The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

BWhite · 2005-06-06 15:14:38

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.

If Dennis Wingo is correct in his specilation (and he does admit its speculation) perhaps there are chucks or nuggets of PGM bearing asteroids on the lunar surface that can be picked up and processed. No territorial rights needed.

In a similiar fashion, if surface regolith were scraped up and processed for He3, ownershiip of the land would be irrelevant after the fact. Its like sheep grazing on a pasture owned in common.

The sheep own whatever they eat, nothing more.

srmeaney · 2005-06-07 05:27:34

Perhaps the Moon should be declared a territory of a Mars Nation. That would restrict Earth Nations to Earth and make one space dominating nation the sole governing body of all space beyond Earth...

Grypd · 2005-06-07 16:14:50

Perhaps the Moon should be declared a territory of a Mars Nation. That would restrict Earth Nations to Earth and make one space dominating nation the sole governing body of all space beyond Earth...

Hah, No chance of that

srmeaney · 2005-06-08 04:00:09

I don't know gryphd. Moon looks pretty good for a Mars Prison colony ...I mean Embassy, yeah, that it, Embassy...UN Plaza Mk 2: UN City, the Moon.

Big underground city on the Moon with exposed observation domes. And a permanent passenger service moving between the Earth and the Moon...

"If that's UN City, whats that other place over there, huh?" Quick signal to the guards...
"Security, We have a tourist for the special lunar tour."

Grypd · 2005-06-08 16:22:51

I don't know gryphd. Moon looks pretty good for a Mars Prison colony ...I mean Embassy, yeah, that it, Embassy...UN Plaza Mk 2: UN City, the Moon.
Big underground city on the Moon with exposed observation domes. And a permanent passenger service moving between the Earth and the Moon...
"If that's UN City, whats that other place over there, huh?" Quick signal to the guards...
"Security, We have a tourist for the special lunar tour."

Remind you I will of the Author Heinlein and his book the Moon is a harsh mistress of what happens to prison colonies and there eventual freedom. Look at Australia as an example.

clark · 2005-06-09 10:19:41

Look at Australia as an example.

They raise sheep?

Grypd · 2005-06-09 14:22:37

Look at Australia as an example.
They raise sheep?

Australia was a penal colony as well as a normal colony. Eventually it became that the penal settlers when they had served there time made up the core of the colony. Of course since then more normal settlers have occured but the colony was formed with the principle of keeping convicts instead of hanging them.

Thomas Martianson · 2005-06-12 08:42:49

The Solar System; Moon and Mars in particular must be opened to market forces just like everything else if anything meaningful is ever to take place there.

I know that many here are staunchly opposed to the militarization of space, but I think this is an unavoidable fact already. The Keystone of our military supremacy is our orbital assets. Any potential challengers, such as China, will have to challenge us there. That means another arms race. like it or not. With this in mind, it is likely that any future Lunar endeavors will be also be military in nature as there will eventually be so many assets in orbit that Lunar bases for the purposes of building, fueling, launching, and servicing these assets will be logistically favorable. At this point, Interplanetary Imperialism begins, like it or not.

All in all, it is likely that space will be primarily a military domain (Hell, it already is). This is not neccesarily a bad thing. Struggle is the engine of History, always has been, always will be. Militarism has always been the Prime Mover of Technology and later we all get the spin-off benefits. It may well be military spending (which is outside of the normal parameters of supply and demand) that does the trail-blazing and establishes the initial infrastructure that the private sector will be able to utilize later. The best example is WW2. The industrial capacity established for the mass production of war machines and materiel was; after the war, used for the mass production of all the consumer goods that we now enjoy.
Its just the way things are.

Fledi · 2005-06-12 11:19:14

I don't see the strategic value of having a military base on the Moon or further out for a long time. What do you want to defend from there?
As for the earth orbital military assets, the only thing they could do in a large scale conflict is to deny space to everyone because of the debris fields that are much easier to create than some orbital superweapons. But then it is no problem since there would be noone left on Earth after such a war who could think about going to space.
Space a military domain today? Not even spy satellites are just of military use and GPS and meteorogical sats have more civil users than any other. And we haven't talked about space probes, the ISS and basically all manned spacecraft then.
If the space assets are of such a key value, then they do a miserable job at stopping a bunch of Iraqi guerillas armed with kalashnikovs and simple anti tank weapons.
Imperialism in space? The age of imperialism begun more than a 100 years after large scale settlement of America set in (or even more if you look at the Spanish colonies). And the settlement of space can be compared more to that than the African or Asian "colonization" practices of the European powers. Who knows how humans will think in a 100 years, or even just what they will be like with all the tech advances of recent time.
And the only power that was better off industrially after ww2 than before, was the US, because their territory wasn't directly affected by the war. In Europe the whole economy had to be rebuilt after that. Yes, you could say that the rebuilding went on with up to date machines which made the economy more efficient, but I can think of better ways to scrap old machines than a war. If now there would be anything comparable in scale to ww2 the few survivors could begin the rebuilding with stone tools, and that could take a while. No Mars colonies for a long time then.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-28 07:10:24

Move from Lunar carbon thread:

I know we have a thread but will place this here since we are discusing insitu resources.

The 1967 outer space treaty is an issue that will need resolving.
Property rights on the moon

US National Academies of Science will hold a special meeting on Wednesday to clarify the issue. Space Settlement: Homesteading on the Moon will discuss the policy implications of a lunar colony and whether privately funded missions should be allowed to play a role.
Behind the (fake) lunar title deeds for sale over the internet, there is a serious issue. The wonderfully named United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, which governs, well, outer space, is clear.
Its 1967 Outer Space Treaty says no nation can claim ownership of any celestial body (including the moon) and that all nations must agree to their peaceful use.
The UN says that private expeditions count as national activities and are covered by the treaty, which has been signed by all the major players. Lawyers disagreed and a second agreement - the 1979 International Moon Treaty - was drawn up to explicitly ban private ownership of lunar real estate

Is it time to have a meeting to void this law so as to allow for ownership or are there other ways to resolve this...

question of noosfractal:
Extranational entity meaning ? not of this world or of its nations but as a self governing body of individuals from those that live there....

Which sort of puts the UN in the drives seat to start funding off this world (moon, Mars and beyound) and not just LEO missions from any space fairing capable nation. It should as well be setting up a global disaster network of satelites for all nations. But how would they fund such things?

Grypd I agree with you on the UN being very corrupt, and so are most space fairing nations at this time but it leads to the question of what others are there that could fill in for this Extranational then.

Could this be, where those nations that which are considered nuetral would be such or does our interpretation mean a more broader definition of not from this world for who can own beyound earths atmospher.

Is it time to start a new Space federation council to govern these issues?

Much like the UN but where would it resided or who's nation would be willing to host it?

I must apologize John for I am probably the one that got us started down this path by mentioning the outer space treaty and the right to the insitu resources that would allow man to stay, lower costs and possibly launch mankinds steps to beyound. Tapping into the available resource could be viewed as against the treaty though you are planning on mining them for direct lunar mission utlilization with no intent to export then.
Case in contradiction to this is all of the Apollo program sample returns. Does this void the treaty would be my question. So if someone with supper powers wants to move all the text of our dscusions to the appropiate thread please do so.

Edit
Dammed search function for key words moon, treaty, law and others came up empty but I finally did find the thread. I am confused thou since its dating it as a 1979 treaty.
The Moon Treaty of 1979 - Turning Curse into a Blessing

SpaceNut · 2005-10-28 07:41:10

Now that I have the right thread for discusion, her goes.

Josh has an idea of a one way suicide mission, but in esence Josh has give me the thought to how to beat the treaty.

If an individual can and has sufficient funds to purchase the Rocket of choice filled to the brim with what are there choices to aid in survival even if short term. This individual upon landing can renounce his status of nation and of Earth citizenship. This then allows this individual to setup his own nation, starting the very process to get rid of this treaty.

Grypd · 2005-10-28 10:54:35

There is that possibility but for a Nation to be recognised it must also have to be recognised by those other countries or have the ability to be so strong that it can project its force out of its own area to the point you just dont want to mess with it.

A one way mission by a settler will im sure be seen as colonisation and theoretically in the Outer space treaty that is seen as not allowed. Colonisation being defacto an attempt to own a territory by the nation state that the mission originated from.

We just have to admit that that the outer space treaty is totally inadequate and as such when it comes time will be dropped. My only concern is that there is a lot of good stuff in the treaty that will without much needed change be dropped with the rest of the treaty.

I have no hope that the UN will see that the outer space treaty has problems look at the Moon treaty as an example that it is only a law of the sea writ large.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-28 11:02:58

But how many nations would even bother with this theoretical colonist if he or she did start a process of colonization for which the rides are not government sponsored or paid for?

Would these governments even care if I had a cargo of He3 or even just plain old moon rocks to deliver to the highest bidder for having done my own investing?

Grypd · 2005-10-28 11:40:07

But how many nations would even bother with this theoretical colonist if he or she did start a process of colonization for which the rides are not government sponsored or paid for?
Would these governments even care if I had a cargo of He3 or even just plain old moon rocks to deliver to the highest bidder for having done my own investing?

They would bother a lot if they thought it was an attempt to colonise a whole planet, it would appear to them as a rich country getting all the resources and becoming an Empire at there potential expense. They would see it as a Cecil Rhodes attempt.

If you had a cargo of lunar rocks or that of He3 then expect them to want there "fair" share of that material not the profits the actual material. They would likely say it was for "research" but that would of course not be the case.

Grypd · 2005-10-28 13:47:50

There is another alternative that a group of countries get together and create what could best be called a port authority for the Moon with the ability to grant licences and to allow economic utilisation. But since this port authority type of control would require a treaty to allow it to be formed it would in essence overrule the bad bits of the outer space treaty while keeping the bits that are important.

spaceman9000 · 2005-10-28 19:37:24

Ya know, all this 'internationalism' and UN crap makes me sick.
First, we should get out of it and other international organizations, the UN hates even though we're the host country and the only power maintaning it. It would just be an intellectual, socialist organization without USA.
Second, we should privatize NASA and let corporations run the space race, give the era of Hughes and Linbergh return.
Another idea is for the United States to recognize patents for land and resources on the moon and Mars, corporations and new space trade orgnizations could turn those areas into profitable tourist and scientific destinations. Another idea, perhaps a bit futuristic, is Gerard O'Neill's 'Island One' free-floating colonies in orbit at L5, totally privatized of course.
Anyway, about this militarization of space, the investors, owners, and shareholders should have their property/investment protected. Who better then the US military? I mean I'm a strong individualist and hate fascism, but we will need a strong military presence on the Moon to protect the property and the people of the Moon.
The profitability of the moon has been on many occasions overestimated, and underestimated, the normal Zurbinian idea of lunar colonization was motivated by science (optical telescope array) and some industry (He3 mining and some metals. But, findings in the Apollo areas says that the moon lacks several elements we need (like C and N). Meanwhile, O'Neill's idea is that the moon should be mass mined at the industrial level to build the Island One settlement, the other elements could be imported as dirt and other building blocks.
I also say that these early space frontiers will originally settled by who history says likes to settle first: religious minorities (Pilgrims and Mormons), profit-seeking capitalists (Mass. Bay Co. or British East India Co.), and philosophical idealists (republicans, communists, or Ayn Rand Objectivists just to name a few). I'm myself a laiezz-faire libertarian who seeks TRUE economic freedom (from taxes and "social security") social freedom (I hate the pleasue-based culture, I say bring on the science/learning/innovation-based idealistic society of the Renissance) and am fascinated by Mars and the moon. Well, that says my agenda.
Whats yours for colonization?

SpaceNut · 2016-10-08 17:47:02

bump fixing another older topic that relates to the outer space treaty.....

Grypd · 2016-12-08 06:07:38

There has been some changes since we last went through discussions on the Moon and Outer space treaty.
Luxembourg along with some others has put a law through its statute books allowing companies in space to own what they extract.

http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/en/ … ce-law.pdf
Here is space resources copy of the news release

Interestingly it more or less is the beginning of the death knell for both the Moon treaty and the outer space treaty. It will result much sooner rather than later that a revised or new outer space treaty will come out and space resource mining will certainly be there as well as allowing colonisation.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-03-08 10:03:50

For any treaty to have true legal standing, it must be enforceable by the signatories. As a political pragmatist, I simply ignore such a blatant Socialist pile of cow manure as the Moon Treaty, especially since the U.S. never signed on to it. I'm just not a starry eyed idealist; sooner than later, we'll need to get over the treaty prohibiting the introduction of fissionable materials in space. We realistically need Nuclear Reactors for several applications: Nuclear Thermal Rockets, power for ISPP on Mars, and energy for maintenance of a colony; power for lunar exploration/exploitation, and development of the Asteroid belt objects. What NEEDS to happen WILL happen, and no scrap of unenforceable paper will have any bearing on the outcome. Sure---there will be "outcry from those left out."

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-03-08 10:06:27)

Scott Beach · 2017-03-08 10:44:41

Oldfart1939 wrote:

...sooner than later, we'll need to get over the treaty prohibiting the introduction of fissionable materials in space.

Martin Fleischmann and Andrea Rossi have both reported that their "cold fusion" processes can produce up to 200 times as much energy as is used to drive the processes. Stated another way, the "coefficient of performance" (COP) is as high as 200.

We do not need uranium-based nuclear fission processes to develop outer space. However, I would probably not oppose the use of thorium-based fission reactors in space.

Last edited by Scott Beach (2017-03-08 10:45:58)

Terraformer · 2017-03-08 11:06:42

Wasn't Rossi meant to demonstrate a working reactor years ago? Then moved the deadline? Then moved it again? I don't trust his claims.

That said, Strontium has enough power density for bases, if it can be used efficiently enough.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-03-08 14:43:37

I am a strong supporter of Thorium nuclear reactors.

kbd512 · 2017-03-08 21:19:41

Scott,

Uranium is involved in the Thorium fuel cycle. The cycle wouldn't work without it.

1. Thorium-233 (decay)
2. Protactinium-233 (slightly longer decay)
3. Uranium-233 (fission)
4. Thorium-232 (neutron absorption)
5. Thorium-233 (back to where we started; cycle repeats)

Just about every reactor used for power generation uses Uranium. Thorium fueled reactors are not an exception. Small amounts of Uranium are also periodically added and fission products are periodically removed to continue the cycle. It's just a lot easier to add fuel and remove undesirable fission products when the core is molten because it's not necessary to shut down the reactor to do that.

What I think is stupid is the fact that every kilogram of enriched Uranium costs about as much as five kilograms of silver and we're extracting less than five percent of the heat energy that a kilogram of enriched Uranium can produce because we throw the fuel away when we've either accumulated enough fission products to interfere with fission or the fuel elements themselves become damaged from the process. If we actually utilized all the available thermal energy that nuclear fuels can provide, coal / gas / hydroelectric / solar / wind / geothermal are all superfluous for utility grade electrical power generation.

Given the cost associated with using nuclear fuels, Uranium or Thorium, we need to suck every last kilowatt hour of thermal energy out of those fuels. If we do that, then like Kirk said, we're never going to run out. Since we have breeder reactors to make more fuel, there's no excuse for running out of nuclear fuel or expending the energy required to make more when you're not using what you already have.

The Earth receives 173,000 terawatts of solar radiation every day of every year, we only need 1/10,000th of that power at current consumption rates, and we've devised every nitwit scheme imaginable to consume energy sources that kill us when we have this gigantic white hot fusion reactor dumping 9,999 times more energy than we use every single day on our doorstep.

I've no issue with development of fission, cold fusion, hot fusion, solar panels, whatever. That said, if some scientist or inventor out there truly cares about his fellow man, he'll come to terms with the fact that a little heat pump and a few square meters of heat exchange panels would do more to improve the lives of more people in more places on this planet than any other invention since the discovery of hydrocarbon fuels. If you have clean hot and cold water, heat for warmth, and light, you're living in the 20th century. Sadly, many of our fellow humans are not.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-08 23:07:58

Some applications like the fission powered car are not practical, because this requires distributed small nuclear reactors instead of one large centralized one! the possibility of producing nuclear weapons from the fuel limits the potential of atomic fission to that which the government would allow. Government is forced to partner to electric utilities in order to safeguard the weapons grade fissionables that are produced by the nuclear reactor. Solar panels don't have this problem.

kbd512 · 2017-03-09 06:50:24

Tom,

Cars don't need fission reactors. Cars can use batteries and electric motors. Nuclear power plants extracting closer to 100% of the heat from radioactive decay to produce electricity can literally take over utility electrical power production. Thorium-fueled reactors, complete with turbines to produce electricity, can be the size of a school bus (reactor vessel) with a garage on top (turbine room). There's no need for enormous cooling towers or enormous steel reinforced concrete domes to contain hydrogen explosions. The entire reactor and turbine could be buried in the ground and the concrete atop the structure could be the parking lot for the plant's operators, of which you'd need far fewer given the gross simplification that liquid fueled reactors permit. The coal, gas, geothermal, solar, solid fuel fission, and wind turbine power plants are relics of a bygone era. All the Uranium and Thorium reserves we presently have are sufficient to provide power for everyone on this planet.

ITER is project to cost $20B, although that could easily double to $40B, and won't produce any electrical power. If it works, then a 500MW plant called DEMO is supposed to produce 500MW in another couple decades or so. For $20B, the Europeans could have had 25GW of installed power and for $40B, 50GW of installed power. France's peak electrical power demand is something like $100GWe, so that's enough money to purchase enough Thorium reactors to power half the country. I sure hope this star in a bottle thing pans out.

All we need to do is switch from 1950's nuclear reactor technology developed for propulsion of naval vessels to 1970's nuclear reactor technology developed for production of utility electrical power. That would be the route we would go if we're intent on using nuclear power. As previously stated, a simple atmospheric heat pump would literally change the world insofar as humanity is concerned.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-06-06 15:14:38

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

#27 2005-06-07 05:27:34

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

#28 2005-06-07 16:14:50

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

#29 2005-06-08 04:00:09

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

#30 2005-06-08 16:22:51

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

#31 2005-06-09 10:19:41

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

#32 2005-06-09 14:22:37

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

#33 2005-06-12 08:42:49

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

#34 2005-06-12 11:19:14

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

#35 2005-10-28 07:10:24

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

#36 2005-10-28 07:41:10

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

#37 2005-10-28 10:54:35

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

#38 2005-10-28 11:02:58

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

#39 2005-10-28 11:40:07

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

#40 2005-10-28 13:47:50

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

#41 2005-10-28 19:37:24

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

#42 2016-10-08 17:47:02

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

#43 2016-12-08 06:07:38

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

#44 2017-03-08 10:03:50

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

#45 2017-03-08 10:44:41

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

#46 2017-03-08 11:06:42

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

#47 2017-03-08 14:43:37

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

#48 2017-03-08 21:19:41

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

#49 2017-03-08 23:07:58

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

#50 2017-03-09 06:50:24

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

Board footer