9 thoughts on “The New Commercial Space Bill”

  1. “Even if the United States should insist that a private company has ownership of a specific crater or mine on the Moon, there can be no internationally recognized borders, and another country, say China, could legally move into that crater and set up its own operations, even to the hindrance of the first settlers.”

    In other words, it leaves the handling of claim-jumpers and rustlers and thieves up to the local Vigilance Committees, who won’t be particularly worried about the niceties of the laws. And then when governments do get involved, that’s when things will escalate into a war, both there and here. Or, if a government isn’t going to protect and support its own people, then maybe they aren’t needed there at all.

    (Serious question– can it be possible to declare an “exclusive economic zone” around landing sites, the way they are declared around islands? I’m under the impression that EEZs aren’t “sovereign territory”, just limitations on the actions of other countries.)

  2. Many factions can and are maneuvering for control. The winner will be those that join together to defend their ownership by possession. It will not matter what laws are passed by countries on Earth. Nobody is going to war when there is 1.44 billion almost worthless hectares to be had especially when the globalist agenda is the nonsense that it belongs to everybody (a position that didn’t work out so well for native American Indians.)

    Free trade is how land gets to best use which maximizes benefits to everybody.

  3. Currently, a communications or remote sensing satellite operator gets its authorization from the FCC or NOAA, and the launch operator who takes the payload to orbit gets authorized by the FAA. Now, the FAA also has a “payload review” authority for activities not authorized by the FCC or NOAA. The bill would change that.

    The bill would eliminate duplication with the FAA because, although the FAA would continue to license the transportation, launch and reentry, the FAA would no longer have the ability to stop U.S. payloads for any reason except the safety of the launch (and that safety exception could perhaps be made clearer) if the payload operator is getting approval from Commerce. See Section 8 of the bill.

    On property rights, it seems that the U.S. recognizes property rights in extracted resources in the deep sea bed law even though it has no sovereignty there. Might the same logic not be applied to space?

    1. Acknowledging that somebody possesses and/or owns something does not require sovereignty over it. Before possession it is simply unowned.

      1. This goes to a bigger issue. You don’t need any laws to be written for natural rights. They are self evident and inalienable (except when fools choose to ignore basic truth with mob rule… even if the mob were a bunch of sweet little old ladies.)

        Force can defend or assail rights, but the rights are pre-existing.

        1. Yes, the Guano Island Commission recognized the inherent rights of the guano collectors. I get people saying that the later Guano Island Act shows that you need a statute to have property rights. The Commission’s work shows that that need not be so.

          1. Laura, it’s even more fundamental than that. Any law or act is not giving the right but simply acknowledging the right that pre-exists. The act is a control on govt., not a gift of a right.

            Laws are society’s way to avoid all out war. But they follow rather than precede. Fundamental rights do not come from govt. which our founders didn’t feel the need to explain because they were self evident.

            Today the education level is so low that it isn’t understood even with explanation.

          2. Ken, I do not disagree. That is why the Commission’s recognition is more important than the later Act. Everyone talks of granting rights, but it should be of recognizing rights, even property rights. The discourse needs to change.

  4. BTW [whispering] I hear the astronauts on the I.S.S. are colluding with the Russians (even riding on Russian vehicles and paying the Russians millions!) CNN needs to get right on this!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *