Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

Rxke · 2004-02-26 12:44:05

I have a question...

Presume some *private* organisation starts building a fully-fledged base on Mars, using robots...

And somebody 'else' ( government-backed) lands there first, and settles there.
Is that legal? (I doubt it) How do ownership rules work, interplanetary?

Would a private org. have the 'right' to build there, for starters?

DanielCook · 2004-02-26 13:08:28

If you refer to [http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/treat/ost/ost.html]this: point three states outer space (this presumably includes other planets) cannot be claimed by any nation.

Hence if a private organization were to build a base, it cannot be expropriated by a government. The statement is vague on whether a company can own property, but I suspect not. They will only own the infrastructure (i.e. you can own the house, but not the land).

DanielCook · 2004-02-26 13:22:13

They expanded further on that agreement (made in 1967) in the 1979 [http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/moontxt.html]Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. The agreement was only finally ratified in 1984, however. To date only 10 States have ratified this UN agreement, with 5 additional signatures.

Article 11, par 3 states "Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non- governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person. The placement of personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on or below the surface of the moon, including structures connected with its surface or subsurface, shall not create a right of ownership over the surface or the subsurface of the moon or any areas thereof "

Bill White · 2004-02-26 14:01:45

If you refer to [http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/treat/ost/ost.html]this: point three states outer space (this presumably includes other planets) cannot be claimed by any nation.
Hence if a private organization were to build a base, it cannot be expropriated by a government. The statement is vague on whether a company can own property, but I suspect not. They will only own the infrastructure (i.e. you can own the house, but not the land).

No government can claim sovereignty - - therefore who do you appeal to if another private company (pirates!) comes along and steals your property?

Government is not the unmitigated evil libertarians assert it to be.

clark · 2004-02-26 14:22:43

No government can claim sovereignty - - therefore who do you appeal to if another private company (pirates!) comes along and steals your property?

Haliburton. :laugh:

Bill White · 2004-02-26 14:25:48

No government can claim sovereignty - - therefore who do you appeal to if another private company (pirates!) comes along and steals your property?
Haliburton. :laugh:

Yup!

And once Haliburton sets up a dispute resolution process (i.e. a court system) then Voila!

They have formed a government.

DanielCook · 2004-02-26 14:42:14

As I read the statement, it would apply to organizations (thus companies) as well, and not only governments.

Furthermore, if your "Haliburton" would seize your newly constructed, but empty base, one would always fall back onto "common" law. Under "common" law you are always entitled to reclaim your property (a "rei vindicatio" if I remember my first year law correctly) from anyone that steals it from you.

Bill White · 2004-02-26 15:04:35

As I read the statement, it would apply to organizations (thus companies) as well, and not only governments.
Furthermore, if your "Haliburton" would seize your newly constructed, but empty base, one would always fall back onto "common" law. Under "common" law you are always entitled to reclaim your property (a "rei vindicatio" if I remember my first year law correctly) from anyone that steals it from you.

The "common law" is a Western idea. A Chinese company of pirates might not recognize the validity of the common law.\

Edit: And, there are no sheriffs and no courts. You either persuade the priates to return your property peaceably or you must kill them, unless they kill you first.

Whatever metaphysical origins we may believe establish "the right to property" - - without a government to enforce those rights, then might becomes the sole right.

Rxke · 2004-02-26 15:06:43

So it's still a bit hazy, ratification etc.

Now assuming for simplicity there's no *ownership* of the 'ground' allowed, can you still *use* it legally to build stuff out of it? (mining for solar cells, for instance)

And... if you can, the stuff you build *out of Martian recources*, who has ownership of these products?

Scenario (bit far fetched):
Say if Mars Society pulled it off, and started building stuff...

Ten years later, lands a manned craft. (Belgians) They use the base w/o asking. Let's say Mars Society lets them, for the time being, but says, once they land with *their* spanking new Ares that's being built near completion, they want it back. can they do that? Or does the base belongs to
1) No one
2) Humanity

What, if you built a base, and imported the floor from Earth (so that part is surely yours) and make that way nobody can use it? "Hey! Don't step on my property!" literally...

Bill White · 2004-02-26 15:13:44

Rxke - IMHO (for what its worth)

If some settlers were able to live without support from Earth (damn hard, at least in the beginning) they could do pretty much whatever they wanted and who could complain - -meaning, so what if Terran commentators complained.

If you need imports from Earth you cannot piss off people who have the ability to interdict those imports. Meaning public relations. Especially with the Pentagon.

Owning Mars will be decided by the deployment of money (to travel to and take possession of land); the sweet talk of lawyers, to persuade governments and the public that your claim is "fair" and guns to ward off those who don't care about being "fair" - - hence the phrase, "Lawyers, guns and money"

Bill White · 2004-02-26 15:27:09

I have a question...
Presume some *private* organisation starts building a fully-fledged base on Mars, using robots...
And somebody 'else' ( government-backed) lands there first, and settles there.
Is that legal? (I doubt it) How do ownershiprules work, interplanetary?
Would a private org. have the 'right' to build there, for starters?

Sorry, Rxke, I go distracted from your original question. Last week a saw a paper about "tele-possession" and "tele-presence" and the remote ownership of asteroids. It was based on a salvage case where robots were used to recover an ancient ship wreck. Who owned the artifacts?

IIRC, it had some good ideas and some weak ones. I will try to find it again.

But the theory seemed based on ideas drawn from the English common law - -which is fine unless your dispute is with a Chinese company. Reading about the Chinese practice of copyright infringement might be helpful.

The Chinese are less persuaded that making a gajillion copies of the new Brittney Spears CDs is either illegal or immoral, except when the US government pressures them with trade sanctions. (A gajillion copies of Brittney Spears CDS is a waste of good plastic, IMHO)

So, someone builds a robot base and before moving in, squatters get there first. Seems to me you would want a UN treaty and the support of the US military (and the EU perhaps) and a lot of favorable public opinion here on Earth to leverage the squatters or at least their Terran supporters.

Otherwise you might need a space Navy and a platoon of space Marines.

DanielCook · 2004-02-26 16:04:13

Well I guess you'll have design in security to "discourage" any potential squatters. (Hey - i come from Southern Africa - I know all about squatters. ) Having a hard coded shutdown signal for live support etc. should do nicely :;):

As for the legal basis: As you rightly pointed out - on Mars someone from from Earth can do very little. I was just pointing out the legal basis applicable here on Terra. As for the Chinese: its intellectual property that they are abusing when they're infringing copyrights, and not actual physical "property". If the Chinese were wholesale stealing physical property it would turn into WWIII very quickly. But since it's only Brittney Spears, no-one cares (except Brittney and the RIAA, off course). Reffering to laws around salvage should also not be applicable, as for something to be regarded as "salvage", it would need to have been abandoned by its initially owner - and I assume you're not abandoning your base.

Off course any company that's still incorporated on Terra, can still be sued on Terra. International law (which would also be applicable in this case) also protects rights of ownership (of the base).

Also noted in the UN agreement is that permission of the signatory states would be required before in-situ resources could be used. This based in the fact that those resources belong to everyone. You would also need to notify the UN of your intention to build your base. The agreement appears to be based on the agreement for the use of the Antartic - case law there (if there is any), or precedent may prove usefull as well to determine the legal status of your Mars base.

Off course you can always incorporate your company in NE Nambabwe, a non-signatory state and not a UN member. Once on mars you declare yourself grand-supreme Pooba and claim ownership.

Rxke · 2004-02-26 16:14:35

Thanks, people...

Ol, so it doesn't look good for private enterprize that want to make a good buck on Mars.

In a way that's very good news (no Haliburton)

in a way that's bad. No market for launchers to Mars...

Ok. One question answered, many more to come.
(Got me a wild 'plan' brewing, and there are still a lot of question marks )

Bill White · 2004-02-26 16:31:11

Thanks, people...
Ol, so it doesn't look good for private enterprize that want to make a good buck on Mars.
In a way that's very good news (no Haliburton)
in a way that's bad. No market for launchers to Mars...
Ok. One question answered, many more to come.
(Got me a wild 'plan' brewing, and there are still a lot of question marks )

Don't you think Haliburton could persuade the US government to back them up? Don't be so quick to write off private enterprise.

Its just a multi-dimensional problem, thats all.

In situ appropriation would be hard to argue with if used for personal survival. Airliners ingest oxygen over international waters and people inhale oxygen standing on Antarctica all the time and no one complains.

Try selling "mined on Mars" material and you will need a Terran sponsor. Preferably a powerful one. But you only need one - USA, EU, China, India, maybe Russia.

= = =

Although I think I saw a paper once saying some folks would sue the USA if we tried MarsDirect. In situ processing of CO2 for rocket fuel was illegal they claimed.

In that case, the best remedy is big boxing gloves.

DanielCook · 2004-02-26 16:53:49

In the end it will come down to how well you market yourself to the world (i.e. you definetly don't want to be seen as a "Haliburton" or ExxonMobil), and how good your lawyers are on Earth (and they must be at least better than anyone that might contest your claim).

All of this is still legally a very grey area - there are no precedents to draw from. So the first person out there will be the one to set the precedent that will be followed by others.

Rxke · 2004-02-26 17:03:08

In situ appropriation would be hard to argue with if used for personal survival. Airliners ingest oxygen over international waters and people inhale oxygen standing on Antarctica all the time and no one complains.
Although I think I saw a paper once saying some folks would sue the USA if we tried MarsDirect. In situ processing of CO2 for rocket fuel was illegal they claimed.

*not* for selling, my question, just using Martian soil and atmosphere for building infrastructure... 'Build off the land' so to speak...

Now there must be a simple yes or no answer to this, but i get confused, reading the different stuff out on the net... Someone, somewhere must'e written a paper on this. (A phd law student or something)

Note: *I* am not too concerned about the ownership issue, not for the first 10-20 years, anybody that lands in that period should be free to take refuge in aforementioned (hypothetical) 'ready-to-use' base... As long as they come in peace for all mankind and all that stuff...
But it must be *very* important for investors...

Hazer · 2004-02-26 20:07:39

When you get down to it, might does make right. Law is only established via force. Any idiot that tried to sue the USA for doing Mars Direct would have not a leg to stand on.

Rxke · 2004-02-27 04:01:26

Yes, Hazer, but i'm thinking about private corps... They can get sued much more easy than a big country...

Grey area... pfffffff. That's really typical for this world, not thinking a bit into the future...

As long as it's grey no one will dare it except some Haliburton type or other pseudo private company... Sheesh.

Bill White · 2004-02-27 09:49:57

When you get down to it, might does make right. Law is only established via force. Any idiot that tried to sue the USA for doing Mars Direct would have not a leg to stand on.

Hazer, what if the lawsuit were brought by Greenpeace or a similiar group and 10 US Senators openly supported the plaintiffs?

Rxke, IMHO there is no "yes" or "no" answer.

I also believe the Treaty of Torsedillas (See wikipedia article - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas ) can provide insight to some of the issues that will arise, though no clear answer.

Note that the Pope played his role as a higher power or arbitrator to settle a Spanish/Portugese dispute. Being left out, the English responded with a denial of the Pope's authority to enact a resolution.

The remaining exploring nations of Europe such as France, England, and the Netherlands were explicitly refused access to the new lands, leaving them only options like piracy, unless they (as they did later) rejected the papal authority to divide undiscovered countries. The view taken by the rulers of these nations is epitomised by the quotation attributed to Francis I of France demanding to be shown the clause in Adam's will excluding his authority from the New World.

= = =

Is there enough profit on Mars to justify President Bush (for example) further annoying the rest of the world for the benefit of Haliburton?

These issues are preciely why the ESA has decided it needs its own GPS system (Galileo) and its own space program. The EU cannot match US space power. The EU + Russia + China? Then its closer.

Soyuz from Kouru is another example of the recognition of these issues.

Rxke · 2004-02-27 10:45:51

Aargh!

:rant: :angry: :rant:

I've been talking with some friends (techies and economics degree.)

I showed them my 'wild plan'... they said it is sane! But i'd get to get the paperwork waterproof.

The basic idea is quite simple: "would you pay 1000-2000$ to have your *own* small robot on Mars?"
If the answer is 'yes' (and another 1000 Mars enhousiast/ schools say the same..) you got your ticket. (Almost)

Given the fact it costs 1000$/pound to launch, *today*, just build a *lot* of cheap$ 'insect' bots that weigh a lot less than a pound each, and sell them off. (Packagedeal: your name and bot on Mars, some pics of them when they arrive etc etc...)
So it costs 1000$ to launch, say 3 bots, but you got 3-6k$ for those bots. Say the actual cost of a bot is 150$, you have a 'profit' of 2-5k$ per pound. With the net profit, you build some additional hardware and launch it all in one go. All on a private-student-volunteers basis... (Buy the plans for airbag lander from USA or UK, some minor testing to be done in the latter case) Highschool-Phd project build the actual hardware, robots could be kits for schools...

Sounds crazy, i know, but it's a bit more involved than this, and been doing a lot of thinking, calculating...and the above-mentioned 'peer-review' makes me kinda confident you could build these bots into small 'labourers' to boot...

Result: A lot of public interest, some meaningful central hardware (like a mini solar-cells factory) and a lot of 'workers' on the surface. And it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg!

Bots would be a cross of a Roomba and a Beambot, nothing fancy, but meaningful for given mission... (collecting silicium/iron, depending on mission)

There'd be a lot of haggling involved, like solar cells on the cheap in return for some publicity, but why not, you have to pay for the 'dead weight of the lander,aeroshell etc...)

To be hones: the figures are waaay too optimistic, payload/deadweight is not good you'd have to ask more for a bot, but i think it could be done, this way. Ask 10k$ and you'll still have people buying them, or groups of people (TeamMars#6 anyone?)
And you could franchise, sell the bots cheaper, to stores, "buy a robot, just like the ones on Mars."

Okay, i'm delusional. Forget it.

DanielCook · 2004-02-27 11:43:26

Nice idea.

How about: instead of selling a bot or some such, sell a (e.g.) $ 1,000 nominal value bond, that pays a nominal interest (say 1%) for the first 10 years. Also try to structure it that its tax free. After 10 years the bond is convertible into ordinary shares, which receives a profit dividend. Try to sell about a million.

Use the capital gained to finance a semi-autonomous builder-bot (would probably be modular - regolith processing plant, builder(s), storage, etc.) (No idea what this would cost, though)

Land your bot in a mineral rich area, and start cooking.

Hazer · 2004-02-27 12:21:02

A private corporation, if it had a self-sustaining Mars base, would be untouchable in a sense. If there is no way to physically challenge the ownership, then all your legal wrangling falls apart.
Self-sustainment is the key to claiming property on Mars.

Rxke · 2004-02-27 12:28:16

DanielCook,...
Thought of that, too, initially But the problem in that case is you have to sell 'vapourware' That's hard to do these times... Gotta get a lot of bonds before you can start building, proving it works...

My idea has 2 advantages:
1)proof-of-concept can be built for very small amount of $ (2,3 cheap bots, central processor) show it off in a low-pressure, temp irradiated etc tank, run simulations what it'do with more bots etc... Good for publicity if you have real working hardware... Get manufacturers enthousiastic to donate hardware (solar cells for the bots are the most costly part)

2)The 'cute' small bots will be irresistable to the wealthy geeks, and science teachers, so i'd figure they'd sell fairly well...

But your system could work in tandem with 'mine': sell bot, and make part of the money a bond (or see the bot as interest i dunno...)

Also with the bots, you could keep contests between uni's to improve upon it, wihin the cost/performance/weight restraints, winner gets 10 bots to Mars for free or similar price etc etc... Let Mark Tilden chime in, he'd be all too happy to be judge... and he has a hue community of bot builders...

And i'm thinking about this in a follow-up, lightweighs and simple approach...
1st lander builds powerhouse, 2nd plugs in, melts iron, 3rd,4th,5th, use that iron to cast 'lego' interconnecting pieces ... slowly, incrementally expanding.
Each consecutive lander is not really complex, so fairly cheap to design, but together they're capable to to something bigger...
Finally, the bots won't last for ages, so schools etc could set up a science class in robotics/manufacturing each year again, and each school buys one or more bots every year...

Hey, i got it all figured out! (ahem, kinda, just kidding)

I said forget it, because i must be overlooking something really obvious... The paperwork, for starters...

clark · 2004-02-27 12:37:22

Communication for starters....

How do you plan to operate all of these dozens of bots on Mars without some type of communication system robust enough to allow complete coverage?

You also only get cheap launches of the bots every 2 years... which kind of runs counter to quarterly profit statements.

What about the cost of ensuring that everything you send (your idea is predicated on sending volume) is sterilized?

Endimenty against catastrophic failure is costly too, of either the rocket or the robot.

Orbital instertion is possible, but look at what NASA is doing- they send multiple robots becuase they assume they're going to fail. How do you set up the system so a failure at any point in a launch dosen't end the prospect for future launches?

Not saying the idea is bad, just that there a few questions you need to address.

DanielCook · 2004-02-27 12:53:01

True. The lack of initial start up cash and the lag time to first touch-down is a problem.

That's why I normally see such an bond issue being done by a company incorporated by the government, who also provide the initial funding (say $500 million).

Companies like Boeing, Lockheed etc. that will benefit from the funds spent by the project, will be "encouraged" to buy large tranches of stock / bonds. (E.g. only companies that hold stock will be considered for contracts. Size of contracts also proportional to investment).

Communication: Make a WiFi-type communications board part of the standard "brain" for each robot. Each robot would then form a node in a communications network, with a number of super-nodes acting as central routers / amplifiers / command & control.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-02-26 12:44:05

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#2 2004-02-26 13:08:28

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#3 2004-02-26 13:22:13

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#4 2004-02-26 14:01:45

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#5 2004-02-26 14:22:43

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#6 2004-02-26 14:25:48

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#7 2004-02-26 14:42:14

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#8 2004-02-26 15:04:35

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#9 2004-02-26 15:06:43

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#10 2004-02-26 15:13:44

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#11 2004-02-26 15:27:09

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#12 2004-02-26 16:04:13

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#13 2004-02-26 16:14:35

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#14 2004-02-26 16:31:11

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#15 2004-02-26 16:53:49

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#16 2004-02-26 17:03:08

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#17 2004-02-26 20:07:39

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#18 2004-02-27 04:01:26

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#19 2004-02-27 09:49:57

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#20 2004-02-27 10:45:51

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#21 2004-02-27 11:43:26

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#22 2004-02-27 12:21:02

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#23 2004-02-27 12:28:16

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#24 2004-02-27 12:37:22

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#25 2004-02-27 12:53:01

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

Board footer