The Outer Space Treaty

SpaceNut · 2014-12-31 14:34:58

So does that mean that the UN would retain the right to lease out the moon under the outer space treaty to individuals and corporations alike?

Terraformer · 2014-12-31 20:23:46

It never had that right to start with...? Nothing in the treaty appoints the UN as being the trustee of mankind...

SpaceNut · 2014-12-31 21:06:13

Just thinking that since each nation is a signatory and member of the UN that it might be inferred...as a means to get it changed...

Void · 2015-02-13 11:11:19

I am wondering what the parallels are between international ocean waters, and outer space?

Economic entities tied to nations, are allowed to extract fish from the international ocean.

Factory Ships are allowed to manufacture sales items offshore from North America.

Typically, the space one ship occupies is not demanded to be occupied by another at the same time.

Laws of salvage do not allow nationally supported piracy of property used to extract resources and manufacture, except if it is clearly abandoned?

If two or more entities wanted to mine the same ore body and had demonstrated capabilities to do so, they would have to negotiate an arrangement I suppose.

The story of "The Little Red Hen" tells me that in history humans have considered the morality of those who do not work to obtain a gain, demanding or even requesting payment for a no value added contribution of nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Red_Hen

I think the "For the benefit of all" clause can be satisfied just by the fact that a value added service has been created. Metals returned to Earth could be bought on the market at a presumed reduced price, particularly after that metal has become unavailable from local sources. Habitat expanded beyond the Earth, is also potentially a benefit to all. Expansion of the human pool of knowledge, and capability is also a benefit to all.

We don't demand payments from nations that fish in international waters, so why should never-do-goods have a claims to the gains that other nations and economic entities might achieve? However nations that have a commodity, can sell their commodities, and then buy fish extracted by another entity in international waters. So they do get a benefit. In space, any nation or person will likely be able to hook onto such activities, as international entities, or as person stock holders. So they have every opportunity to benefit.

So, as far as I am concerned the point is moot, everyone will have an opportunity to invest in and obtain gains, unless their own national governments interfere with it.

Last edited by Void (2015-02-13 11:14:33)

SpaceNut · 2015-02-24 22:10:48

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is stirring up some moon dust in a legal debate about private companies setting up shop on the moon.

Moon Space Law: Legal Debate Swirls Around Private Lunar Ventures

Without a legal framework, proponents of lunar business say that investors won't develop the financial and technical wherewithal to build industry on the moon.

bigelow-moon-base.jpeg?1424797411

Commercial businesses are eyeing the moon. This early concept art shows a lunar operation as envisioned by Bigelow Aerospace. The private firm is intent on leveraging its work on expandable habitats in low Earth orbit for use on the moon

SpaceNut · 2015-05-24 22:12:03

This was already set in motion when the FAA had been put in charge of all flights for public safetyith regards to upstart space companies.

The House just passed a bill about space mining. The future is here.

The United States has already shown its penchant for claiming ownership of space-based things. There are not one, not two, but six U.S. flags on the moon, in case any of you other nations start getting ideas. (Never mind that the flags have all faded to a stateless white by now.)
So it only makes sense that American lawmakers would seek to guarantee property rights for U.S. space corporations. Under the SPACE Act, which just passed the House, businesses that do asteroid mining will be able to keep whatever they dig up:
Any asteroid resources obtained in outer space are the property of the entity that obtained such resources, which shall be entitled to all property rights thereto, consistent with applicable provisions of Federal law.
This is how we know commercial space exploration is serious.
But it's actually important that we're talking about this now, because we don't want to wind up in a situation where multiple companies are fighting for the same patch of rock without having a way to resolve it. There are two key questions at stake: Who should regulate commercial space activity? And what rules should apply?
By default, the relevant authority could wind up being the Federal Aviation Administration. An odd choice, you might think. What could the FAA, an agency whose chief concern is air travel, want with outer space? Well, the FAA is the agency that grants licenses for commercial space launches (the ones that aren't performed for NASA or the Defense Department, anyway).
This potentially gives the nation's aviation regulators a tremendous amount of power over the fledgling private space industry.
"They would become the de facto regulator of everything that happens in space," said Berin Szoka, president of the libertarian-leaning think tank TechFreedom.
Indeed, although the SPACE Act clarifies what private property rights look like in the great unknown, lawmakers were quick to point out that the bill doesn't do anything to curtail the FAA's authority.
"The bill preserves the FAA’s ability to regulate commercial human spaceflight in order to protect the uninvolved public, national security, public health and safety, safety of property, and foreign policy," the House Science Committee said in a release. "It also preserves FAA’s ability to regulate spaceflight participant and crew safety as a result of an accident or unplanned event."
Technically the FAA's jurisdiction covers launches and reentries only — but under a request from hotel and aspiring aerospace mogul Robert Bigelow, that power could grow.
You see, Bigelow wants to experiment with inflatable habitats that will allow people to live in space. By getting an FAA launch license that gives him access to space, Bigelow would be able to stake out an exclusive piece of the moon.

Terraformer · 2015-05-25 04:09:58

No, they would become the de facto regulator of everything that happens in space *which is operated from America*... launches from Tuvalu are not affected.

SpaceNut · 2015-05-25 07:41:50

True Terraformer for launches not from American soil.
Some vehicles will need to comply with both air traffic control and space traffic control standards, and the transition between them.

Space Traffic Control
http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/pres/copuos2006/06.pdf
http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/Even … ontrol.pdf

louis · 2015-05-25 08:19:32

Terraformer wrote:

No, it really doesn't. "Supervise" means making sure rockets don't fall on peoples heads.
Again, a state can't license tracts of land *unless it possesses sovereignty*. If America were to license out parcels of Antarctica, they wouldn't be able to say, "oh, but we're not really claiming sovereignty, only exercising it".

Coming back to this thread, I don't see state responsibilities are limited to rocket launches. This provision would include things like maybe a private company building nuclear bombs in space. The signatories would be expected to supervise such activities (i.e. in that case, not allow them to take place).

Implicit in the idea of exploration and use is the idea of bases, landing sites and resource utilisation. Signatories have an implicit responsibility to ensure all private enterprises coming under their aegis operate these in a responsible, (as far as possible) non-hazardous manner (so as to fulfil the "supervision" requirement).

It is perfectly reasonable for signatory states to institute licensing system in colonies where not to do so would result in potential threat to life and property.

Last edited by louis (2015-05-25 10:14:20)

SpaceNut · 2016-05-09 20:21:34

Mining issues in space law

Last week, Deep Space Industries, a company with long-term asteroid mining plans, announced a joint venture with the government of Luxembourg to develop a technology demonstration satellite. The spacecraft, dubbed Prospector-X, will be a 3U CubeSat that will fly in Earth orbit at a date to be announced to test technologies needed for future missions to prospect, and eventually extract resources from, near Earth objects.
Those efforts are seemingly emboldened by the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (CSLCA), legislation passed by Congress and signed into law last November. A section of the law grants companies the rights to resources they extract from asteroids, which clears up, at least at the level of domestic law, the question of whether companies could own material they extract from an asteroid. Yet, even with that law in effect, there are still unresolved issues, both at the federal and the international level, for prospective asteroid miners.

GW Johnson · 2016-05-10 09:25:02

The mining business will happen as soon as someone develops a credible business model, be it the moon or the asteroids. With falling launch prices, that day will soon be here.

As for legal issues to be resolved, as long as there are lawyers, there will always be legal issues to be resolved. Same goes for diplomats. That will happen whether or not it is justified.

Business operations in frontiers have always outstripped lawyers and diplomats. The space mining will start, but the lawyers will get their cut by coming up with all these issues to resolve. We've seen this for at least 500 years now. No surprises there (yawn).

GW

SpaceNut · 2016-10-08 17:11:27

Not sure why this ended up in the report problem but its a very valid question for the rights of mining and whom should have the say on the claims there of....

Impaler wrote:

The idea that contracts can take the place of actual law is not something I subscribe too, and in fact I consider it a dangerous fantasy.
The situation you describe of SpaceX required some kind of resource extraction claim recognizing clause in order to be flown under the threat of embargo would never work. Presumably the US government not SpaceX is the body granting said claims as efforts are already underway to grant such claims though only US entities are bound to respect them. So this would essentially be a blatant attempt to use a launch monopoly to bind international companies to a unilateral US claims system.
No mining company foreign or domestic is going to invest if their claim is recognized only in the US and enforced only by a temporary launch monopoly from a US company. As soon as someone else gets launch capability, infringement on claims would begin immediately and all of the recognition contracts would be terminated. This idea is not something SpaceX would ever go for, though I can see Congressional Republicans being so stupid as to pass laws requiring that all US launch companies only do business with customers that recognize US claims, the blow-back from that would be incredible and quite crippling to the whole US launch sector.

I look at this as being a first step to control what could be the wild west of the space frontier since the UN has not step up to the late for this very important question.

Songjob974 · 2018-01-21 04:21:50

I think a UN treaty to allow the ownership lease of "land that you hold" can be reached that will drive the human influence from here to Mars.

louis · 2018-01-21 06:56:11

I am not sure it would really be necessary.

It is clear from the experience in the Antarctica that nations have the right to organise bases. The British for instance could not just decide to plant their own base in the middle of an American base. Equally a base commander may come to an agreement with a university about setting up research facilities at the base. I doubt the legal status of any such agreement has ever been tested.

The OST really only requires national oversight over private activity.

I think even without a formal leasing system, one could have a system of licensing of land on Mars, which would be justified as simply an administrative mechanism. Maybe the licence would be for 10 years with a presumption of renewal.

In practice that would be little different from a leasehold system.

Songjob974 wrote:

I think a UN treaty to allow the ownership lease of "land that you hold" can be reached that will drive the human influence from here to Mars.

Terraformer · 2018-01-21 07:00:21

You can only license land that's within your own base, though. A country couldn't decide that it was going to 'license' parts of the high seas, for instance, and Mars is in the same situation. On the other hand, land within 500m of the base might be counted as part of the safety zone, as it is around ships, so it would be up to the base to decide who can do anything in that zone.

louis · 2018-01-21 17:57:50

Yes, I think that's correct. The concept of a "base" is pretty fluid.

If the land is within a defined functional area e.g. "this is where we are going to produce some energy" or "this is where we are going to grow some food" or "this is where people will live" or "this is going to be our spaceport"...then some system of management has to take place and licensing has surely got to be part of the solution e.g. "You can have a licence for that land at the Spaceport to provide food to passengers waiting arrivals for 10 years. "

If you're interested, here is a treatment of legal issues relating to tenancies, licences and leases in the UK:

https://www.blasermills.co.uk/lease-or- … ifference/

Obviously doesn't apply directly to Mars or the OST but it is helpful in thinking clearly about the subject.

I think one of the key differences between leases and licences is that licences are for a purpose, whereas leases are more about (temporarily, even if it's for 999 years) transferring the land itself. But there are plenty of grey and overlapping areas. I would certainly say that anyone occupying land on Mars under licence, whether it be 1 year, 10 years or 100 years, have to be fulfilling some overall purpose e.g. growing food, living there, providing services to the community etc. They can't just hold on to the land and not do anything with it.

Terraformer wrote:

You can only license land that's within your own base, though. A country couldn't decide that it was going to 'license' parts of the high seas, for instance, and Mars is in the same situation. On the other hand, land within 500m of the base might be counted as part of the safety zone, as it is around ships, so it would be up to the base to decide who can do anything in that zone.

Last edited by louis (2018-01-21 18:00:08)

SpaceNut · 2018-01-21 22:07:08

Something like the old mining deed claim offices that were just marks for what could be within the claimed area.

SpaceNut · 2019-10-27 10:58:48

With starlink increasing the satelite count the Space: a major legal void

nasa-planetary-science-deep-space-smallsat-studies-psds3-program-hg.jpg

high-speed Starlink constellation, which one day could include... 42,000 mini-satellites.

Which makes the already congested path from earth to other places a risk factor for man.

Experts debated the subject at length this week in Washington at the 70th International Astronautical Conference.
The treaties that have governed space up until now were written at a time when only a few nations were sending civilian and military satellites into orbit.
Today, any university could decide to launch a mini-satellite.
That could yield a legal morass.
Roughly 20,000 objects in space are now big enough -- the size of a fist or about four inches (10 centimeters) -- to be catalogued.
That list includes everything from upper stages and out-of-service satellites to space junk and the relatively small number of active satellites.

Of course the amount of debri increases with collisions of already existing piece which will make even more over time. The nation that launched the item is responsible for the collision and debri...

Grypd · 2019-11-11 15:33:29

There is a legal case for debris, Debris is the responsibility of the state who launched it or more specifically the state that caused it.

Also to throw something new into this mix and with the changes to the Law of the Sea we have economic areas these are areas apart from a countries border that countries have full control of. We already have sea mining in these areas so it does not take much change in the OST to allow this to happen in that treaty. 200 nautical miles is a large area think 230.15 miles normal

SpaceNut · 2019-11-11 15:53:32

Glad to see you back in the forum and hopefully you will visit more often.

I agree that it the responsibility of the party that put it there in the first place. Next comes the lawyers that will claim that what hit you was not from anything they launched.

With regards to the border zones around the space satelites in orbit what would be a reasonable domain to assert for a protection zone?

louis · 2019-11-12 06:59:02

I don't think there is anything in the OST that stops mining, as long as the mining does not lead to an exclusive land rights claim. One could imagine the idea of economic areas being applied to celestial bodies. You might have a clause that says any base with more than 100 people resident has legal rights to exploit the land to a distance of 200Kms from the centre of the base or half way to another base if the distance between two bases is less than 400 kms.

Another point to thrown in: the OST is entirely silent about self-governing entities on celestial bodies. There is nothing in the OST that explicitly rules out a self-governing Mars Republic being established and claiming rights over the territory of Mars. As long as it is not a cover for an Earth-based state that is a signatory of the OST, I see nothing to prevent the establishment of such a Republic - in fact the UN Human Rights Convention states in Article 21:

"(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

How could persons living on Mars permanently or long term enjoy (1), (2) and (3)? They would have no residential status on Earth through which to exercise for instance voting rights. If a state on Earth sought to extend its law to Mars then that is highly questionable: it would seem to violate the OST by claiming exclusive rights on Mars. Moreover, someone born on Mars might be stateless on Earth.

The only way Aresians, as I call those native to Mars, could realise their human rights is by forming a self-governing Republic on Mars, with all that entails.

Grypd wrote:

There is a legal case for debris, Debris is the responsibility of the state who launched it or more specifically the state that caused it.
Also to throw something new into this mix and with the changes to the Law of the Sea we have economic areas these are areas apart from a countries border that countries have full control of. We already have sea mining in these areas so it does not take much change in the OST to allow this to happen in that treaty. 200 nautical miles is a large area think 230.15 miles normal

SpaceNut · 2019-11-12 19:19:41

Louis, Grypd was referring to the dead decaying satelites and other oddball pieces we track on radar for whom owns them as well as the rights of salvage.....

louis · 2019-11-12 20:19:01

Yes I understand that...I was replying more to the second part of this post regarding economic zones in the oceans.

SpaceNut wrote:

Louis, Grypd was referring to the dead decaying satelites and other oddball pieces we track on radar for whom owns them as well as the rights of salvage.....

SpaceNut · 2019-11-12 20:31:21

Area with in the claimed border ah....its the area outside of the border claimed that matters for the outer space treaty analogy....
Human rights based on residency is also tied to citizenship of a nation. Of which some states allow prisoners to vote while others do not, so which is correct....but thats for another topic lets focus on right of people seperated from there nation as those are the only ones that can claim. Even then with no official registy of claim then all you have is what you are holding at any given moment...

SpaceNut · 2020-12-10 18:08:01

bump after a lunar landing with sample return....

Originally signed in 1963 and then updated

https://www.britannica.com/event/Outer-Space-Treaty

followed by
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_Agreement

http://www.history.nasa.gov/1967treaty.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Outer_Space_Treaty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law

https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm

The Outer Space Treaty, as it is known, was the second of the so-called "nonarmament" treaties; its concepts and some of its provisions were modeled on its predecessor, the Antarctic Treaty. Like that Treaty it sought to prevent "a new form of colonial competition" and the possible damage that self-seeking exploitation might cause.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2014-12-31 14:34:58

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#52 2014-12-31 20:23:46

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#53 2014-12-31 21:06:13

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#54 2015-02-13 11:11:19

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#55 2015-02-24 22:10:48

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#56 2015-05-24 22:12:03

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#57 2015-05-25 04:09:58

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#58 2015-05-25 07:41:50

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#59 2015-05-25 08:19:32

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#60 2016-05-09 20:21:34

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#61 2016-05-10 09:25:02

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#62 2016-10-08 17:11:27

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#63 2018-01-21 04:21:50

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#64 2018-01-21 06:56:11

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#65 2018-01-21 07:00:21

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#66 2018-01-21 17:57:50

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#67 2018-01-21 22:07:08

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#68 2019-10-27 10:58:48

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#69 2019-11-11 15:33:29

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#70 2019-11-11 15:53:32

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#71 2019-11-12 06:59:02

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#72 2019-11-12 19:19:41

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#73 2019-11-12 20:19:01

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#74 2019-11-12 20:31:21

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

#75 2020-12-10 18:08:01

Re: The Outer Space Treaty

Board footer