I'm off to DC for a couple days. I do plan to come up with some thoughts on the (sort of) new administration space policy, though, here or elsewhere.

I was looking at it and the 2nd point of Section 2, Principles, left me really puzzled.

It says: The United States rejects any claims of sovereignty by any nation over outer space or celestial bodies and rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from space.

My first thought was that the "rejection" pretty much puts paid to the idea of expanding our civilization into space because it seems to kill the concept of property rights and private or (otherwise) ownership.

But on the other hand, the idea that we reject limitations to operate seems to imply that ain't nobody gonna keep us from extracting local resources.

I am not a lawyer, but these points seem to contradict each other.

While this may be a politically expediant compromise, it appears to be a flaw in the policy.

I do not subscribe to the idea that "outer space" is the common heritage of all mankind, however short of getting the Pope to divide up the solar system (there is precident), I cannot imagine how problem of ownership will be resolved.

Personally, I think this really speaks to shining lasers at satellites - so I see it more as an enforcement of US property rights.

Michael,

My understanding is that the passage you cite is essentially restating the relevant portion of Outer Space Treaty. I've read analyses elsewhere that the OST wording precludes "national appropriation or "claim of sovereignty", but is silent (and therefore could be interpreted as allowing) individuals or corporations from asserting ownership of land and resources - just not governments.

This was considered a "punt" when the OST was drafted since in 1967 a) only two parties really had the ability to put men in space: the governments of U.S. & U.S.S.R and b) one of those parties didn't recognize individual property rights on Earth anyway, so the authors deferred the issue of individually-owned space property until the facts on the ground surrounding "a" and "b" changed and it became relevant. Clearly, it is starting to become relevant.

"I do not subscribe to the idea that "outer space" is the common heritage of all mankind, however short of getting the Pope to divide up the solar system (there is precident), I cannot imagine how problem of ownership will be resolved."

I always wondered where the 'Space Pope" on Futurama came from. Perhaps this is how it started.

Our policy should have been from the beginning "whoever gets there first owns it". If this had been the case much of the Moon and maybe even some areas of Mars would already be settled.

HI Rand. What is that vehicle on the lower-left hand corner of the cover? It looks like the legendary hypersonic aircraft.

Cecil, I kind of doubt it, but I agree with you in principal. Whoever gets there first gets the beach front property, says I. But I suspect that in our civilized modern day world it may not work out so nicely.

TS, you may very well be right. Probably are. I can appreciate the concept when it is pointed out to me but by training, and inclination I suspect, I tend to read the spec and not interpret.

> My first thought was that the "rejection" pretty much puts paid to
> the idea of expanding our civilization into space because it seems
> to kill the concept of property rights and private or (otherwise)
> ownership.

National sovereignty is not the same as private property. There is no national sovereignty in Antarctica or on the high seas. That doesn't mean if you sail on a cruise ship, your toothbrush becomes public property (along with the ship itself).

Furthermore, this is just a policy statement, not a law. There is no penalty attached to a private citizen "breaking" it.

In fact, I expect the government itself to mostly ignore it. For example, if the government paid any attention to the statements about commercial space, NASA would immediately cancel Orion and buy Kistler, SpaceX, or even Soyuz capsules, modifying them if necessary for government needs. Ditto with launch vehicles.

Of course, that won't happen. NASA will simply ignore the policy, and OSTP will ignore the fact that NASA ignores the policy.