You are not logged in.
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.
Grypd: Whats your source for this legal opinion that the OST can be circumvented by this kind of transnational finagling?
The way I read it the Isle of man (or some other hypothetical non-signatory state) would need to make a territorial claim on the moon first and THEN grant property rights to the private party. The US or any signatory state would then be recognizing the Isle of man's territorial claim to the moon not the private parties property rights and this recognition MIGHT be permissible under the treaty but it would not bind any other nation either signatory or not to recognize the Isle of mans claim. I don't see the major Space faring nations going out of their way to aid 'flag of convenience' nations in laying claim to space while refraining from making their own claims. If the US, Russia or China wanted to get some of the Moon they would simply withdraw from the OST which is allowed for in Article XVI and proceed to 'appropriate' the Moon via the established methods of occupation, defense and seeking to have their claims recognized by other nations.
But it is even arguable that the OST is now part of 'customary international law' and can be considered a "Peremptory Norm" from which no withdraw or is possible, much like the Geneva convention which every nation can be held to account for violating regardless of signatory status. The standard for for Peremptory Norm is very high but the OST arguably fulfills most of the requirements (duration & broad near universal adoption), all that's lacking is the accumulation of more strong enforcement precedents such as multiple nations reaching the Moon and forgoing territorial claims or signatory governments prohibiting non-governmental activities under Article VI grounds. Neither of these has been possible due to the NASA monopoly of manned lunar landing but once these precedents are set I'd think this would cement the OST.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2058/1
The fact that this loophole exists is actually a good thing for those of us who wish the OST to be revised and allow a limited claiming of land in space. Especially if it gives Mineral rights. What we have on these forums is the continual chicken and egg scenario. We need cheap lift to space to colonise and utilise space for profit but we cant get anyone to invest in this until we can show that we can profit from space.
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.
Welcome to New Mars Impaler.
The Outer space treaty is for a piece of primus legislation a mess. That is why the Moon treaty of 1979 was supposed to resolve a lot of issues but it is considered a failed treaty as so few ratified it (But it has never been legaly tested so may well still be active)
There are loopholes in the OST. It is perfectly possible for one of the big countries to create legislation that would allow land claims on the Moon etc and as long as it was not an organisation from that country or a mission launched from country that claimed that land it could pass.
An example given is a mission launched by the isle of man with investors across the world from Kourou using an act that was put in place in the US for settlement. The US would recognise that land claim but as it was not part of the US was under no obligation to defend it. For the OST it would work for the Moon treaty it would not.
Still these issues need to be resolved and that frankly with our increasing mineral and energy needs we desperatly need to have a new or revised OST. The OST has many good bits it stops us arming the stars and promotes peaceful uses and of course helps to compensate injured parties by others mistakes.
Still I would be very happy if we either amended the OST or put in place a proper treaty allowing utilisation rights and some land rights.
Its all to do with political events down here on Earth and the so called Common heritage of mankind.
It basically comes down to no one can actually own outer space as it is owned by everyone.
None of that precludes in my view licensing of land for specific purposes, or indeed a declaration of independence by the occupants of a celestial body. If licensing were not allowed then you would have the absurdity that anyone could come along and say ride a 3 tonne rover over someone else's photovoltaic facility. Clearly there must be allowance made for organisaiton of land use.
So, I see no problem with very long leases of land for instance.
Actually there is great laws all wrapped up in the outer space treaty about how to deal with damaging another countries property in space. There is though no organisation for land use everyone and no one owns it there fore no land leases possible.
The Moon treaty that came out had tried to solve some of those issues but it was and unfortunatly remains a very unsuitable treaty for anyone that wants to move mankind off this rock. The basic quist is that like the law of the sea the final arbiter would be an agency of the UN. And that is to many people of the world and especially Americans a definite No No. It would also insist that anyone attempting to make a profit would not only have to share those profits with the rest of the world it will also insist on full technology transfers to any state that asks.
In short it will not happen until someone gets round to fixing this treaty and if billionaires with clout cant get the US goverment to start down that road then no one can.
It is a strong possibility.
Lets be honest here there will be interests that will force the UN to get involved in any mining in space no matter the object as a target.
Still with these multi billionaires there is now pressure to get the outer space and the moon treaty changed to a much more useful function.
Im in favour of a treaty that has allowance to utilise materials not for the common good but common courtesy that means you dont interfere with others and vice versa and the materials you gain can then be used
You are correct there is a clear legal precedent it is that samples were returned as Scientific samples only and that was the betterment of all mankind.
And of course they were in the possesion of a goverment not a private agency.
The treaties are specific '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'
So using it for science to benefit mankind big tick
Using it for wealth generation no chance.
Certainly under the current treaties we certainly need a few changes.
In the Antartic treaty the bases themselves are sovereign in that they are owned by the states that placed them. Still they actually dont own the ice or land underneath.
On Antarctica - subject to similar laws - no one is suppose to own the land, but clearly some people do occupy land and if you turned up at a base demanding to occupy parrt of it, you would probably be physically restrained.
Similar to Embassies they are foreign soil in anothers country but with one difference it is the building that is owned not the land underneath.
In space all objects launched are considered national territory and so if they land on an object they remain the property of that country just they dont own the land it is sitting on.
We seriously need to sort this legal issue out as the current state of play is that any resource mined not for scientific purposes but for financial gain could and almost certainly would have a claim of it being shared with all countries on this planet. This would not be decided by the security council either but by way of the whole UN.
You are forgetting that one of the advantages of the Moon is that it is tidal locked it always shows the same face to Earth and a transmitter placed on top of the right hill will face in the direction of Earth. There is no need for a satelite communication system at first. Well not in the Moons orbit anyway there is nothing to stop these communication dishes aiming for satelites in the Earths orbit.
This is further helped that any reasonable attempt to develop the Moon will use the Lagrange points 1 and 2 as a minimum depots and this helps communication.
It will only be when we are wanting to send exploration missions across the Moon that we will need out of site communication and it is perfectly possible that cheap mass produced communication satelites can be used to support these missions.
On a financial services issue the ability to store records in a safe secure facility that would survive any catastrophe is a possible revenue source. Electronic copies of land deeds, bank records, share issues etc.
We already spend billions on companies storing such in disused nuclear bunkers but the ultimate safety not being on the same planet.
And of course when we open up Mars we will create a Martian Internet and we will have very qualified electronics and computer engineers available. So we create a data repository.
February the 7th apparently is the planned date. And they plan to be able to make the qualifications for both the COTS2 and 3 in one launch.
Good luck to them.
It is a pity Jon Clarke is away as I was hoping he could answer this question of mine. The question is with the Moons history not that we have not found evidence of PGMs and Iron but why we cannot.
We know that the Moon is constantly being hit by meteorites etc we see the transient light and we estimate that meteorites of a mass of 1kg+ impacts the Moon at least 260 times a year. The nature of asteroids is that the majority are C class chondrites but a good minority are structurally stronger M class asteroids.
With all these impacts why is that we cannot find more evidence of the M class asteroidal impacts.
From Apollo we have the idea that the Moons regolith is a very impacted surface, loose regolith is on top of compacted regolith but that a real layer of solid rock may well be very deep under the surface.
The strong structure of M class asteroids may well be strong enough that without atmospheric heating that they will survive relatively intact hitting the Moon. Could this be why we are not seeing them. If they are such concentrated and buried then our sensors would struggle to see them. What would it take to actually test this idea.
That is true extra reflected light is an option and one we can use but working on these plants is a good idea all on its own. Just how many farms do we have on the tundras of earth with there lack of daylight.
And of course we can create very CO2 rich enviroment greenhouses for the plants as well.
On Earth most of our Platinum based minerals and our gold and of course Rare Earths are the result of asteroidal impacts.
The Moon as a lower gravity well will have had asteroidal impacts that the metal rich asteroids will have likely survived so being able to be dug up insitu. Dennis Wingo is the main proponent of this idea.
Potato plants do grow in shade but those that grow in the light are healthier and provide better larger potatoes.
Still we need to genetically modify our plants to become more efficient in the very low light levels that we will find and we dont need to go to Mars to do it. For instance Chlorophyll just what will be the most efficient type and just what can we do to increase its production while of course ensuring we get the best possible crop returns. Still we may input sea weed and sea grasses into the mix these tend to not need as much light as surface plants.
Or do we make hybrids with plants that dont use sunlight to increase there growth potential.
Still it will be something extremely worthwhile to do in preparation for going to Mars
The biggest problem we have with growing plants on Mars is that the light levels equate to winter dusk here on earth. This needless to say means we need to modify plants to become much more efficient and that tends towards plants which will not be green.
So yes we will have to experiment here on Earth to genetically modify plants that will not only grow on Mars but thrive.
The Solar panel of choice on the Moon will be the silicon based versions.
The simplest design is the String ribbon silicon method. It has an efficiency of 13 to 14% but has managed to be made up to 18.3% in laboratory conditions. Still the efficiency of 13 to 14% is more than we need. The problem in the manufacture is its energy intensive.
Much more efficient cells are made by the use of Mono-crystalline silicon and the efficiency is about 17% but these cells are on a pure grown silicon crystal in which doping agents are emplaced. Much of these doping agents are found on the Moon but we may need to supply some of it for the first stages of lunar industrialisation. This though will not require too much mass sent to the Moon.
These make for very radiation protected cells but the more important principle is that we automate the process and that we can keep building more and more energy production. But the other point is that all items we have on the Moon will suffer degradation from the enviroment with these cells we can replace easily damage.
Sea launch is a consortium that has Norwegian, Russian and of course US companies that make up its shareholders.
It launches Zenit 3SL rockets manufactured in the Ukraine.
But for international law it is an agency of the United states and completely under its laws. That is the law and it does not matter that it is a private buisness concern where that company is registered makes part of that goverment.
In space it is considered to be acting as an agency of the US goverment.
Those are all proposals and they haven't got to grips yet with the key issues of deposition - which on earth seems a pretty sophisticated process requiring sterile conditions.
I am all in favour of developing automated robotic mining, but it will be a tricky business.
As sophisticated as making LEDs the answer is yes we mass manufacture these with little human interaction. The panels are easier to make. They need a vacuum and that we can provide reasonably easy on the Moon and of course the materials.
The moon we should not forget is very close to the Earth. If it's lunar tourist industry can pay for imported PV Panels, I am not sure the effort of ISRU is necessarily worth it. It's not the same situation as on Mars where I think the argument for ISRU is much stronger. The experience with tourism on Earth suggests that tourism centres, like say the Caribbean, simply import the more sophisticated technology.
The less we have to send the less it costs to go to the Moon and as such the more people who go and the more that comes with the Tourists. This is a very less equals more situation.
I think for the Moon I would recommend a slower path to ISRU.
The main focus should be on getting lots of people to the Moon, building up permanent settlements.
I agree that more people are needed and ISRU is essential to allow this to happen. What are these people going to breathe what are they going to live in. If we can reduce costs then we can send more people. If you cannot reduce the costs then it is highly likely there will be no Moon missions beyond flags and footprints.
The outer space treaty is an international treaty which has a very high sign up rate and of course in the purpose it was designed for completely succesful. Its purpose was to allow freedom to explore without the buildup of weapon systems which everyone was worried about. You have to remember this was the time of planned nuclear armed missiles bases on the Moon.
It is one of the Common heritage treaties that are almost defacto international law. Its purpose of stopping an arms race and a great space land rush in space and the tensions of that and the way it was worded has made it not compatible for those who wish mankind to expand beyond the Earth. And as it is a universal treaty it is one which will affect any space mission and it will not matter if you launch from a non signatory as it is highly likely that the pressure to follow the rules will let you prevail.
Still I think that if we can get the political will it is possible to allow resource exploitation if we change the treaty but still follow its spirit. One thing we have to get sorted is space debris and actions to resolve this and we use the part of the treaty about how missions are in effect permanently belonging to the nation that owns it. So if we have to go back to the treaty to resolve the debris issue why not subtly change other parts.
Currently the treaty states that no nation or organisation may claim land but it does not specifically state that we cannot exploit resources there. So if can develop a means of utilisation without claiming the land but that if using that area you cannot be interfered with in a common courtesy zone and the products you gain belong to the nation that mined it but the land it was gained from remains for all mankind our problems with the treaty will be solved. Mostly!!!
We will not get any of the major powers to withdraw from this treaty like all common heritage treaties there are very powerful vested interests to ensure these treaties remain. So we have to change the treaties to get a better result but still keep the spirit.
Certainly but it is a copy of an old new scientist from 11 years ago. The proposals have been around that long. Japanese comapnies even want to turn the whole Moon into a power station to beam microwave power back to the Earth.
The University of Houston proposed the idea and even went so far as to testing it in a vacuum chamber. We would simply ignore the first stage and put a full refinery onto the Moon as one of the first things we did.
The question is, what does our industrial seed mass in at?
That is the question we need to be able to send enough capacity to be able to tool up our operations on the Moon.
So just what will we need to send. Some form of brick maker to create structures that we can put our industrial capacity in to protect it from the massive changes in tempatures on the Moon. The ability to actually harvest regolith and to break its properties down and to then seperate metals and volatiles apart. Some means to develop more harvesting and construction capacity the list goes on.
I couldn't disagree more. Energy generation is the one great advantage we have in solar system exploration; the problem of mass is our one great disadvantage. It therefore pays in the initial stages to run with the most efficient system in terms of both conversion and energy density (as long as it delivers on reliability and flexibility of course).
NASA has developed what are called Multi Junction cells these are the super efficient ones with reports of up to 43.5% efficiency. But the solar cells we aim to make in situ are called crystalline silicon. They are not only much tougher they require no materials from Earth. You state the problem of Mass is our biggest problem you are correct that is why the ability to make them on the Moon is critical. The fact that these can be made by an automated process and we can replace them as they wear out is super critical. We are likely to have the ability to produce during daylight hours much more power than we really need and as we expand so can our energy grid.
I agree the aim should always be to begin developing ISRU energy asap but I am not sure manufacturing PV panels will be that easy, as opposed to manufacturing metal reflectors and steam boilers (or Sterling engines).
We have already tested and made these cells here on the Earth in a lunar simulated enviroment. The process is actually very simple. Putting these cells which resemble tiles onto a panel is again simple. The panel is made of lunar regolith it is made of silica the base element of the Moon and quickly heated creating lunar fibreglass.
Metal reflectors on the Moon should be a relatively easy process to make but a steam boiler on the Moon not so easy at all.
I never suggested laying the PV film "flat" in the shade to pick up dust kicked up by colonists!! I think we would be laying the film out on rocky hillsides using bolts to fasten the film (under tension).
What's wrong with that. There will be a huge mass saving. Doesn't matter if it only lasts 5 years.
What we know of the Moons geography is limited. What we have found so far is that the Moon is made of regolith, the upper foot to a couple of feet in depth has been loose. After that it is seriously compacted regolith but still not a solid. We have yet to see solid rock. Those peaks we are seeing will likely be the same. The edges will be the equivalent of scree slopes of broken and jagged material and it may be that they will have the constituency of slag heaps. They will also tend to point the wrong way for the sun most of the time. A solar cell farm sitting on A frames will be facing the sun as it traverses the sky all the time.
One of the single greatest advantages of the Moon is the very strong sunlight, but without an atmosphere or strong magnetic field we will get hit by very strong flux fields. Our best solar panels also tend to have less resistance to all that they will face and a long constant life is much more preferable than a short very active life.
On the Moon we can make solar panels that though guite inefficient by what the standards we use the simple amount of energy available and the very cheap method of manufacture makes them the best choice on the Moon. It is this ability to keep growing the energy supply without needing major supply from the Earth that will develop the lunar economy.
But just laying them flat on the ground invites them to be covered in dust and also to be in shade. Simple local manufactured A frames resting boards of these solar panels makes there connection to the electrical grid and general maintenance easier.
Only if it's abundant enough... bear in mind we need at least around 15MJ/kg of fuel produced, so we're already looking at 100kW of initial power to get the barebones system up and running (after which we can bootstrap the infrastructure, since nearly all payload will reach it's destination). 200kW would be good to aim for. I reckon we could get that into 10 tonnes
Hi Terraformer, Merry christmas by the way.
The Suns energy at the Moon is about 1358 watts a square metre. Our best solar panels tend to give about 25% efficiency that gives a lot of power. One other advantage on the Moon is structural stress due to gravity is a minor issue, structures there can be held up on very thin poles. So if we develop a lander weighing about 5 tonnes that once its solar panels are deployed gives us about 75KW that should be enough to start base operations. We do not need these for shading simply a mesh with attached bags of regolith will be lighter (and cheaper) to install.
If we have a base design of power lander we can simply keep sending these and increasing our bases power supply as we need it. Of course we will also be using an automated system to produce solar cells out of the regolith but these will be a lot less efficient. Still the very large farms we can make out of these and the ability to create mirrors to keep these panels in light will make up for that inefficiency.
The area where we believe there are volatiles tend to be conveniently near the peaks of constant light. These peaks may be very rough but if we can access them we will then have the ability to create constant solar power to our bases.
I am not sure how familiar you are with commercial practice. Really what you say about the state being responsible would be no impediment to a Mars Consortium. All they have to do is indemnify the country concerned and put up a bond to back that indemnity. For example Panama would authorise the Mars Consortium to operate in Outer Space and could require the Consortium to indemnify it to the tune of say $10billion for the period of agreement - let's say 10 years. Panama requires the Consortium to get a bond for that and the Consortium has to pay say 5% for that = $500 million. The Consortium in turn borrows the $500milion over 10 years, paying off the loan at perhaps something like $100 million per annum for ten years. In the context of a Mars Mission,paying $100million per annum for effectively a licence to operate would be no problem. Panama would no doubt get various benefits from having the Consortium's offices located in its territory.
Very sure. Yes you could launch rockets from Panama but just like you can launch ESA rockets from Kourou. But what do you do with them.
Panama cannot grant you the right to mine metals in space for profit, no country can, only an international body (the UN) can. And there are costs the UN body that allows mining for minerals in the sea extracts billions from the only company willing to try and that then is put to use across the world.
I have been wanting to change the outer space treaty for many years now. It was perfect to stop the space arms race but it now is not fit for purpose. The trouble is that it still stands and there are very many organisations and countries that will stop such changes.