Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

John Creighton · 2005-11-28 09:22:39

Okay, let me simplify.
Exploitation of space for private gain is unacceptable.

You still used the word exploitation which has the problems I described above. Also the notion that people shouldn’t benefit from there activities is ridiculous.

BWhite · 2005-11-28 09:44:13

Okay, let me simplify.
Exploitation of space for private gain is unacceptable.

There are a great many things I find unacceptable that seem to happen anyway.

Cobra Commander · 2005-11-28 10:08:06

Why should exploration and exploitation be considered mutally exclusive? Without exploration you don't don't what's there to exploit. Exploration without exploitation is simply self-indulgence of curiosity on the part of a few at public expense. Either extreme is an indefensible position.

Explore and exploit along the way. Take what we need to keep going and if some folks make a buck on the way, just as well.

BWhite · 2005-11-28 10:31:00

The value of extracted resources will reduce or depress the comodity markets, thereby reducing the value of labor, according to your own analysis.
Labor is largely automated and specialized for space exploitation. Very few will benefit for the investment costs needed.
If there are no trillion dollar asteroids, what's the draw for investment to begin with? Space exploitation is looking at the bottom line. It has the wrong motivations and hasn't the legs to invest in something that requires a longer view.

Wrong.

Lower prices for extracted materials means an hour of labor will buy more stuff, not less.

Catalytic converters coats between $100 & $150 and require platinum. If PGMs are returned to Earth and the price falls from $960 per ounce to $320 per ounce, a new car will "cost" $50 - $100 less, stretching everyone's paycheck.

PGM catalysts will allow more energy to be extracted from a gallon of gasoline meaning more useful value from the same barrel of petroleum.

BWhite · 2005-11-28 10:33:16

Why should exploration and exploitation be considered mutally exclusive? Without exploration you don't don't what's there to exploit. Exploration without exploitation is simply self-indulgence of curiosity on the part of a few at public expense. Either extreme is an indefensible position.

Me-thinks clark's been nipping at the Rousseau again. Money is evil and all that.

clark · 2005-11-28 11:12:39

You still used the word exploitation which has the problems I described above. Also the notion that people shouldn’t benefit from there activities is ridiculous.

Okay, I shall not use the “E” word.

The private utilization, development, or manipulation of extraterrestrial resources is an abrogation of the currently held agreement that space resources exist within the common trust, and cannot be claimed by any single entity for private gain. To reverse this agreement is to deny the opportunity and equality of benefit from the utilization of these resources for all mankind for the profit of one or few smaller sub-groups of humanity.

It is illogical to expect that those who have an equal claim to the potential value of the resources of heaven would willingly give up their share on the claim because they are limited in their ability to access it. Yet this illogical fallacy, peddled by those who seek to appropriate the extraterrestrial resources for their own personal use and profit, glibly ignore this fundamental reality.

There is an arrogance of power, engendered by current capability, that assumes that those with the power to access or manipulate a given commodity have a greater claim than those who do not seek, or are currently unable, to develop a given resource to a perceived potential. This is a failure of wisdom and rational thought, usually the result of greed or the eternal quid pro quo’s that seeks to establish or maintain a status quo.

In every single “legitimate” space development plan, there is no consideration or respect of the common and equal right of all peoples to benefit from the utilization of space based resources. It is a misconception to believe that charity, or the trickle down effect of philosopher magnates will somehow act as a reasonable and responsible system for the equal redistribution of the potential wealth. To suppose so is to suppose that people less enabled to maximize the potential of space will somehow be satisfied with accepting only what is given to them, yet have no say in determining what and how it is given to them. This system, in effect, makes second class citizens of every other person to unfortunate to have the current opportunity afforded the more affluent. It in effect maintains the dominance and affluence of the wealthy elite in perpetuity without actually promising to better those less fortunate with new opportunity.

Of course the argument goes, “but it will lift them up,” which is nothing more than a lie sold over the counter like any lottery ticket sold to the ignorant and poor.

But I am not surprised given the mutual affinity of some in the basis of their motivations- on the one hand, the liberal pinko declaring defacto ownership of the heavens as an inherent price to pay, and on the other, a better-red-than-dead neo-imperialists outwardly declaring the ownership of the heavens as an inevitable reality.

Me-thinks clark's been nipping at the Rousseau again. Money is evil and all that.

The only think I am getting high on is your flaming B*S*.

BWhite · 2005-11-28 11:19:35

The private utilization, development, or manipulation of extraterrestrial resources is an abrogation of the currently held agreement that space resources exist within the common trust, and cannot be claimed by any single entity for private gain.

That is in the Moon Treaty, very sparsely ratified. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 says no such thing.

No government can assert sovereign power over celestial objects. No government can claim soveriegnty over the oceans either, but catching and selling fish is perfectly legal.

Prudence would dictate that any lunar mining operation find a way to include many nations, India and China to be sure, and others to diffuse arguments such as these.

clark · 2005-11-28 11:28:53

No government can assert sovereign power over celestial objects. No government can claim soverignty over the oceans either, but catching and selling fish is perfectly legal.
Prudence would dictate that any lunar mining operation find a way to include many nations, India and China to be sure, and others to diffuse arguments such as these.

No individual can claim ownership of property without the recognition of a sovereign nation. A sovereign nation recognizing such a claim makes the claim subject to the national laws of that state, imbued with the rights and restrictions inherent in the property laws of that nation.

At the basis of all property law, in all sovereign nations, is the presupposition that the State has the right to take control of the property from the individual. This right supersedes all other claims and rights related to the property.

In effect, an individual claiming ownership of a piece of the heavens, which is then recognized by a State, would be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty.

Which is precisely why no State can recognize any commercial or private claim on space based resources.

BWhite · 2005-11-28 11:34:31

In effect, an individual claiming ownership of a piece of the heavens, which is then recognized by a State, would be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty.

This question has yet to be answered. Rousseau of all people described (accurately IMHO) how it started. Someone built a fence and said this is mine.

Besides, why do you need state recognition, or permission, to mine the asteroids?

= = =

States don't need to give permission; merely look the other way.

BWhite · 2005-11-28 11:38:04

No government can assert sovereign power over celestial objects. No government can claim soverignty over the oceans either, but catching and selling fish is perfectly legal.
Prudence would dictate that any lunar mining operation find a way to include many nations, India and China to be sure, and others to diffuse arguments such as these.
No individual can claim ownership of property without the recognition of a sovereign nation. A sovereign nation recognizing such a claim makes the claim subject to the national laws of that state, imbued with the rights and restrictions inherent in the property laws of that nation.
At the basis of all property law, in all sovereign nations, is the presupposition that the State has the right to take control of the property from the individual. This right supersedes all other claims and rights related to the property.
In effect, an individual claiming ownership of a piece of the heavens, which is then recognized by a State, would be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty.
Which is precisely why no State can recognize any commercial or private claim on space based resources.

To answer in greater detail, many "space lawyers" agree with you and say a property rights regime must be affirmatively enacted before mining can occur and yes, that would be an extension of sovereignty and a violation of the current Outer Space Treaty.

However, if someone brought back PGMs and sold them, why do they need permission from anyone? Extra-legal and illegal are not the same thing.

The "non-interference clause" in the Outer Space Treaty already prohibits claim jumping and once (if) a court rules than space harvested resources are like fish caught in international waters those metals can be owned even if ownership of the underlying asteroid or acre of lunar real esttae remains unrecognized.

John Creighton · 2005-11-28 11:40:53

In my opinion the moon treaty is pretty much nonsense. How can the moon server any benefit if none of the resources on the moon are ever owned or used. Perhaps you reject the notion of those who get there first should have a greater claim but at least it has historical precedents in that the people who settle the land are the ones that eventually claim ownership of part of the land and resources. Also allowing people who innovate to have greater ownership over the fruits of there innovation has been the basis of patent law and without such laws a large part of cooperate research wouldn’t exist or would have to be entirely government funded.

clark · 2005-11-28 11:54:06

Besides, why do you need state recognition, or permission, to mine the asteroids?

You don’t.

You need State recognition, or permission, to sell the minerals of the asteroids.

The State controls and regulates the Market Place, becoming the arbiter and guarantor of transactions between individuals within its sphere of influence.

States cannot look the other way without recognizing the trades occurring. If they do not recognize the trades, it undermines the States legitimacy and control of the Market Place.

I didn’t read Rousseau, I applied it.

The "non-interference clause" in the Outer Space Treaty already prohibits claim jumping and once (if) a court rules than space harvested resources are like fish caught in international waters those metals can be owned even if ownership of the underlying asteroid or acre of lunar real esttae remains unrecognized.

Precedent is against you. By the same token, we could mine Antarctica. The treaty governing Antarctica is in large part the reason we have the space treaties we do have. It is fundamentally the same thing.

John Creighton · 2005-11-28 11:59:30

Precedent is against you. By the same token, we could mine Antarctica. The treaty governing Antarctica is in large part the reason we have the space treaties we do have. It is fundamentally the same thing.

I really don’t know why we can’t.

BWhite · 2005-11-28 12:01:25

Besides, why do you need state recognition, or permission, to mine the asteroids?
You don’t.
You need State recognition, or permission, to sell the minerals of the asteroids.

How many nations have statutes that permit deep sea fishing? Or say that deep sea fishing is illegal except for state authorization? For many nations that right is presumed to belong to individuals without being expressly articulated.

That which is not illegal is deemed permitted. Once I possess PGMs in my vault on Earth, my ownership is superior to anyone else's ownership unless new laws are passed.

Recall that in my book opponents of lunar mining propose to pass a law making it illegal for a U.S. citizen to posses lunar platinum. That might be consitutional, even if foolish. But if Bermuda or the U.K. decline to pass such laws, the U.S. has no jurisdiction within those nations or basis to protest.

Bill: The "non-interference clause" in the Outer Space Treaty already prohibits claim jumping and once (if) a court rules than space harvested resources are like fish caught in international waters those metals can be owned even if ownership of the underlying asteroid or acre of lunar real esttae remains unrecognized.
clark: Precedent is against you. By the same token, we could mine Antarctica. The treaty governing Antarctica is in large part the reason we have the space treaties we do have. It is fundamentally the same thing.

Mining Antartica is prohibited by affirmative treaty. The Moon Treaty includes similar language but has not been widely ratified.

Rejection of the Moon Treaty by many nations is itself rejection of your argument.

BWhite · 2005-11-28 12:03:56

Precedent is against you. By the same token, we could mine Antarctica. The treaty governing Antarctica is in large part the reason we have the space treaties we do have. It is fundamentally the same thing.
I really don’t know why we can’t.

Because the President and Congress approved a treaty saying we can't.

The U.S. did not ratify the Moon Treaty and thus by implication rejected application of the Antarctic Treaty provisions to lunar and asteroidal resources.

clark · 2005-11-28 12:30:18

Mining Antartica is prohibited by affirmative treaty. The Moon Treaty includes similar language but has not been widely ratified.
Rejection of the Moon Treaty by many nations is itself rejection of your argument.

Non-ratification of the treaty and rejection of the treaty outright are two seperate things, do not try to equate the non-ratification as evidence of rejection of the treaty, or support for your point of view.

LEO and GEO slotted sat positions are current examples of property rights in space.

This all should further demonstrate that relying on space exploitation or private development is a red-herring. No one in their right mind will invest billions on some scheme that doesn't deal with settled law. There is a big questions mark, with lots of "ifs", "maybe's", and unknowns. Too many to gamble on.

Besides, even if someone did want to gamble on it, it is the wrong way to go, and the wrong way to do it.

BWhite · 2005-11-28 12:35:14

Mining Antartica is prohibited by affirmative treaty. The Moon Treaty includes similar language but has not been widely ratified.
Rejection of the Moon Treaty by many nations is itself rejection of your argument.
Non-ratification of the treaty and rejection of the treaty outright are two seperate things, do not try to equate the non-ratification as evidence of rejection of the treaty, or support for your point of view.
LEO and GEO slotted sat positions are current examples of property rights in space.
This all should further demonstrate that relying on space exploitation or private development is a red-herring. No one in their right mind will invest billions on some scheme that doesn't deal with settled law. There is a big questions mark, with lots of "ifs", "maybe's", and unknowns. Too many to gamble on.
Besides, even if someone did want to gamble on it, it is the wrong way to go, and the wrong way to do it.

Which is precisely why media rights and brand value are secure avenues of profit for the private sector to exploit. No one can challenge ownership of video tape and well established trademark protections currently exist globally.

Heh! Since the entire Terran platinum market is $7 billion per year (the US blue jean market is $15 billion) maybe folks can make money bringing back PGM and giving it away for free and making up the difference selling branded consumer goods.

clark · 2005-11-28 12:43:21

Heh! Since the entire Terran platinum market is $7 billion per year (the US blue jean market is $15 billion) maybe folks can make money bringing back PGM and giving it away for free and making up the difference selling branded consumer goods.

Or…

An investor can take that same billion, buy himself 1,000 Usher’s, and market the hell out of the 100 that become pop sensations. When that “latest and greatest” is a has-been, pull the label off the jeans, and slap on the current celeb-du-jour.

Space, you only have one act to work with.

This is why I continually point out that space exploitation has no legs to stand on. It will not provide the means for the true ambitions of the pro-space community. You’ve all gotten very good at fooling yourselves, but the Emperor has no clothes. (haha, see what I did there in a conversation about clothing… oh never mind, it is all wasted on you).

BWhite · 2005-11-28 12:52:25

Heh! Since the entire Terran platinum market is $7 billion per year (the US blue jean market is $15 billion) maybe folks can make money bringing back PGM and giving it away for free and making up the difference selling branded consumer goods.
Or…
An investor can take that same billion, buy himself 1,000 Usher’s, and market the hell out of the 100 that become pop sensations. When that “latest and greatest” is a has-been, pull the label off the jeans, and slap on the current celeb-du-jour.
Space, you only have one act to work with.
This is why I continually point out that space exploitation has no legs to stand on. It will not provide the means for the true ambitions of the pro-space community. You’ve all gotten very good at fooling yourselves, but the Emperor has no clothes. (haha, see what I did there in a conversation about clothing… oh never mind, it is all wasted on you).

With platinum at $1000 per ounce and with growing needs for using PGM as a unique catalyst, I remain unconvinced it is impossible to make money in space.

But otherwise, planting the seeds for new human civilizations "out there" is the only why that is truly sustainable, long term. Commercial enterprise is the how not the why.

clark · 2005-11-28 13:01:19

With platinum at $1000 per ounce and with growing needs for using PGM as a unique catalyst, I remain unconvinced it is impossible to make money in space.

Yeah, and you're one technology innovation away from complete and utter ruin.

But otherwise, planting the seeds for new human civilizations "out there" is the only why that is truly sustainable, long term. Commercial enterprise is the how not the why.

Listen!!!

I agree, however, commercial enterprise is not interested in some scifi-fantasy. Commercial enterprise cannot generate the self-sustaining means to give you what you want.

Men did not build cathedrals to get rich. The Pyramids were not built to enrich the people.

What you and I both want is something that is beyond profit, and has no real value other than what we place on it. But exploitation, commercial enterprise, it does not evaluate space in the same manner, and thus, will not give us what we want.

It is ill suited for the end goal, and we sell ourselves short by trying to fit a square block into a round hole.

BWhite · 2005-11-28 13:44:35

With platinum at $1000 per ounce and with growing needs for using PGM as a unique catalyst, I remain unconvinced it is impossible to make money in space.
Yeah, and you're one technology innovation away from complete and utter ruin.
But otherwise, planting the seeds for new human civilizations "out there" is the only why that is truly sustainable, long term. Commercial enterprise is the how not the why.
Listen!!!
I agree, however, commercial enterprise is not interested in some scifi-fantasy. Commercial enterprise cannot generate the self-sustaining means to give you what you want.
Men did not build cathedrals to get rich. The Pyramids were not built to enrich the people.
What you and I both want is something that is beyond profit, and has no real value other than what we place on it. But exploitation, commercial enterprise, it does not evaluate space in the same manner, and thus, will not give us what we want.
It is ill suited for the end goal, and we sell ourselves short by trying to fit a square block into a round hole.

What we need is MONEY. We can acquire the necessary money by

(a) taxation; or

(b) persuading tycoons that "selling space" will help them make money.

Frankly, I'd rather sell pants and ringtones than kiss up to Tom Delay or Ted Kennedy. It's more honest.

clark · 2005-11-28 13:52:49

You need to make more space advocates. "Selling" space is the only way to really make more.

However, making more space advocates does not require us to sell off space.

BWhite · 2005-11-28 14:11:54

You need to make more space advocates. "Selling" space is the only way to really make more.
However, making more space advocates does not require us to sell off space.

The message is the product.

Mars Society needs a logo folks will wear at their Chamber of Commerce golf outing.

clark · 2005-11-28 14:14:33

No, we need a Rock Band. The "Grateful Red".

I've always been a Red Head. So has CC, or so I hear.

BWhite · 2005-11-28 14:43:00

Stop with all this "either / or" stuff. We need the Grateful Red wearing logo-ed shirts.

We need all the help we can get.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-11-28 09:22:39

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#52 2005-11-28 09:44:13

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#53 2005-11-28 10:08:06

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#54 2005-11-28 10:31:00

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#55 2005-11-28 10:33:16

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#56 2005-11-28 11:12:39

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#57 2005-11-28 11:19:35

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#58 2005-11-28 11:28:53

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#59 2005-11-28 11:34:31

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#60 2005-11-28 11:38:04

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#61 2005-11-28 11:40:53

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#62 2005-11-28 11:54:06

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#63 2005-11-28 11:59:30

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#64 2005-11-28 12:01:25

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#65 2005-11-28 12:03:56

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#66 2005-11-28 12:30:18

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#67 2005-11-28 12:35:14

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#68 2005-11-28 12:43:21

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#69 2005-11-28 12:52:25

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#70 2005-11-28 13:01:19

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#71 2005-11-28 13:44:35

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#72 2005-11-28 13:52:49

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#73 2005-11-28 14:11:54

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#74 2005-11-28 14:14:33

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#75 2005-11-28 14:43:00

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

Board footer