You are not logged in.
Terraformer wrote:What's SpaceX valued at now? If/when it goes public, how much could Musk get while still retaining a majority stake?
I'm not sure what it's currently valued at, but I find it highly unlikely that they will go public any time soon, at least prior to their first manned mission to Mars. Investors could always cash out via secondary markets, and between the Tesla and Solar City IPO's Elon will have no shortage of cash.
Going public would be a burden for SpaceX--they would have new shareholder pressures to focus on quarterly growth, which doesn't align well with being a nimble long-term growth company with an eye on Mars.
I agree. I think Musk wants to retain control - in order that he can realise his vision of establishing humans on Mars.
My understanding is that the income from NASA ISS supply and satellite launches is going to be in the 100s of millions of dollars per annum. As I indicated above, once one can generate that sort of income on a regular basis you can also service a lot of debt. So Space X should be able to borrow billions from the banks over the next 10 years or so. I would be surprised as well if Musk couldn't get some big time philanthropists involved in the project as well.
He could well have access to maybe 5-10 billion dollars in ten years' time, enough to drive the project through to a successful conclusion.
I never know if this is blind optimism or just delusional thinking.
SpaceX is achieving dramatic results based on applying organizational and logistical changes that NASA has not adopted- there is no magical science to what SpaceX is doing. It is proven science. If you understand this, then you quickly realize that no private enterprise is going to "lead" the way to mars (or space). They will follow in the footsteps of NASA and other international efforts.
SpaceX may provide the rockets to get humans to mars, but it will be done on Nasa's timetable and dime.
Nonsense. Everything Musk has ever said outside the diplomatic world of co-operation with NASA demonstrates his intention of reaching Mars as soon as possible and under his own steam, precisely because he was absolutely dismayed by NASA arthritic approach to space exploration.
To get to Mars does not demand a huge step change in technological ability - that would apply more to exploring the outer planets or even more, an adjacent star.
All we are talking about is mastering the difficulties of landing on Mars - difficulties that have been hugely overstated by NASA. Otherwise, what we will be doing is very much an extension of existing technology. We have already successfully fired about 50 rockets at Mars - it's not as though we don't know how to get there. How many of those rockets have failed to reach Mars? HArdly any as far as I recall.
EDL is slightly problematic but it is more a money and logistical problem than anything else I believe.
There are of course health issues, but no one is going to suggest we go to Mars on a do or die mission. Of course our ability to go from 1 G to zero G to one third G and back again over a couple of years, will need to be tested realistically. But there are ways to test that.
I think it will be interesting to see how things develop. At the moment Musk is a junior partner. In a few years, in terms of a Mars mission, he may be the senior partner. He may have several billion dollars at his disposal (remember if you are a company with a guaranteed income of say $500 million a year, you can easily borrow $2 or $3 billion, and I have no doubt Musk will attract other philanthropists as well). I suspect we may at some stage see a dramatic announcement proposing the formation of a consortium.
What are you going to do with the ashes when the terraforming effort gets underway?
I think the Moon is far more appropriate for ashes than Mars and I don't myself see much point in terraforming the Moon.
However, if we are to have ashes on Mars, then obviously it would be sensible to choose a high plateau.
Mars landing 2045, +/-8 years.
It's going to be way sooner than that. If Musk can get from nothing to docking a space capsule in 8 years, he can get to Mars in another 8. The only thing preventing him going straight for Mars is the money. He will need a few years to accumulate a cash pile.
A stunning achievement when you think Space X has only existed for the last - what? - 8 years...
It's such an important development. Now Space X can really fill its coffers and move into human deployment in space.
Musk is on track to Mars. He is determined to get there and he is about the only man on the planet who has the vision AND the means to get there.
How very, very lucky we are to have him around!
That's... Lame. All that way to pick up a few rocks, and not actuallyy land? There must be more to it than that - exploring the moons perhaps?
I agree - so lame.
Fortunately, you can be assured that Musk is NOT thinking like that. All his honeyed words about NASA are to be taken not too much at face value. Musk is seeking to establish on a permanent basis, human civilisation on Mars. He wants to visit himself. He's in a hurry. I think his primary aim at the moment is probably to build a war chest for his Mars project. He maybe needs to build up a reserve of a billion dollars - might take him 5 or so years. In the meantime I am sure he will be doing a lot of design work.
rather morbid take on "human" missions
People are far too sniffy about the space economy. Caring for the remains of the dead is big business on Earth - why not in space?
I believe the article that you are referring to is James Doohan’s Ashes Set To Launch Into Space which has happened as SpaceX Launch: Falcon Rocket Carries Cremated Ashes of James Doohan ('Scotty' of 'Star Trek')
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/spacex … d=16398839
Thanks for the links.
I was pleased to see that Space X are taking forward the idea of space as the perfect resting place for our ashes. I have suggested before that the moon will provide a particularly poignant resting place that people will be prepared to pay a lot for. To be able to gaze up at the Moon and know your loved one's ashes are there will be a source of comfort to many .
I think this is a business that could generate eventually hundreds of millions of dollars per annum.
From what I can glean from "civilian" news, it appears the orbit is right, the solar panels deployed, and all the systems appear to be working correctly.
Next nail-biter / white knuckle issue is automatic rendezvous at very short range (robot arm's length). If you remember, that failed with one Progress, leading to a collision and a depressurized module. (Does anyone know if they patched the hole and repressurized the module? I never heard.)
If this rendezvous and docking comes off flawless, Spacex is in the cargo delivery business, which is the actual reliability demonstration that man-rates the Dragon/Falcon-9. I expect in-company astronauts are already lining up.
I would, too.
GW
Brilliant news. I will stick my neck out here and say the docking will be perfect on the basis that we've got driverless cars licensed in Nevada here on earth that travel thousands of miles and have yet to cause an accident. I imagine Space X are making full use of that sort of technology.
I'd rather an automatic abort than a launch-and-loss. I think they "did good"
GW
I agree GW. It's not the first time they've aborted I believe. It's a good sign at this stage. A rocket engine is a complicated beast, as I am sure you can confirm.
I think if you're going to land a large tonnage it makes sense. However, I favour more modest tonnages with more emphasis on ISRU. That way I think you get more bang for your bucks.
louis, I think I understand you're saying that mining generally isn't appropriation as long as the miner isn't telling someone else that they can't mine there also. If I've got that right, is there a limit? For example, could either a government or a private company tap out the entire planet Mars until nothing remains, take in $20 trillion from selling the mined materials, and not be said to have appropriated Mars or its resources as long as they didn't stop anyone else from trying the same?
Well I think you are then into public opinion and international relations. I think ,were it technically possible, there would be an outcry if the whole of planet Mars were turned into one big mine. For us, Mars already has an identity and I think people would see such action as destroying its identity. However, I think mining on Mars for export to Earth is unlikely to be a big priority for many decades. But, importantly, I think most people will accept there is nothing wrong in ISRU mining to support the human community there. Asteroid mining I think is another matter. People really don't see the asteroids as having an identity - I think most people would be fine with using them as a resource, although in the case of Ceres, people might come to view that as more planet-like.
Sorry Louis the problems with the OST is that peaceful scientific purposes and that of Mining and settling are quite different things. Scientific exploration getting samples for knowledge is one thing. But sending people permanently to stay and to start mining is quite another.
And that just to throw in more uncertainty we have to consider the Moon treaty. Most consider it a failed treaty but is it. Not many countries have signed it even less ratified it but there are a few (Turkey signed and ratified it this year).
The way to look at this is not how can we get round the OST but if I do this where is someone going to come at me with a court case. And just where am I going to have to defend this case.
Just remember that it might not be in the ICJ that your case is heard. And if you lose just what will happen.
It is much better if we clear this legal issues first and it is time that we get the OST revised especially if we use the problem of space junk and dealing with this as a means to get the OST revision on the table.
You have no basis as far as I can see for saying that mining is not an activity in pursuit of a peaceful purpose. If you do, perhaps you can give a citation.
I feel like I'm missing something in this idea of mining not being prohibited by The Outer Space Treaty. The excerpts below seem to me to pretty strongly and simply say that nobody- government or private- can take bits of space/celestial bodies and sell them as their own. Appropriation "by means of use or occupation, or by any other means" sounds pretty broad.
"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." 1967 Outer Space Treaty Article II.
And for those who say that this applies only to governments, not to non-governmental entities (which to me would make the whole treaty kind of pointless), "States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty." 1967 Outer Space Treaty Article VI.
How does mining escape that prohibition?
The key phrase here is national appropriation...all claims to such appropropriation are disallowed. That would include a claim based on mining. For instance - if you were to say "no one from China can mine minerals from this asteroid because the USA is mining this asteroid" you would be contravening the treaty. But to mine is not to make such a claim. To mine is simply to say "we wish to pursue this peaceful purpose of mining the asteroid, no more and no less".
As a matter of logic and common sense, occasions will arise where some licensing of land is necessary. But it will never be acceptable if its purpose is to forward a claim of "national appropriation". So, I think it could only valid on the basis of necessity where otherwise there was a real risk of conflicting objectives, and negative effects on health and safety for instance. Clearly if a treaty signatory could get the backing of the UN in issuing such licences, their position in law would be all the stronger.
Mark Friedenbach wrote:Impaler, you appear to have a good understanding of legal principles, but not this particular law and the later ratified treaties which clarified or expanded it (such as the Space Liability Convention) or the many existing legal briefs about them. There is, for example, a huge distinction between claims of sovereignty and property. For example, under the U.S. government's current interpretation of the OST, if a U.S. company launches a mining operation on the moon, Mars or asteroid, that facility of sovereign U.S. territory, and the resources which pass through that facility become the legal property of the individual or organization which owns the facility. The U.S. government reserves the right at its option (if it had the capability) to send a hypothetical "Space Coast Guard" to protect the private activities of its citizens in space, and enforce rights of ownership and contract. This is unambiguously true in the current interpretation of the law.
The U.S. government also reserves the right to recognize private land claims, and to similarly enforce them. Note that this is demonstrably different from claiming sovereignty, which is what is prohibited by the OST! This would require an act of congress, but would not require renegotiation of any international treaties.
Mark claims of sovreignty are not allowed we all apart from louis understand this. But the problem in your scenario is that International law differs on just what you use those resources that are mined for. If it is to help fuel a vehicle to further a mission then it comes down to the benefit of Mankinds knowledge. If though it is to garner resources for making profits then there will be court cases and since they will use existing similar law (The law of the sea as an example) to inform the case. The likehood is that the US would lose.
I don't know why you keep saying that. I never said claims of sovereignty (except a claim of sovereignty by a self-governing entity) are allowed. They aren't. Please don't misrepresent what I am saying. What I am saying is there is nothing to stop countries or consortia (with the implicit approval of their relevant responsible signatory) setting up bases, mining for minerals and settling people - all peaceful purposes.
The USA has never made a claim because there is no point, not because of the OST having some magical precedence. The OST's primary purpose was to help reduce the spread of nuclear weapons and avoid turning space into a war zone.
If you still don't believe me how absolutely meaningless the OST is, go look up article 16. Any state can opt out at any time without any consequence. But I digress.
On topic... SpaceX can't effectively lead any kind of consortuim without modification to the IST regulation. And the business case for a private venture to Mars still doesn't exist.
That just shows how little you know of international law, Clark, since that is true of all international law, although as others have mentioned here, sometimes states are held to be subject to treaties (e.g. the Geneva conventions) even though they have not ratified them (or might abrogate them).
I always like it when you come across someone with whom you can pleasantly disagree with EVERYTHING they say.
The business case for a venture to Mars is strong. Elon Musk, the world's foremost advocate of colonising Mars at the earliest opportunity, has built a fantastic business out of his desire to get to Mars.
Big businesses are always ready to take on new challenges.
My own analysis suggests that a profit can be turned from Mars, after you have sunk the development costs. Sinking the development costs only means NASA switching a bit of investment from Mars robot projects to Mars human exploration and some similar devices, plus some balancing investment from philanthropists.
Squatters? I prefer the term homesteaders; that is, people applying the homestead principle to property.
louis, my point is that no-one is allowed to actually claim the land they're using, and as such, no government can lease them the land. I can't lease to you a house that doesn't belong to me...
No I would agree - a lease implies a freehold and that is not allowed. However, I think that land licences are acceptable to regulate the peaceful uses of the celestial body and ensure different agents don't interfere with each others' activities.
In practical terms there is no difference between a lease of land for 100 years and a licence of land for 100 years.
So base commander consults. So tunnel director consults.now what? That was rhetorical.
Ost is meaningless. It is feel good for the sake of feeling good.
Face it, ownership will be established on some level and state sponsorship will be used to enforce some form of property rights of those making a claim.thats how it works.thats how it always work.
Well in case you haven't been following the debate, it depends what you mean by property. If you mean freehold guaranteed by a state on Earth, no I don't think anyone is going to grant that on Mars or the Moon. De facto ownership will exist. But I think we are much more likely to see long term licensing - maybe 50 or a 100 years.
The OST is most definitely not meaningless, which is why the USA has never made a legal claim to the Moon, despite have managed to get humans there and plant its flag on the surface.
Wait... Celestial bodies are not subject to claims, but what if the land isn't claimed? We've already established that substances returned from such bodies can be considered property; surely that's enough for a mining company? Sure, the orebody you're working can be mined by other people, but if you're the only group there that's not such a big deal...
Similarly, with Antarctica, bases are considered private property, so a hotel, research station, house etc could be set up on such a body. It's entirely possible to envision a Lunar corporation that owns a Lunar hotel, research station, mine etc, all following the letter of the treaty - but if they try declaring the land theirs, they will violate the treaty.
That is why they shouldn't do so until they're properly self sufficient and don't need anything from Terra to thrive.
Example: Cererean Labs has decided to establish a "research station" on Ceres, as well as a refueling station selling hydrogen and oxygen. To support these, the place has to be made self-sufficient, so they have established farms out there. As the equipment needs to be replaced, and it is expensive to haul it out from Terra, a small industrial base is required. Once Ceres is capable of operating as an Autarchy, they declared independence.
What is the Terran response? They immediately freeze Cererean Labs Terran assets, and bar any Terran company from trading with Ceres. Do the Cerereans care about this? No. If they still want Terran goods, they will have them smuggled out under the pretext that they're needed by a research station on a nearby asteroid that is still nominally under Terran control. Now *there's* an excuse for having smugglers IN SPACE.
Once you're in space, the treaty doesn't apply. Unless the Terran Empire is going to invest in some decent Battlestars, that is...
The trick is to not claim the land. That means no recognising land claims, either.
I think you've got it right. Essentially no one state or private corporation can claim freehold of a celestial body.
I find the bickering, yes- there, I said it, laughably kafkaesque. For those new to the reading club, it means to have kafka like qualities. Oh, I know, bemoan the bastardization of our poor english somewhere else and simply go with it, alright?
So my point? My point is that regulatory oversight arguments are tedious at best and boorish at worst. We can debate the technical loop hole merits of a piece of paper several decades our senior and devolve into separate camps that chastise and vilify the other over things like "intent" and "spirit" and "meaning" and the "derived from the Latin derivation of to whit...", until someone cries foul or we all bask in the local brilliance of a misunderstood and overlooked amateur legal scholar. Remember, every point that you prove must necessarily follow with... and so?
And so. Regardless of how you feel about the current legal mumbo jumbo of space ownership, it doesn't matter. It is paper written almost 50 years ago to address an issue that really didn't exist, but looked like it might. Reading your history books will give you more context. Reading your history books will also tell you that treaties can change, be ignored, or completely thrown out. It's like magical make believe- treaties, laws, regulations, all contracts are make believe. They have as much power as we believe they have, and as little as we say they do.
And so, the outer space treaty is a bunch of pretty words that really don't mean a thing. You can't actually violate it, because to do so it to invalidate yourself as a signatory, which means that as a non-signatory, you are not bound by it, which means you can't violate it. Viola, absurdum! Yes, a joke.
But I digress; I am more personally fascinated every time I watch someone cross the street on a busy intersection. To think, a light, a certain color, makes everyone act a certain way, and everyone expect a certain outcome. There is a lesson there folks, just wish I saw it.
Verbosity is not a synonym for eloquence.
Your post is fanciful. You might as well say the law of the sea is of no import because it consists of words on paper and some countries violate it. The OST may be as full of holes as a Swiss Cheese but it is still there. At the very least I think there is a general acceptance that no state may claim sovereignty over a celestial body and I think that also translates into a general recognition that there can be no sale of freehold.
To what extent the OST may influence the growing commercial sector is of serious importance.
Impaler, NASA is not a regulatory agency. The FAA has made clear that launch and reentry falls under their jurisdiction, and obviously spacecraft comms are regulated by the FCC and ITU if there's a chance they could interfere with other space-based assets. Other than that there is no special regulation of space enterprises.
Exactly. I think the most one can say is that the OST implies a regulatory role for the state in which the company is registered. So, one can probably say the US has a duty under the treaty to ensure that Space X does nothing to violate the treaty. But Space X has done nothing to violate the treaty, so there is no problem.
I suppose this is the most relevant paragraph from the treaty (copied from the link provided by the OP):
Article VIII
A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.It seems clear that a US registered corporation (for instance) could go to the Moon, make stuff there and ship it back to Earth, without this being a problem under the Outer Space Treaty. The stuff manufactured on the Moon would still belong to the company, and subject to US laws, and the US Government would be responsible throughout for ensuring that the corporation's activities were in accordance with the Outer Space Treaty.
I'm not entirely sure it takes into account asteroid mining, though. If some precious metal is mined from an asteroid and brought back to Earth, then it isn't exactly something "constructed on a celestial body", is it? It's ownership is unclear under this treaty, except for the treaty sections about the exploration of space being equally for the benefit of all nations.
I think you are missing the point. There is nothing in the treaty outlawing asteroid mining, which is clearly an acitivity undertaken for a peaceful purpose. PLacing a nuclear warhead missile on an asteroid would however be clearly outlawed under the treaty, as would declaring an asteroid to be the property of the USA or Space X or any other entity (except, arguably, a self-governing entity on a celestial body).
With regard to the proposed Consortium, it would absolutely be bound by the OST and if American companies like Space X are involved it will be subject to NASA oversight regardless of NASA's membership in it. The only way a for-profit consortium for space development can exist is if their is a legal regime for them to operate under, conducting business in legal gray areas is simple the harshest environment possible, its worse then outright illegal business activities like smuggling because at least their your competition is being suppressed by government.
The 'myth' (I think delusional ant-social fantasy is the better term) of 'free individuals pursuing their goals without state interference' is most definitely NOT harmless when it comes to Space exploration for several reasons.
First because the people who have these fantasies are invariable engaged in techno-fantasy as well and over sell the pace of Space development to the public.
Second this individualistic mindset invariably promotes Jingoism and isolationism on a national level which hurts the necessary international cooperation.
Third all this talk of space settlement/colonies being sovereign and independent states on near term timelines provides no guarantee of the Earth recouping it's costs.
Forth public pressure and enthusiasm for the realistic near term regulation which would promote space is squandered on fantasy libertarian propaganda.
I don't know where you get these ideas from. Space X is already in space making a commercial profit. It isn't "subject" to NASA oversight. It's in a contractual relationship with NASA.
Of course one would expect that a US based consortium, the most likely way forward, would probably benefit from some enabling legislation in the US.
But there is no evidence that private companies operating in space are going to face legal restrictions beyond the normal aerospace laws and so on.
Ok, thanks for clarifying. I agree that would be a workable path forward, and certainly better than the current plan (or lack thereof). Still, it is a bit too socialist for my libertarian tastes; the free market can get us there just as quickly and more reliably. Let me frame that a bit less ideologically:
What you're talking about would be a complete restructuring of the current space industry (Old Space and New Space). A centralized “Consortium Board” would require buy-in from a great number of stakeholders with conflicting interests, and would be an active target for lobbying by groups vested in the old way of doing things. A quote from Machiavelli is appropriate:
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 - 1527) wrote:There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favour; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had the actual experience of it.
If we want to change the space program, I see three fundamental ways we can go about it:
1) Reform/restructure by fiat: your Consortium is a reasonable and otherwise workable example of this;
2) Redirect current efforts, for example: lobby NASA to make settlement of Mars its long-term Exploration goal, and adopt a sensible and affordable strategy and set of objectives for getting there; or
3) Incentivise the desired outcome, allowing the invisible hand of the free market move us to where we want to be. For example, Jeff Greason's “Planet Hopping” strategy of using NASA to provide an initial market for resources in space, gradually expanding our economic sphere of influence in the direction of Mars.
In absence of a sudden outbreak of common sense in Washington D.C., I think you'll find the free-market approach far more reliable and less error-prone.
Just saying that there are easier, cheaper, more reliable ways to achieve what you're seeking. That's all.
No, there are definitely several ways to skin this rabbit. I am not against free enterprise. I think Space X are key because their founder and CEO is probably about the most committed Mars settlement activist on the planet, not excepting Zubrin. It's not a coincidence of course, since the reason he got into the business was his dismay at NASA's lacklustre approach (though he has to be diplomatic about NASA these days so you won't hear him say that).
The reality is that even the supposedly Wild West was highly bureaucratised. There were plenty of governors, generals, state officials, land surveyors, laws, and restrictions in operation - the ideal of
free individuals pursuing their goals without state interference has always been a myth, though as myths go a fairly benign one. We need a reasonably light touch rational administration for Mars in the early stages. But for me I would like to see self-governance from the outset in some form .