The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

Scott G. Beach · 2004-08-16 15:44:02

The Moon Treaty of 1979 is widely regarded as an impediment to space development efforts. However, I believe that the Moon Treaty could be transformed into an instrument that promotes space development.

The Moon Treaty provides for the eventual establishment of an international regime to govern the exploitation of lunar resources. The United States could offer to approve the Moon Treaty on the condition that the international regime is established now and that the regime adopts a set of laws that allow the private ownership of lunar land and resources.

Is this a good idea?

clark · 2004-08-16 15:54:51

. The United States could offer to approve the Moon Treaty on the condition that the international regime is established now and that the regime adopts a set of laws that allow the private ownership of lunar land and resources.

Only those who can get there, which means the industrilized nations, would be able to access the Moon and reap any kind of benefit. How does the Moon treaty create equity among the majority of the human race who have no hope of ever getting up there?

Plus, there is a lot of science still to be done up there- I doubt that those concerns will be respected much if everyone is looking to make a buck up there... we're not ready, and what's the rush?

Trebuchet · 2004-08-16 18:12:21

The US never signed onto the Moon Treaty of 1979, and, to be honest, if we had signed that it would be a treaty that W would hopefully feed through the shredder. It has no redeeming features whatsoever; happily, though, only nations that have no chance have signed on. The spacefaring nations have always recognized it as a stupid move.

Scott G. Beach · 2004-08-16 18:54:37

Clark:

You asked, "How does the Moon treaty create equity...?" The Moon Treaty was not designed to create equity (an equal ability of nations to exploit lunar resources). Small and less developed nations could join together to establish companies that do have sufficient capital to exploit lunar resources. The European Space Agency is an example of a group of nations joining together to reach into space.

Scott G. Beach · 2004-08-16 19:31:17

Trebuchet:

You have asserted that the Moon Treaty "has no redeeming features whatsoever." Please take notice of the fact that the Moon Treaty allows for the possibility of "legal norms" being established for Mars and other celestial bodies. Such norms could provide for the establishment of municipal (city) governments and the adoption of ordinances that allow the private ownership of Martian resources. I have provided an example of such norms in the form of a "Constitution of the Provisional Government of Mars." That example is posted on the web at http://www.geocities.com/scott956282743 … ngmars.htm

I agree that the Moon Treaty constitutes an impediment to the development of extraterrestrial resources. However, that treaty is a part of the current political landscape. I have proposed a way of revising that treaty so that it can provide a foundation for private enterprise. Please try to look past the treaty as it is (a curse) to a revised treaty that will promote space development (a blessing).

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-18 09:29:54

I have proposed a way of revising that treaty so that it can provide a foundation for private enterprise. Please try to look past the treaty as it is (a curse) to a revised treaty that will promote space development (a blessing).

All well and good, but as the US is not a signatory to that treaty we can simply make our own laws for dealing with off-world property rights (legal norms if you will) and act accordingly. Possession is 9/10 of the law as they say, so if we have our own laws and we're on the Moon, the Moon Treaty is meaningless. Signing it in order to change it seems a rather masochistic exercise.

Grypd · 2004-08-18 09:40:09

Cobra but the United states is a signatory to the Outer space treaty and it is quite emphatic that no one owns space it is a resource for all mankind and can not be claimed by any country. The US is actually one of the sponsors of the treaty and it suited the US goverment then. I know that private organisations and companies have claimed various celestial bodies and sold portions of them to various people as novelty gifts but these can not be taken seriously. In Scotland a solicitor to prove how ridiculous that portion of the outer space treaty is claimed the Sun and states we all owe him a few billion years of energy fees.

The only way that space can be exploited for all mankind is to revize the outer space treaty. There are some very good points in it, ie licensing of space missions and stating space orbits and all material launched by a nation belong to that nation. But the treaty on ownership has to be revized or someone will simply withdraw from it and it will be a dead treaty as others quickly follow suit.

Commodore · 2004-08-27 13:07:26

I'd say that the outer space and moon treaties were established to prevent either Cold War advarsaries from using space and its resources to gain to much of an advantage over the other.

Given that that environment no longer exist, and that both the leading aerospace nations would profit from such changes, I'd bet that the required changes could be made.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-26 06:22:45

Though this thread has been in active with regards to discusion about the treaty it however has not been out of mind from my reviewing of some more recent threads. The president is considering whether to continue U.S. participation in an international treaty banning nuclear weapons in space. This is all well and dandy if it were still a cold war world but it is not and it is hindering the ownership of space property that could fund future missions and spur on colonization in the long run.

Bush administration may rethink space treaty

Martian Republic · 2004-10-26 09:47:15

I'm absolutly against weaponization of space past where it at right now.

As far ownership of the Moon, Mars, Asteriods, or space station. There needs to be a limited claim or ownership policy of portion of the Moon, Mars or Asteriods among the participants, but have it a general open city or towns for all nation on those places, but with property rights for those that choose to settle there. After a civilization has been setup on either the moon or Mars, then they should have full right to self-determination and be soveriegn and aloud to deturmine there own future.

I can see no other way around the problem. If you don't give at least a limited property rights, there no reason to develop the moon, Mars or the Asteroids. This would also have to enclude individual countries too on property rights or groups of countries to develop section of the Moon or Mars or individual Asteroids. Because any serious attempt to colonize space is going to be a combination of soveriegn nationstate with control over there own money supply with the private individuals and corporation working together to accomplish that mission.

When ever you internationalize something and take out these boundaries out, the you remove any purpose for developing the Moon or Mars. Like if you were President of the United States and you could build a super train/subway system, you would build down here inside the United States to make the United States more properous. You probably would not choose to build one on the Moon, because it would not serve that purpose. But, if you owned part of the Moon or had authority over it, you would also consider building super train, subway system on the Moon too. That means that you would also have to build a space port for lunar shuttles, which would also mean manufacturing, hydroponic gardens, nuclear power plants.

With out that type of authority or control, there would be not reason to develop the moon or Mars past doing scientific work of exploring or doing a resource grab, because you don't own it and you have nothing if you do more than that. You will basically have no reason to develop the moon or mars.

So it looks like we are in a real fix past doing what we doing right now.

Any suggestion for those of you that don't like national claims on the Moon or Mars to accomplish developing those bodies?

I can't see an alternative to it. I'm not going into debt to build something for you and recieve no benifit out of it. Now I might go into debt to build something for me and to my benifit. This basically the situation we going to be running into when we try and develop the Moon or Mars.

I don't like Imperialism, so we are going to have to negotiate with other countries to work out an agreement so we can develop the moon and Mars and do it in a way that everybody benifits, but doesn't block our efforts to develop space for future civilization.

Larry,

Leifur · 2004-12-19 18:09:29

What kind of an international body should have oversight over the Moon? And would that not be dangerous, considering the possibility of the Moon becoming the powerhouse of the far future, a single lunar wide city (like koruscant in Star Wars) with billions of people, having a strategic position to launch every single country in our world.

Of course I am extrapolating here, but I could beliewe that to be a plausible role of the moon for human society, as future home for hell of a lot of people. Of course every house (apartment) would need to be sealed, but as many people´s habitats are very unnatural, pawements, apartment buildings and shopping malls it is not unlikely people will be able to get used to living in completely artifical environment as the moon, specially if there are a few gardens in domed craters f.e. or on top of houses.

I don´t think there is any limit on how many people are going to be able to live on this mega city, provided that we can feed them all. That won´t be a trouble when we have terraformed Mars and Venus, and made technical advantages in greenhouse productions and similar technologie, even synthesized foods. But a beginning of a lunar city could be around the corner. Lets just hope it won´t be under any international body, but consisting of free people.

Grypd · 2004-12-19 19:37:07

I have been giving the Moon treaty and the outer space treaty some serious thought, and this is what I have sort of come up with.

1) The Moon treaty is a dead treaty and as such can really be ignored, no one of worth ratified it.

2) The outer space treaty in its limitations and its expectations can and will be manipulated to a good degree while staying within the letter of the law but certainly not the spirit.
an example

The outer space treaty clearly states that no nation may claim a body in space. It does say though that space is for the use of all mankind and that any nations spacecraft etc may not be interfered with or that an experiment that could so do so must be stopped.

So if you are mining on the Moon for example you have the case that you are using space for the advancement of mankind. Your mine or area of mining could be classed as your property as it is what you are working on and as such no other state may interfere or obstruct the mining you are so doing.

Very simply expressed but it does tend to show that the outer space treaty is really only a set of principles which can really be ignored. So this means there are no real stops to exploitation of space resources apart from cost and will.

Leifur · 2004-12-19 19:41:26

Yeah, all we need is a cheap way to get to space, and the final frontier (at least our solar system) lies open for us. It is time those Scramjets come..

Commodore · 2004-12-20 21:10:13

What kind of an international body should have oversight over the Moon? And would that not be dangerous, considering the possibility of the Moon becoming the powerhouse of the far future, a single lunar wide city (like Coruscant in Star Wars) with billions of people, having a strategic position to launch every single country in our world.

If your thinking that far ahead, I must say that politically were headed towards a Star Trek like "Federation". Nations of Earth will eventually unite under a world goverment, and that will solve the territorial issues. Land and property ownership with operate exactly like it does now.

Hopefully we will spread across the cosmos as a species.

Leifur · 2004-12-22 09:43:34

If your thinking that far ahead, I must say that politically were headed towards a Star Trek like "Federation". Nations of Earth will eventually unite under a world goverment, and that will solve the territorial issues. Land and property ownership with operate exactly like it does now.
Hopefully we will spread across the cosmos as a species.

Yes, I hope so too, but that will not happen unless there is a healthy competition between various nations, and groups. Having a single world government is dangerous as it will turn inwards, on itself, not outwards, that is the danger.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-22 12:20:48

Having a single world government is dangerous as it will turn inwards, on itself, not outwards, that is the danger.

Quite true. It's an oft overlooked reality that human progress is tied to conflict, to some manner of opposition (not necessarily of a militaristic nature) between groups of humans.

We won't be ready to accept a world government and pan-human brotherhood until the day we meet some other sentient species.

So in a way, treaties that hinder space development actually prolong the era of conflict amongst ourselves.

Martian Republic · 2004-12-30 13:01:56

If your thinking that far ahead, I must say that politically were headed towards a Star Trek like "Federation". Nations of Earth will eventually unite under a world goverment, and that will solve the territorial issues. Land and property ownership with operate exactly like it does now.
Hopefully we will spread across the cosmos as a species.
Yes, I hope so too, but that will not happen unless there is a healthy competition between various nations, and groups. Having a single world government is dangerous as it will turn inwards, on itself, not outwards, that is the danger.

There more than one way to look at this problem. If the people that are making the decision have a Republican Concept of Government and the Idea of wealth being a creative process of the general population and anything that promotes increase productive process of those individuals along with a creative spark to invent and promote society, then I don't agree with you. But, if are dealing with an Oligarch with an Imperial mind set with wealth being tangible goods and services to be grasp and the general population are just instruments for obtaining that wealth, then I would agree with you. Not only that, the is also what causes Imperial wars between those Imperial powers, beside there desire to stifle technological development too.

That one of the reason for going into space and that to break this stagnation of the physical economy and promote technological development both on earth and in space at the same time.

Larry,

Leifur · 2004-12-30 19:20:53

Even if it was a global democratic republic, I would newer accept loosing our hard won independence. Specially as the democratic ideal is not very rich in most part of the world, thus the danger of it sliding back towards strong central power.

But I agree that this is the very ideal behind going into space, but in addition I am convinced that it will have to be done by using and allowing market forces to do it freely withouth government interference, thus creating wealth and technolocigal advances in abundance. So Martian Republic, I would not want there to be a martian republic, except in name only, but an anarco-capitalistic system of individualism, that system could promote the growth that is needed to make Mars a future home for humans.

Martian Republic · 2004-12-30 21:08:42

Even if it was a global democratic republic, I would newer accept loosing our hard won independence. Specially as the democratic ideal is not very rich in most part of the world, thus the danger of it sliding back towards strong central power.
But I agree that this is the very ideal behind going into space, but in addition I am convinced that it will have to be done by using and allowing market forces to do it freely withouth government interference, thus creating wealth and technolocigal advances in abundance. So Martian Republic, I would not want there to be a martian republic, except in name only, but an anarco-capitalistic system of individualism, that system could promote the growth that is needed to make Mars a future home for humans.

Basically what your preaching is British Colonialism which the thirteen colonies rebelled against and formed the United States. Which is basically what George Bush is doing in Iraq, which is to secure the oil in that country and we calling it the Free Market System, which is a recycled British economic system that been progressively taking over the United State over the last hundred years or so with the introduction of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The only way to do it, is to setup a constitutional Republic with checks and balances or otherwise we will have people like the Rockefellow and Rothschilds making the rules and calling it the Free Market System. There is not such thing as a Free Market System, but in name only. The fact of the matter is, it is either dictated by the government or by these thugs called the Rothschilds, the Rockefellows along with the rest of those Oligarchs, Bankers, Wall Street and the City of old London and called the Free Market System. That what most people don't understand. Space development or lack of space development will not be dictated by the market forces, but by who controls the government and money supply and what there agenda is and there concept of what wealth is. If the Rockefellows and the Rothschilds control the government and the money supply, there no reason to develop space or to go out there. But, If the U.S. Government and world government at large have people like Abraham Lincoln, FDR or a John F. Kennedy as in control with there view of man and what wealth is, then we will choose to go into space, because that who they are and what they will do. Abraham signed the transcontinental Rail Road Act to built the rail Road across the United States in 1862 in the middle of the Civil War, FDR built dams, power plants, JFK sent us to the moon on a great Government Enterprise. The reason that the government does that or there logic for doing that was for the purpose of developing technology, building infrastructure, generating wealth and creating business activities so we could have a prosperous country. The only thing that this Free Market System has ever done was to steal from people and from other countries and if they can't do it economically or force them to comply by threats, they invade that country like George Bush did to Iraq.

I have one question to ask you.

If this Free Market System is so good, then why do either the British in the past and the American today have to impose this trading at gun point to force other country to trade with us or we will invade there country?

Larry,

Leifur · 2005-01-03 18:52:04

Please do not put words in my mouth. I am not sure if you saw what I wrote earlier, but that thread disapeared because of unknown reasons. What makes the old british system so appaling was exactly what I am talking against, joining of a strong government with the market forces. The american revolution was exactly about getting rid of government interference, taxes, merkantilism and other kinds of central planning and beurocracy, remember the Boston tea party.

What I am talking about is a total lack of government, no executional power and thus a complete freedom for the entrepreunal powers of the individual. And that is what we need, not some heavy handed government tactics, wich will not give us any end results, like the appalo program.

Such a waste, abandoning the moon would newer have been justifiable by a shareholders company, but as there was only an political goal, that is exactly what happened. And we can not have the same situation happen with Mars, we sending there a mission, landing and then abandoning it for decades. It is completely obvious that the market forces are far stronger than any government, even all of them together, and thus it is neccasery to get people with money, and more importantly people who are willing to invest their lives works into making Mars a future home for human kind.

About the british and americans (in Japan) making other nations trade with them at gunpoint it is unfortunateand immoral, but most often was it about the elite of thouse countries beeing afraid of changes and thus not willing to allow the people to trade freely with others, and they not getting anything, or like in Africa a total stealing of natural resources, that is not trade.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-12 10:15:29

A deeper look into space law

In calling for manned missions to the moon and beyond, President Bush suggested mining the moon's soil for "rocket fuel and breathable air" to supply those missions.

Mineral rights or is only the ownership of what is made from the raw insitu resources that count?

BWhite · 2005-04-12 11:13:21

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/sp … law_x.htm] A deeper look into space law
In calling for manned missions to the moon and beyond, President Bush suggested mining the moon's soil for "rocket fuel and breathable air" to supply those missions.
Mineral rights or is only the ownership of what is made from the raw insitu resources that count?

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty allows "exploiting resources without properly owning the 'real estate' underlying it". . ."i

No one can claim ownership of land. Anyone can mine and sell whatever they mine and ship off the moon or asteroid.

Maybe its sort of like making a catch in baseball. Once you transfer the ball from the glove to the free hand, its yours.

Edited By BWhite on 1113326023

srmeaney · 2005-04-12 18:34:20

Fine, Moon mining Inc it is. Every one gets a share in the company, let the Stockmarket trading begin. Eventually the Moon mineral rights will be owned by a few. but they will be shareholders of the Company.

As long as we specify that none of the Minerals are to come anywhere near the earth and that they are to leave in place a colony infrastructure that will last forever when they abandon the Lifeless resource drained moon (ie- remnant asteroid) when they are done, they can process and refine all the moon dust they want.

That way we can be certain of the trade of the people who go: Miners. the Working Class.

Grypd · 2005-04-13 04:05:14

Fine, Moon mining Inc it is. Every one gets a share in the company, let the Stockmarket trading begin. Eventually the Moon mineral rights will be owned by a few. but they will be shareholders of the Company.
As long as we specify that none of the Minerals are to come anywhere near the earth and that they are to leave in place a colony infrastructure that will last forever when they abandon the Lifeless resource drained moon (ie- remnant asteroid) when they are done, they can process and refine all the moon dust they want.
That way we can be certain of the trade of the people who go: Miners. the Working Class.

You read the treaty wrong there Srmeaney, You may mine the Moon and you can have a company mining the materials but You do not own the rights to mine the minerals and nor can you sell the right to mine. Therefore mineral rights are a no goer. And one other thing these minerals you mine you may not still own as they if treated like the law of the Ocean are the property of all mankind.This latter view depends on test cases which im sure will be brought up in the world court.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-06 11:07:30

Dividing up the spoils

We can go for the tourism but there is little or no profit to be made. We can go to explore and do the science of discovery but again there is no profit. We can go to colonize but how do you pay for resupplies.

So unless the land is owned then there is no reason to stay for anything other than we could say that we can do so and a few footprint or a flag or two but little else.

So how can we make space profitable if you can not own...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-16 15:44:02

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#2 2004-08-16 15:54:51

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#3 2004-08-16 18:12:21

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#4 2004-08-16 18:54:37

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#5 2004-08-16 19:31:17

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#6 2004-08-18 09:29:54

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#7 2004-08-18 09:40:09

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#8 2004-08-27 13:07:26

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#9 2004-10-26 06:22:45

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#10 2004-10-26 09:47:15

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#11 2004-12-19 18:09:29

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#12 2004-12-19 19:37:07

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#13 2004-12-19 19:41:26

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#14 2004-12-20 21:10:13

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#15 2004-12-22 09:43:34

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#16 2004-12-22 12:20:48

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#17 2004-12-30 13:01:56

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#18 2004-12-30 19:20:53

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#19 2004-12-30 21:08:42

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#20 2005-01-03 18:52:04

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#21 2005-04-12 10:15:29

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#22 2005-04-12 11:13:21

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#23 2005-04-12 18:34:20

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#24 2005-04-13 04:05:14

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

#25 2005-06-06 11:07:30

Re: The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

Board footer