E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Bigelow Aerospace / msnbc.com
A scale model shows Bigelow Aerospace's proposed lunar colony, prefabricated using inflatable modules, with lunar landers in the background.
For 45 years, an international treaty has barred countries from laying claim to the moon and other celestial bodies — but some policy analysts say private ventures might be able to stake their claims, and they want Congress to create a legal framework that takes advantage of the "loophole."
The concept was unveiled last week by Rand Simberg, an adjunct scholar at the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, and it aims to take advantage of the same market incentives that drove the settlement of the American frontier. The way Simberg sees it, the lack of property rights in space "partially explains why we have not developed the next and, in a sense, last frontier — space."
The inability to claim sovereignty over other worlds goes back to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. A hundred countries, including the United States and all the other spacefaring nations, are parties to that treaty.
Yet another treaty, drawn up in 1979, bars private ownership of extraterrestrial property in the solar system — but that pact, known as the Moon Treaty, has not been ratified by any of the world's spacefaring nations. The differences between the two treaties suggest that it's possible to have private ownership without national sovereignty, and that's the loophole that Simberg wants to take advantage of.
Multibillion-dollar incentive?
Backers of the proposed legislation, known as the Space Settlement Prize Act, say it could create, "at no cost to taxpayers, a multibillion-dollar incentive for private companies to finance and build permanent settlements on the moon and/or Mars."
The proposal would set up a process for the U.S. government to recognize ownership of extraterrestrial territory if a private venture establishes a permanently inhabited settlement on another world. For example, the first venture to establish a moonbase could lay claim to up to 600,000 square miles of the lunar surface. Having the first Mars base would entitle the operators to up to 3.6 million square miles of the Red Planet. Putting a permanent base on an asteroid could be rewarded by with up to 1 million square miles of surface area, depending on how big the asteroid was.
The owners would have to guarantee that anyone could buy a ticket to travel to the territory. Each succeeding settlement group would be allotted 15 percent less land than their predecessor. And if two potential claimants couldn't resolve a land dispute, U.S. courts could step in.
But doesn't that sound like sovereignty?
"In some sense, it gives the imprimatur of the U.S. government," Simberg said. "But it doesn't make it a sovereignty question. It's a recognition, not an appropriation." He said the first commercial moon colonies could well be headquartered in different countries. In that case, the United States would be recognizing the property rights of non-U.S. ventures on another world.
What would the U.S. do?
Simberg emphasized that the federal government wouldn't be obligated to take any action to defend extraterrestrial property owners. "How the U.S. government would respond to future claims and conflicts of claims on the moon would be entirely a political decision," he said.
Some legal experts say the loophole doesn't really exist. They point to a section of the Outer Space Treaty that holds national governments responsible for the space settlement activities of their citizens, and say that would preclude any effort to uphold property claims.
"Even if the United States withdrew from the treaty in order to implement such land grants, what would stop the Chinese from adopting domestic legislation that went further?" Berin Szoka and James Dunstan asked in an essay published by Wired. "What if the first time a Chinese probe lands on the moon, the moon could be claimed by the 'Great Wall Company,' owned by the People’s Liberation Army? The United States would then be left to argue that our law should be followed, but the Chinese law shouldn’t. That’s precisely the kind of territorial jockeying the Outer Space Treaty was intended to prevent."
Simberg said a lunar land grab would almost certainly not play out that way. If Chinese leaders really wanted to take over the moon — a scenario that billionaire Robert Bigelow laid out last year — all they'd have to do is withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty and do what they will. "They wouldn't try to play this legislative game," Simberg said.
Why go to the trouble?
The bigger question is, why would anyone go to the trouble of claiming the moon, or Mars, or an asteroid? Right now, there's nothing out there that's worth the hundreds of billions of dollars it would take for a commercial venture to set up its own space program and establish a beachhead beyond Earth. But Simberg and his colleagues say that situation could change if the cost of spaceflight goes down and the perceived value of extraterrestrial resources (helium-3? rare earth elements?) goes up.
Simberg acknowledged that he's thinking about the long-term future of beyond-Earth settlement rather than short-term campaign issues. "Nothing like this is going to pass this year," he said. What he'd love to see is a new international process that takes the place of the Outer Space Treaty and provides a jump-start for private-sector space colonies.
"The treaty's outdated," he said. "It just doesn't work. I don't think anyone back then could conceive of a private launch system based on the Isle of Man, launching somebody into orbit who would then be transferred to L1 [an Earth-moon transfer point] on a tug that was run out of Dubai, and then to a lander operated by somebody in Australia."
Does all this sound like science fiction, or future science fact? Feel free to register your vote in the poll above, or share your opinion as a comment below.
More about space settlement:
- Could lunar real estate spark a future war?
- Colonies on the moon? It's not a loony idea
- Russia wants to build moon colonies
- Synthetic life could help humans colonize Mars
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
If the space-property claimant is a US person, they could have an insane tax bill from Uncle Sam under the Cesarini v. U.S. and IRC Sec. 61 principle that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived" unless excluded by law. Of course, if the US government doesn't exempt a space-property claim from taxation, the question would come down to valuation of that property which is another matter entirely.
Tired of waiting around here on Tatooine...
No one mentions drilling for minerals and heat. What if you drill beyond the center of gravity toward a different establishment on the other side of the object, more than your share? Your company could drill like crazy making the shared asteroid completely unstable, it could easily collapse on itself.
Also why would USA have to solve everyone of these "old west" style of problems between people, between corporations.
There will be warning signs placed on planets in our Milkyway and galaxy that read:
I'd sort of like to see an international agreement (or law, for whatever those are worth) making the near side of the moon off limits. I don't really care all that much about the far side. If someone wants to colonize that, more power to em. I just don't want to be able to see them with my telescope.
"I just don't want to be able to see them with my telescope."
How big is your telescope?
Seriously, what's the smallest object (whether natural or not) on the Lunar surface that you can discern? Do you really think you'll see human activities on that scale? Especially during the Lunar day? I guess we shouldn't disturb your pristine view with occasional aircraft lights or Earth-orbiting satellites, either.
Besides, radioastronomers will want parts of the Farside protected as well. Not because of any problem with mining, but because human presence means radio frequency activity, and they will go there to avoid it...
And what happens when inhabitants from another world come and claim the moon or Mars????? We have no claim to another planet. When a planet becomes a space base, The laws of the inhabitants home becomes the law of the colony only. If this colony has the means to expand, then so do their laws, until no land is available. We can not direct our laws on inhabitants from another world. Just as we have different countries on our Earth. There will be different countries/colonies on other worlds.
dave,
Any country that is not party to the outer space treaty does not need to follow the terms of the treaty, so an 'invasion/colonization' group from another world would be able to claim the moon, mars, pluto, uranus, venus, mercury, etc... as their own territory and there is nothing that anyone could do about it.
My point exactly!
"And what happens when inhabitants from another world come and claim the moon or Mars?????"
All the more reason to get there first, I guess.
What if they want to 'claim' Earth itself? Again, this is not about interstellar resource development, and scenarios about aliens don't depend on anything we do or don't do.
No cost to taxpayers...until we go broke and say we're too big to fail. Right... How about the other countries (Russia, Europe, China & possibly North Korea). I doubt they'll sit back and let that happen.
Creating a legal framework for land claims on extraterrestrial worlds in our solar system would create a new class of extraterrestrial property trolls who would stifle all scientific research and the general betterment of the human race.
The US needs to lay claim to the moon for the mineral rights.
The US would be in violation of an international treaty that it in part created if it were to do that.
Uh, excuse me. With the treaty as is, what is to stop some very large company from pouring billions into a subsidiary in another nation that is not ratified in this treaty and claiming, for instance, the first plot on the moon or Mars? Seems like one massive loophole. GE already does it to get around our sanctions with Iran by selling them materials for their reactors.
smalltown
because, the treaty, as it is, specifically states that its nationals are its direct responsibility, so if a US national were to go to Kirabatu to set up a, 'claim the moon as mine' company, then the US government would still be assuming liability for anything that the company does.
The outer space treaty was written that way specifically to remove 'flags of convenience' that was, and still is a problem in maritime law.
Well my point being is that our sanction against Iran were worded similarly in their restrictions. The reason why they can get away with it being they got their hands in far too many pockets. Golden rule mate. He who has the gold, makes the rules. The subsidiary doesn't have to have a single U.S. national in it being the case, or so on and so forth, China, Saudi, etc.
The reason they can get away with what?
As for the outer space treaty, all launches require overflight over someone else's territory, and as part of that, cooperation. So if the US were to essentially withdraw from the outer space treaty unilaterally, then what will happen is that there will no longer be any global cooperation, as then liability will be attached to them.
The subsidiary by the way is OWNED by a company (in your scenario) that is a subject of the united states. So in your example, GE creates a space company in Kirabatu, (actually I believe they are party to the OST, but lets say they aren't), they are STILL subject to US law, because they are a US company, and are subject to US jurisdiction for the purposes of the outer space treaty.
This really isn't debated law by the way. The legal implications are pretty clear.
GE get's away with selling parts for nuclear reactors to Iran, which is expressly forbidden to US companies under our sanctions. Yet gets around it going through a subsidiary. Owned by GE. It's actually rather easy. I'll explain how this space race thing can be done rather simply. Let's just use GE for the sake of it. Let's say GE has a subsidiary in a non-ratified country. Funnels billions to it. That company used those billions to fund the creation of a "Patsy" company with one buyer of it's product, the subsidiary. Profit, profit, profit...GE is the creator of space colonies. The U.S. government is not able to tell GE what it can or can not use it's money to purchase, donate, etc., yet at least with the current administration barging into the business sector.
small town
Never read that, but that is a matter for the US government to address, as it would be a violation of a dual use technology material, which is outside of the sanctions.
And as I have said, the outer space treaty has been written to deal with what you just said. Why don't you at least read it (as well as some of the literature on it). Springer has a series of books on the topic outer space legal issues that is well regarded.
You should also look at the countries that aren't part of the outer space treaty, and realize that NONE of them would be considered to be able to be a real space faring nation.
A subsidiary IS covered in the outer space treaty.
They'll have a problem with ITAR (US law, not treaty) if it involves technology transfer....
Frank,
Having had to deal with ITAR a few times, that is one nasty law.
However, if a GE subsidiary that developed the technology outside the US, sells to iran, and follows the law of the nation that developed that technology, there isn't anything that ITAR can do about it. It really deals with the technology being transferred, and not the nation whose laws a company might be subject to in that transaction.
Now the US probably does have other laws in place to deal with this scenario, especially in light of the UN sanctions, but ITAR wouldn't be it if it was a foreign subsidiary.
GE get's away with selling parts for nuclear reactors to Iran, which is expressly forbidden to US companies under our sanctions. Yet gets around it going through a subsidiary. Owned by GE. It's actually rather easy. I'll explain how this space race thing can be done rather simply. Let's just use GE for the sake of it. Let's say GE has a subsidiary in a non-ratified country. Funnels billions to it. That company used those billions to fund the creation of a "Patsy" company with one buyer of it's product, the subsidiary. Profit, profit, profit...GE is the creator of space colonies. The U.S. government is not able to tell GE what it can or can not use it's money to purchase, donate, etc., yet at least with the current administration barging into the business sector.
i call a big galaxy
I can see it now.... Welcome to ...imoon.
What a massive waste of taxpayer dollars around the world. I want a refund......
I think the moon and other astral bodies should remain the way they are, human and problem free. The problem with colonization is, you can't have different governments ruling the same place...I feel like outer space would just end up like Earth, overcrowded, fighting, and eventually ruined if all different countries were allowed to officially 'own' space property.
I think it should be kept isolated and pristine for as long as possible, with continued studies and shared maintainance among space faring nations. There is nothing more pure and untouched than the land in space and allowing people to buy it up would be like opening Pandora's box.
But this is just my opinion...
Any future other world colonies would eventually claim independence & establish their own planetary government. Why would they not? Once they are no longer reliant upon earth for sustainability the voice for independence would rise higher & higher. As always, it will come back to bite us in the ass. We are our own worse enemies.
grrrr,
I am not sure if there is anything wrong with that actually. At that point, trade would be similar to trade between nations here on earth.
"Why would they not?"
Then again, why would they? There will still be a cultural identification with the colony's primary nation of origin. A move for independence only occurs when colonials see themselves as being seriously abused by the 'mother country' in one way or another. (ant this also assumes that thee are no natives that have resisted 'colonization,' as well) There were specific reasons that the US sought independence from England. Absent those, we might have been content to consider ourselves merely an extension of England for a very long time.
I've read/seen plenty of SF where colonials jump at the chance to break from the homeworld, but the actual future need not always work that way in all cases. This may be all the more true for entirely human-built space colonies/habitats of the O'Neill type in free-fall.
Gingrich may not have been that far off in his remarks about statehood, he may only have been greatly premature in suggesting that it could come as soon as there were only 13,000 people (IIRC) present there. (and that even that much would be achievable within two Presidential terms...when the time is right, we'll know it)
Frank,
Why did the United States claim independence from the British Empire?
It will happen eventually.
The U.S. flag is already planted on the moon. This is U.S. property.We own the moon.
It takes a little more than sticking your flag in the ground, especially as no explicit territorial claim was made at the time.
And in any case, we're hardly in a position to enforce it, if we had. (conversely, no one else is yet in a position to possibly go and challenge it, either)
mark,
No, the US signed and ratified the outer space treaty prior to landing on the moon, and the outer space treaty explicitly bans the claiming of celestial bodies in the name of a nation, and because the outer space treaty states, quite explicitly that a state retains absolute control over its nationals, individuals cannot do so either.
We need to put some type of weapon on the moon to destroy other countries who try and go there with out paying the U.S. Billions in royalty fees,visitations fees what ever.It's our moon !
Destroy there spacecraft.
?????? Um is everyone living in magical SciFi land? Maybe with enough time, money and resourses we could set something up on the moon, maybe, but Mars? Yea right. Do you know how far away Mars is and how long it would take to get there? That's not going to happen. They would have to bring enough supplys to last them the trip there and back. Look just because Mars is relitivly close compared to lets say the Sun or Jupiter dosn't mean it's close. Those little maps inside your science text book of our solar system are highly inaccurate in terms of size and comparitive distance. If everything goes perfectly (we can't even make a trip to the moon with certainty that everything will be ok) then it would take about nine months to get to Mars. the window to launch the trip happens about once every 2 years. There are tons of problems to contend with and tons of stuff that could go wrong. Ok now how much is this going to cost and how much money could a company make off of this? It dosn't matter if the U.S., China, and the UN gives the first person or company to land on Mars all rights to all the land there is not any money to be made when you measure in the costs and risks. I don't care if mars was made of gold, it still probably wouldn't happen. Maybe a long long time from now with better tech this would be feesable. Maybe.