The Space Settlement Initiative

DaveBrett · 2003-03-12 12:10:17

The Space Settlement Initiative web site is now at:

http://www.SpaceSettlement.ORG

This is a plan to encourage space development by
promising to reward successful ventures with Lunar
or Martian real estate.

The web site discusses the economic thinking behind
the proposal. It also explains why the reward would not
violate international laws such as the 1967 Outer Space
Treaty. We hope you will take a look, and give us your
feedback.

Thanks,

Dave Brett
Webmaster

Space Settlement Initiative

Bill White · 2003-03-12 13:08:31

Dave Brett writes:

This is a plan to encourage space development by
promising to reward successful ventures with Lunar
or Martian real estate.

Dave, can you give me a concise answer on who will grant these rights/rewards? The USA?, EU? UN? What if another nation, China, for example, or Russia or France declares they will not recognize "grants" in Martian or lunar real estate.

I am not unsympathetic to the goals of this organization. I just believe the space "land grant" people do not fully recognize the geopolitical implications of their proposal. It seems to me that all of the non space-faring nations would be vehemently opposed to this plan, out of national self interest.

RobS · 2003-03-14 20:04:28

The difficulty with this plan is that it assumes lunar land is worth $100 per acre. It is not clear that one can give something value that currently has no value simply by passing the right legislation. One might find that no one is willing to pay $100 per acre. Or, maybe there are a lot of small investors willing to pay $100 for one acre, but there aren't enough little investors to provide the amount the scheme needs.

Any investment scheme like this has to rely on a few very large investors, some medium sized ones, and a lot of small ones. The big investors will be in the plan to make a profit, and not in a century, but in a reasonable amount of time.

The other problem this scheme has is the danger of the real estate bubble bursting. Let us say it manages to raise about half the money it needs to develop a transportation system to the moon (or Mars) but can't obtain the rest of the money. The result would be a collapse in confidence, followed quickly by a collapse in land values. Everyone would be stuck with deeds to land they couldn't resell and their friends would be laughing at them. The smart ones, knowing that a bubble is a genuine risk, might not invest in the first place.

Since no one knows how much the land is worth and how much money must be raised to develop a transportation system to it, the plan carries big risks.

There are other things you can do to improve the scheme's viability, though:

1. Sell services. Anyone who buys at least one square kilometer (or ten) can pay $10,000 to have a remote-controled rover drive across their property, photographing it in great detail. The scientists will get the data and the owner will have fantastic photography to load into virtual reality software on his computer (which will have to be developed) plus the satisfactioon of knowing he has helped the cause by funding science directly.

2. Pay royalties to land owners for exploiting natural resources on their land. The obvious resource is meteoritic nickel-iron, many tonnes of which litter every square kilometer of the moon and Mars. On Mars many other resources may exist that outposts need, such as gold, copper, salt, and lime.

3. And don't forget any land authority could tax the landowners a small amount, though it would probably then need to have a landowner's council to decide how much to tax and how to use the money.

-- RobS

DaveBrett · 2003-03-20 14:16:04

Bill:

Please read the proposal more carefully. No nation
can "grant" Lunar or Marian real estate. Over and
over we keep repeating that we are NOT suggesting
any such thing!

But a private settlement - once it has succeeded in
developing space transport and is actually and truly
in use and occupation of Lunar land - could make a
claim of its own, to private ownership to a big hunk
of land around its base.

If that happened, every nation could choose to
recognize that claim or not, - that is, to treat the
settlement as the true owner of some land which
is not located under that nation's sovereignty.

The best analogy is how the U.S. would treat a
Parisian who came to New York and sold a rich
American the deed to a French estate the Parisian
claimed to own.

Let's say the American later wanted to get out of
paying, and said the Frenchman really didn't own
the land. Because the sale took place in the U.S.,
it would be the U.S. courts that would be asked
to settle it, even though no one says the land itself
is under U.S. sovereignty.

Any nation's decision to recognize a settlement's
claim of Lunar land ownership would allow the
settlement to sell deeds to pieces of its Lunar land
to citizens of that nation, and expect to have that
nation's civil courts accept the validity of those deeds.

What we want is for the U.S. to agree to recognize
such a claim so that the settlement can sell pieces
of its land - in markets located inside the U.S. - and
have U.S. courts take those sales as seriously as
any other land sale.

That would create a tremendous opportunity for a true
settlement effort, once it actually has succeeded - to
get back a lot of money quickly - selling pieces of
paper printed on Earth, to people on Earth, most of
whom will never choose to visit their Lunar land.

Dave Brett

DaveBrett · 2003-03-20 14:18:50

RobS:

How much will those land deeds be worth? After a
lot of careful research I have guesses, but you are
welcome to your own different guesses.

The truth will never be known until there is a real
market - and that can't happen until some one actually
develops safe affordable reliable human space
transport and uses it to establish a true permanent
settlement on the Moon or Mars.

Only THEN will we - and his investors - finally know
for sure whether it was worth it or not. My guess is
it certainly will have been worth it, and then some, but,
to be honest, that is not my primary concern!

I care that someone THOUGHT it would be worth
enough to invest sufficient money time and genius
to develop that space transport.

Like the farmer holding a carrot on a stick out in
front of his horse, I care most that we get where
we want to go.

It matters somewhat less to me that - after we are
there - the horse finds the carrot delicious enough
to have been worth taking us there.

I also care a lot less which other countries choose
to recognize the claims because realistically, the U.S.
is the 900 pound gorilla in world economics today.
The financial opportunity the settlement would get by
being allowed into the U.S. market would dwarf the
value of being able to sell in China, for example.

On the other hand, since the proposal calls for the
U.S. to offer reciprocity to other nations, (we each
recognize the other's citizen's claims just like our
own citizen's) it is likely that most would jump on
the band wagon eventually to get a piece of the pie.

Dave Brett

RobS · 2003-03-23 00:34:10

Dear Dave: With all due respect, I think I can see what your guesses are about the value of the land on the moon (or Mars), and they strike me as wildly optimistic. And as I noted, you can't prevent the danger of the real estate bubble bursting; and the more land you sell, the greater the danger that you will exhaust demand and make it more likely that future land owners will be unable to sell their land for more than a fraction of the buying price. Then demand for land collapses and a few people may try to sue you.

To some extent, there are already comparisons that can be made. You noted someone has already started "selling" the moon and made a pile of money; but I suppose that pile was a million or so, and certainly not in the billion dollar range.

Every year at Christmas time there are ads on the radio about naming a star for someone for about $15 or $20. The ad notes that the name will be deposited in the U.S. copyright office. I assume what they mean is that a book of all the "names" will be given to the library of congress, as copyright law specifies. The star selling group has no authorization to sell star names; the International Astronomical Union can do that. How much does the company earn? A few hundred thousand dollars? I doubt very much.

-- RobS

DaveBrett · 2003-03-30 10:25:23

Rob:

Once again you seem to be forgetting something: under this plan, no one would take title to Lunar real estate UNTIL getting to the moon and staying there.

You are so worried about a real estate "bubble" bursting. First of all, I don't think this market has to become a bubble, and that the bubble has to burst.

But even if it did become a bubble, that would still be a lot better than the situation we have now. Right now there is little private investment in space, and little chance private enterprise can go to the moon. In other words...I would rather a "bubble" market in Lunar real estate than no market at all.

Do other people reading this agree with me?

Dave

soph · 2003-03-30 10:30:48

I don't like the Moon. It's a rock. Now, Mars has potential. If we are to settle anywhere, it should be Mars first. It has everything we need.

The Moon's greatest purpose may be as an observatory, and as a materials base/shipyard. Not a home, imho.

dicktice · 2003-03-31 09:02:10

Earth's marvelous Moon, honeycombed with living quarters and core-deep mining tunnels, with surface Solar-smelting and -processing of ores in vacuum...would be a great place to live and work and play (thinks: 1/6th-gee gymnastics, human-powered flight, mile-high trees for climbing as well as timber).
Regarding objections to the Lunar 2-week Lunar day/night--a solution to the problem of obtaining 24-hour light/dark periods for underground habitats might profitable to brainstorm, since a solution could ultimately benefit similar underground Mars settlements....

Palomar · 2003-03-31 10:43:44

(thinks: 1/6th-gee gymnastics, human-powered flight, mile-high trees for climbing as well as timber).

*Hi Dicktice. Mile-high trees on the moon? Sans atmosphere? How so? ???

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-31 12:22:01

I'm thinking domes, Cindy.

No doubt, though, people will be colonizing the moon when we're colonizing Mars.

Palomar · 2003-03-31 14:33:04

I'm thinking domes, Cindy.
No doubt, though, people will be colonizing the moon when we're colonizing Mars.

*Lesser gravity on Luna than Mars even...and again we have serious considerations regarding long-term health issues: Deterioration of bone and muscle mass.

Sorry, I just don't foresee Lunar colonization happening. At least Mars has a thin atmosphere...Luna has none. Mars holds much more potential in many ways than Luna ever could.

I agree with Soph: The moon is a dead rock; let's get on to Mars.

--Cindy

DaveBrett · 2003-04-04 22:03:34

Josh, Cindy, Soph, et al...

Have you read the proposal?

Dave

dicktice · 2003-04-05 10:52:58

(thinks: 1/6th-gee gymnastics, human-powered flight, mile-high trees for climbing as well as timber).
*Hi Dicktice. Mile-high trees on the moon? Sans atmosphere? How so? ???
--Cindy

In mile-high caverns, you ninny...it's the two-week night that has me stumped. Artificial sunlight, presumably...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-03-12 12:10:17

Re: The Space Settlement Initiative

#2 2003-03-12 13:08:31

Re: The Space Settlement Initiative

#3 2003-03-14 20:04:28

Re: The Space Settlement Initiative

#4 2003-03-20 14:16:04

Re: The Space Settlement Initiative

#5 2003-03-20 14:18:50

Re: The Space Settlement Initiative

#6 2003-03-23 00:34:10

Re: The Space Settlement Initiative

#7 2003-03-30 10:25:23

Re: The Space Settlement Initiative

#8 2003-03-30 10:30:48

Re: The Space Settlement Initiative

#9 2003-03-31 09:02:10

Re: The Space Settlement Initiative

#10 2003-03-31 10:43:44

Re: The Space Settlement Initiative

#11 2003-03-31 12:22:01

Re: The Space Settlement Initiative

#12 2003-03-31 14:33:04

Re: The Space Settlement Initiative

#13 2003-04-04 22:03:34

Re: The Space Settlement Initiative

#14 2003-04-05 10:52:58

Re: The Space Settlement Initiative

Board footer