationally that space is not the property of any one individual or nation. It is the property of everyone and nobody has a right to go stake land claims for themselves in space and deny others the resources that they have falsely claimed as their own.

It has already been determined internationally that space is not the property of any one individual or nation. It is the property of everyone and nobody has a right to go stake land claims for themselves in space and deny others the resources that they have falsely claimed as their own.

No, that as not been established. That's the position of the 1979 Moon Treaty, but it hasn't been ratified by any spacefaring nation. The Outer Space Treaty doesn't prohibit private property in space--it only prohibits claims of national sovereignty.

That which belongs to everyone belongs to no one...