FAA Conference

This post will be terse — it’s from my phone.

Huge turnout — standing room only.

Bolden made an unscheduled speech in the plenary. Pledged full support to commercial space. Said that NASA must focus on exploration and leave getting to orbit to others. Cannot do it without commercial.

Bob Bigelow gave a talk on the hypothetical scenario of China claiming the moon, with audience participation. On his way to the Hill to talk to Frank Wolf afterward.

18 thoughts on “FAA Conference”

  1. Michael,

    No, it must be at least 1 year before 🙂

    http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/space1.html#2

    [[[Article XVI

    Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification. ]]]

  2. Thomas, I’m thinking that claiming the Moon is sort of a “Why don’t you stop me then?” situation. If China lands a mining team on the Moon I really don’t think they’re going to let the OST stop them, regardless of the legalities.

    Ask yourself this – If we wanted to challenge their claim to the Moon, which Court would we take them to that would be capable of enforcing a judgment against them? I’m thinking a Chinese court would blow you off (“Chinese laws supercede OST”), and a writ from a court in New York or Brussels would be so much toilet paper in Beijing.

    The only effective challenge is to also be on the Moon, and to have mass and energy in Lunar orbit (or at an L-point). The Law is useless without a local Sheriff.

  3. Yeah — the whole point of dumping a treaty is, you’re no longer bound by it. If the one-year’s-notice requirement is in the treaty you’re dumping, why observe it?

  4. Erm…how exactly would China “claim” the moon? Would it land on it and plant a flag? And how exactly would they stop people from landing on “their” moon.

    At worst, they could claim a tiny section of the moon by building a base on it (something allowed by the OST, as it recognizes squatter’s rights I believe) but I’m not seeing any real threat in this century.

  5. Grenville, as Bigelow was saying, they could just decree that they have claimed the Moon and then just not do anything about it.. I personally think it shows how fallible Bigelow is. We put him up on this pedestal but he’s just a person with his own flawed view of the world. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what motivates the guy, as long as he keeps doing the awesome things he is doing.

  6. Brock,

    [[[IIf China lands a mining team on the Moon I really don’t think they’re going to let the OST stop them,]]]

    Why would anyone? They never signed the Moon Treaty and there is nothing in the OST that prevents someone from mining the Moon. It just prohibits claiming sovereignty over it.

  7. Grenville,

    [[[At worst, they could claim a tiny section of the moon by building a base on it (something allowed by the OST, as it recognizes squatter’s rights I believe) but I’m not seeing any real threat in this century.]]]

    Nope, squatter’s rights are not allowed. Article II is VERY clear on it.

    [[[Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. ]]]

    I think you are thinking about the “none interference” clause of Article IX.

    [[[If a State Party to the Treaty has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by it or its nationals in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities of other States Parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, it shall undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding with any such activity or experiment.]]]

    Which means as long as you are not bothering anyone, they won’t bother you.

  8. McGehee,

    [[[Yeah — the whole point of dumping a treaty is, you’re no longer bound by it. If the one-year’s-notice requirement is in the treaty you’re dumping, why observe it?]]]

    Because it allows time for any political adjustments necessary and for diplomatic pressure to be applied. i.e – If you withdraw from the OST and claim the Moon we will not allow you to sell your goods anymore to the United States. Given that China is the world’s largest exporter and is dependent on an export driven economy this could be pretty effective, especially if Europe and other Asia nations, who would also like to export to the U.S. join in such an embargo. 🙂

  9. Thomas Matula Says:

    “Because it allows time for any political adjustments necessary and for diplomatic pressure to be applied. i.e – If you withdraw from the OST and claim the Moon we will not allow you to sell your goods anymore to the United States. Given that China is the world’s largest exporter and is dependent on an export driven economy this could be pretty effective, especially if Europe and other Asia nations, who would also like to export to the U.S. join in such an embargo.”

    And do you really think the present administration has the stones to do that?

    Or many of the other Western nations?

    H3ll the Chinese claim the Spratleys and have no problem pushing out their maritime territorial limits to wherever they like.

  10. sigh.. if China claims the Moon, the only response would be for the US to say “haha, very funny, you can’t claim the Moon”.. and that’s it.

    If the US actually cared so much about it – which they just don’t – they could send a mission to the Moon with the implicit declaration of “try to stop us”. If China kills some US astronauts then you might have yourself a prelude to war, but they won’t.

    Ultimately it’s a stupid discussion because we’re just not there yet.

  11. Trent,

    And probably will never be because planetary sovereignty claims really make little sense in today’s world, especially since there is no evidence humans will be able to reproduce in low gravity. So the prospects of a native born population, or even multi-year stays on the Moon are slim. Those restrictions basically mean that humans in space will make their long term homes in Asimov style habitats where they are projected from radiation and low gravity. And current space law already provides a sufficient legal framework for the development of such habitats.

    So not only does the current regime of the OST that states “Celestial Bodies” are open to all suits everyone well, its also a very enabling one for the settlement of the Solar System.

  12. Gregg.

    It depends a lot on which administration is in power and the geopolitical environment at the time.

    But given how this administration is rushing to sign the European Code of Conduct in Outer Space agreement which would harm both the emerging and existing space commerce industry and DoD space, I see little prospect it would care about what China does.

  13. I agree Trent. And thank you Thomas for the clarification – but isn’t non-interference effectively squatters rights? I mean, if I land my ship on an asteroid and you can’t do anything to me while I sit there, what’s to stop me from operating on a squatter’s rights basis?

  14. Grenville, maybe you idea of squatters rights is different to mine. I was under the impression that it refers to gaining ownership via occupancy – usually after some fixed time period (say, 7 years). After that time, you own the place and you can “interfere” with anyone who claims otherwise. Under the OST you have no such rights.. forever you must not interfere with anyone encroaching on your claim.

    You mentioned an asteroid, ok, fine. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to claim an entire asteroid of up to 1km diameter after landing on it and taking up residency. I know I’d be packing my space cannon and warning off anyone who comes near. On the Moon you might do something similar in a permanently shadowed crater. This is natural law, it might not be recognized by nations but you’ll recognize it when the bullets start flying.

  15. Grenville,

    Trent is correct in that its not the same. Once you leave, whether its after a year or a thousand years, the land is still not owned by anyone.

  16. Trent,

    Basically the working definition of a “Celestial Body” is any object in its natural place. (you will find agreement of this point in nearly all of the legal articles written at the time (mid-1960’s) as well as hearings on it. Unfortunately the paper copies I have of them are in still in storage and few seem to have been digitized…)

    Basically you pick up a rock on the Moon and its no longer part of a “Celestial Body”, so its subject to an ownership claim by you. The same for an asteroid/Meteoroid, fleck of space dust), change its orbit by a measurable amount and its all yours, regardless of the size. And note that unlike astronomers, lawyers aren’t picky on what point an object is a meteoroid, asteroid, etc., so this definition has already been demonstrated with the various missions to collect space dust. Once the dust is attached to the spacecraft it belongs to whoever owns the spacecraft because it is no longer in its “natural place” i.e. orbit.

    And yes, this has been proved in practice by both Russia selling its lunar samples in an auction to private parties and NASA suing to recover lunar samples as stolen federal property, just as it would charge someone who stole a government Hummer… So the only two countries to have lunar samples have treated already established a precedent of treaty them as their property. It will be interesting to see what Japan does with its asteroid dust, but I expect they will follow suit.

    So if you claim the crater on the Moon you will be ignored and if you start shooting you will just be sued/charged in court on Earth in whatever nation your firm is located in. And if you have the misfortune of being in Australia it won’t just be the OST, but also the Moon Treaty that will cover your actions since Australia ratified it back in the early 1980’s. So Australia may take try to take you any rocks you have away and share them. But in non-Moon Treaty states they are yours.

    Under the same body of treaty law, if you move that asteroid, its yours to have and to do with as you please, only subjected to the laws of the nation your organization is located in (but again, avoid any contact with the Moon Treaty states (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, and Uruguay) or you may be asked to share with all mankind 🙂

    And yes, this is a great state of affairs for space commerce. Because if Celestial Bodies are not subject to taxation (no Sovereignty = no Taxation) or environmental regulations (no Sovereignty = No regulations) you don’t have to worry about those either. Now your mission to them MAY be, but that is only because its covered by the laws of the country you are incorporated in and you have registered your spacecraft in. So you are free to go “country shopping” if you are serious about space settlement and resource development. You wouldn’t if their were real property rights on the Moon under some international regime or treaty granting them.

    For example, the State Dept. and NOAA made it clear they would not give licenses to Transorbital for its proposed lunar missions if its landing site was anywhere near one of the Apollo sites. The late Dennis Laurie was told those were strictly Off limits. But if it was not a U.S. firm this would not have been a factor.

    So pick you country of incorporation, your launch site and your suppliers wisely. If those countries have no laws governing the space environment, or exempts taxes on space activities (a plug for Zero-G/Zero taxes) you are home free. 🙂

Comments are closed.