Mining the Solar System — does the new law make this more or less likely? (from Minestories.com)
There’s some over-the-top commentary in the space press on the new “commercial space” bill just signed into law (The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, H.R. 2262). In particular, the law is touted as “… the single greatest recognition of property rights in history” by Eric Anderson, Co-Founder and Co-Chairman of Planetary Resources Inc. , a company created to mine near-Earth asteroids. Now, thanks to this Congress and President, the unimaginable wealth of the universe has been dropped into our laps.
Really?
The actual section of the bill dealing with space resources (Title IV) is quite short and somewhat perfunctory. It defines a space resource (and that term is used: space resources not “asteroid” resources) as “an abiotic (non-biological) resource in situ in outer space.” Thus, the materials of planetary-sized objects (other than the Earth) are apparently covered, including lunar polar ice. The bill prescribes that the President shall “facilitate,” “discourage the creation of barriers to,” and “promote” commerce in-space resources, all very commendable (though vague) but also all acting under “appropriate Federal agencies.” So, if anyone thought that this bill would suddenly unleash a new gold rush, it will be one taken under careful bureaucratic supervision.
The best part of the bill comes in Section 51303, which essentially states that what you harvest from space, you own, along with the appropriate rights to keep, use, sell or trade it to any entity. This is a good thing, but arguably, we had this right already. Or did we? Was it arguable previously that we did not have this right, and that now, with a stroke of the pen, we do have it? What has changed?
A big sticking point remaining is that while the advent of this law may make New Space entrepreneurs feel better, it does not resolve the questionable international legal status of space resource utilization. The United States is not a signatory to the infamous 1979 Moon Treaty, which places lunar resources (and by extension, asteroid resources) under international “community” ownership. The Senate refused to ratify the Moon Treaty, but we are signatories to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which bars any territorial claim in space by any nation. Proponents of space resource utilization have long surmised that private claims on resources are not forbidden by this treaty; but individuals are subject to the laws of nations of which they are citizens, so a space miner could find himself in possession of a small asteroid, while at the same time have his terrestrial assets seized through some legal process or claim.
We have gotten along fine without this law for the last 50 years, largely because no commercial entity is anywhere close to actually accessing and using an off-Earth resource. Now that we’re sitting around twiddling our thumbs in space and drooling over the advent of entrepreneurial exploitation of space resources, companies and advocacy groups loudly and persistently call for government action and laws to “make it so.” But one can imagine a variety of circumstances in which this law will make no difference whatsoever. If a private company engaged in some activity that involved exploitation of an extraterrestrial resource of limited extent (e.g., a rich deposit of ice on the Moon near permanent sunlight) and their possession of that resource was challenged by some nation-state present nearby, how might the American government react? Presumably, peaceful diplomatic means would be pursued at first, but then when they can’t-don’t-won’t agree, then what?
The U.S. federal government guarantees the rights of American citizens (including corporations) to their property and is responsible for resolving conflicts. Often conflicts escalate to higher levels, up to and including stalemates (that block free enterprise) and confrontations that decide the outcome. Would the United States go to war over a dispute involving space resources that some company might have with another nation? I don’t know, but I suspect that the answer is no – and other countries (and investors) will know this.
There are many reasons I advocate a return to the Moon as our next national goal in space and one reason, not often considered, is the establishment of an American right of access to space and its resources. The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, despite appearances, does not establish this right. Laws that we pass are not binding on other nations or entities outside the boundaries of the United States. Ultimately, future disputes (and make no mistake, there will be some, despite the best intentions of all parties) must be settled between entities of comparable status and between their parent nations. Thus, I contend that we must have “skin in the game” at an international level, not only at the corporate one.
Declaring the rights of our citizens to find and exploit space resources is one thing; defending that right in a potentially hostile world is another. In the same way that ships operated under American registry are protected by the diplomatic, economic and military power of the American government, future space businesses will look to their government (as they must and have a right to) to protect their rights, enforce contracts and act as an insulating layer between them and the cold realities of global politics (what’s written on paper is only as good as your ability to enforce it, or ignore it). In its earliest stages, the financial stakes are likely to be small and not well understood in terms of their national economic and security implications, so it is unlikely that the federal government would “go to the mat” to defend the interests of a small (somewhat experimental) business.
But when taking the long-view (that of any serious investor), if that same government’s own right of access to and use of some extraterrestrial resource were threatened, the full weight of that government’s various assets would be brought to bear on a resolution of that threat (or whose mere presence would short-circuit outside agression to begin with). This is one reason why the utilization of space resources – an activity critical to the long-term future of humanity in space – is not only an appropriate activity for the federal civil space program, it is an essential one, in anticipation of and in parallel with private development of these resources. Right now, we are uncertain just how difficult it is to extract and use space resources for a variety of applications. In short, this activity is an engineering research and development effort. This is exactly what NASA was established to do – to determine if space-related activities and technologies are possible and if they are, to then encourage the private sector to engage in such activities, using the results of government-funded research to grow their investments and expand our economy.
So while I applaud this bipartisan effort to legally endorse the principle of space resource utilization, it is not sufficient. Instead of pursuing wasteful public relations stunts designed to convince the public that we are on our way to Mars, NASA should instead work on understanding how the material and energy resources of near-Earth space – particularly the water at the poles of the Moon – can be used to create new spacefaring capability. The federal government should do this because the creation of routine access to cislunar space is important to our national strategic and commercial interests. It is also vital to establish our national rights and obligations within the world spacefaring community. U.S. commercial space companies will be there once they know that their nation’s leaders understand the stakes involved and are ready to lead on this new frontier.
“-ships operated under American registry are protected by the diplomatic, economic and military power of the American government-”
And as long as the U.S. spends hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars keeping order on the high seas for free, ship owners are more than happy to register under another flag. From wiki:
“As of 2009, more than half of the world’s merchant ships were registered with open registries, and the Panama, Liberia, and Marshall Islands flags accounted for almost 40% of the entire world fleet, in terms of deadweight tonnage.
Flag-of-convenience registries are criticized, mostly by trade union organizations based in developed countries, especially those of Europe. On the other hand, maritime industry practitioners and seafarers from other countries contest that this is a natural product of globalisation. Seafarers from developed countries must make themselves competitive if they wish to take advantage and practice in a global environment.[2] As of 2009, thirteen flag states have been found by international shipping organizations to have substandard regulations. A basis for many criticisms is that the flag-of-convenience system allows shipowners to be legally anonymous and difficult to prosecute in civil and criminal actions.”
I was very surprised to find many years ago when I became interested in asteroid and comet deflection that there are actually many entities who actively work against any such capability. Why? Because if you can deflect an asteroid or comet away from Earth you can also direct one at the Earth. Which is what asteroid mining would do. “Kinetic strikes” are an old sci-fi device that, unlike warp drive and transporters, are a practical reality. Tunguska was such an event. Being more interested in keeping us from going the way of the dinosaurs than flooding the precious metals market, I take a dim view of the entire must-get-rich and to hell with everything else Ayn-Rand-in-Space worldview.
So this wonderful new law has a complex dark side that nobody is talking about and actually concerns placing the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons in the hands of NewSpace “entrepreneurs.”
this wonderful new law has a complex dark side that nobody is talking about and actually concerns placing the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons in the hands of NewSpace “entrepreneurs”
That’s a bit of a stretch; I don’t see anything in the new law that supports this interpretation.
And the U.S. Navy defends freedom of the seas for the same reason that the Royal Navy did in the 19th century — free trade is to our benefit.
On the surface of the Moon, territorial exclusivity for both nations and for entrepreneurs is probably going to be extremely important– especially in the lunar polar regions that are probably rich in water and carbon.
I have my on ideas on what these rules should be. But I suspect that nations won’t really be concerned about exclusive territorial rights on the Moon until there are permanent outpost on the surface of the Moon.
Marcel
Interesting point (at least to me).
This bill’s primary sponsor in the Senate was Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
Staying out of Presidential Politics, he is currently Chairman of one of the key committees in the Senate in charge of the NASA Budget.
He has also made reference to wanting there to be more emphasis on HSF in the NASA Budget and being willing to consider changes in NASA’s internal priorities to achieve that goal. Those references have been vague and centered on Mars.
However, we are all so versed in the concept of use of Lunar ISRU and even the idea of a US Space Navy (perhaps Coast Guard would be a better analogy) we tend to assume everybody is equally well versed.
Has Senator Cruz been given any information on Lunar Development concepts?
Has Senator Cruz been given any information on Lunar Development concepts?
Yes — I’ve met with his staffers and given them a brief on my cislunar development concepts.
Cool!
http://www.wired.com/2014/03/europa-flyby-mission/
What about Culbertson; he is the most space motivated one of all I think. If wants to go to Europa he has to go by way of the Moon.
–If a private company engaged in some activity that involved exploitation of an extraterrestrial resource of limited extent (e.g., a rich deposit of ice on the Moon near permanent sunlight) and their possession of that resource was challenged by some nation-state present nearby, how might the American government react? Presumably, peaceful diplomatic means would be pursued at first, but then when they can’t-don’t-won’t agree, then what?–
In the near term, it seems lunar water mining will occur in small region of the Moon and require small regions of the Moon. Rather than a water deposit, I think the rights regards the limited area of the ethereal peaks of light are more likely to become like the land claims disputes of South China Sea. And things like a solar array shading other areas could become problematic in terms land rights. Plus the peaks could be a hub regarding lunar water mining.
The long term solution is to have a lunar government,
And I think any entity [other than legitimate lunar government- and their claim would also be limited in terms of the Moon] which attempts to claim “too much land” should be challenged- whether it’s the Chinese or Google.
I don’t think there is any scarcity in regards to the Moon in terms of water deposits- unless one is claiming land or water deposits, which one can’t use within say 50 years.
Or mining water on the Moon will open this solar system, and expect in distant future that the Moon will import millions of tonnes of water per year and that water will be cheap, because the Moon has opened the solar system and water in the solar system is very abundant as compared to water on Earth.
I think the whole point of exploring the Moon is to find when would lunar water deposits be minable- it could be now, it will be eventually. But in terms space policy and NASA policy to sooner the Moon is explored the better [particularly if NASA wants to explore Mars].
–There are many reasons I advocate a return to the Moon as our next national goal in space and one reason, not often considered, is the establishment of an American right of access to space and its resources. The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, despite appearances, does not establish this right. Laws that we pass are not binding on other nations or entities outside the boundaries of the United States. Ultimately, future disputes (and make no mistake, there will be some, despite the best intentions of all parties) must be settled between entities of comparable status and between their parent nations. Thus, I contend that we must have “skin in the game” at an international level, not only at the corporate one.–
I think America should continue it’s tradition of human rights. And it’s a human right to have access to space and it’s resources.
But I think US government does need skin in the game. And I see US leading in that regard by exploring the Moon to determine if and where there is minable water.
I don’t think it’s likely, but I don’t want the private sector to start off by exploring the moon to determine if and where there is minable water on the Moon. Or it’s enormous risk to spend billions of dollars to answer that question, and some private party does this and is successful at such a discovery, it seems to muddy the water in terms of what rights that private entity is entitled. Whereas if US government does this initial exploration and publishes the results, then that would better. And of course following this one could have lot’s exploration done by private sector. But the exploration would have to do finding different or better spots to mine, rather “exploring the Moon”. So if private sector finds specific locations, that doesn’t seem like a problem. And one has same issue with Mars.
My 2 cents regarding space resources and mining. Someone posted on another forum, “Until you have a bill of materials you can order from McMaster-Carr, it’s wishful thinking.” However, if we are going to debate, then I say mine the Moon first as it’s only three days away and very predictable. Asteroids are interesting but either too far out there or we don’t know much about a specific rock. Mars, put that planet to rest (it’s a “bridge too far”)
It is not wishful thinking if the facts concerning Human Space Flight Beyond Low Earth Orbit (HSF-BLEO) is considered.
Every wonder why the space station to nowhere is in LEO and not GEO? It is not because the Space Shuttle could not reach GEO (well it couldn’t but that is beside the point). We could have built a shuttle system to transport humans to GEO but it was never even considered because……humans cannot survive for any length of time in GEO due to the radiation environment. It is rarely mentioned we almost lost an Apollo crew to a solar storm. Any long duration human-crewed mission BLEO requires massive shielding. Not just because of solar storms but also because of cosmic radiation. Though not as severe as deep space, GEO cosmic radiation exposure is significantly higher than LEO.
Radiation is square one. Telecommunications satellites are presently the only significant revenue generator. If we want to replace the present satellite junkyard with human technicians maintaining telecommunications platforms on GEO platforms then thousands of tons of shielding would be required. Lifting thousands of tons of tapwater into GEO from Earth is a non-starter. But lifting hundreds of thousands of tons of water from the lunar surface is comparatively simple and economical.
The ice on the Moon is the critical resource for establishing any human presence Beyond Low Earth Orbit.
As a practical matter, I suspect that large scale mining of lunar resources will not start until a customer base for them is operating in space. Some of these companies are focusing on ice as a first target. NASA, among others, would be a core customer if and when it starts getting serious about operating in deep space, including the moon and Mars,