The precedent being that American companies can't violate international law whenever they want, especially when a huge amount of resources are at stake.
The precedent being that American companies can't violate international law whenever they want, especially when a huge amount of resources are at stake.
Hope is the denial of reality
No country will just start blasting our stuff out of the air, the more practical approach is if they feel some sort of legal entitlement would be to try to get a cut of the stuff we're brining down.Originally Posted by Loki
It's not "our stuff". The second an American entity gets into space in order to engage in illegal activities, it stops being American and becomes a pirate.
Hope is the denial of reality
You seem very sure that these are illegal activities. Your own link suggested it was pretty open to interpretation whether or not asteroid mining by a private entity was in fact a violation of international law. You seem very sure that China or Russia would actually have the capability to shoot these things down. You seem very sure that the American government, renowned for it's concern for international law, will want nothing to do with this expedition because if there's one thing governments hate it's getting hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue and independence in strategic resources. You seem very sure that China and Russia, also deeply concerned about international law, would be so outraged by this that they'd take to shooting down space craft... somehow... which won't be in any way controversial because... everyone hates America or something. Rather than just waiting to see how the venture works out and starting their own asteroid mining operations.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
I'm still trying to figure out how 'everything' out there belongs to 'everyone' down here...treaty or not. That is ultimate hubris.
Does this mean that China cold not put a base on the moon? Or we could not put a base on Mars?
Better yet, say we have a major break through and do develop a FTL...or close to TL...and decided we wanted to mine the Ort Clould...a treaty would cover that?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Another wrinkle in the issue is that terrestrial mining industries could be ruined by a flood of space balls. Russians may not be interested in keeping space rocks for themselves so much as in keeping their own miners working.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Erm, so a legal agreement stops being relevant the second technology advances?I thought you were a libertarian who believed in contracts...
Hope is the denial of reality
I would have to say that a legal agreement stops being relevant once it stops making logical sense, becomes harmful, or runs counter to the reason it was enacted. Keeping anyone from ever attempting mining operations in space seems to run counter to the idea that space is a resource for everyone.Erm, so a legal agreement stops being relevant the second technology advances?
. . .
One country benefiting from space seems to run counter to the idea that space is a resource for everyone. Regardless, a vast majority of international jurists disagree with you. If you don't like a treaty, either don't sign it or exit it (assuming you created a mechanism for doing so).
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm going to forward the argument that an American company minining asteroids and funding research into how to successfully mine asteroids, does not solely benefit the United States, as their success would likely entail global cooperation, and would result in reduced mineral costs globally since they wouldn't just be selling whatever they mine in the United States. Besides that its pretty damn ridiculous. This treaty was entered into when no country even remotely had the ability to mine asteroids. Should we keep this treaty around another few decades? How about a century or more when it gets even more ridiculous? Oh, this vast mineral wealth that would vastly improve society and human space capabilities? Yeah, we can't touch it because some people decades ago signed a treaty saying it was for everyone, so nobody can touch it now!
So who do you propose could legally mine this under the current treaty?
. . .
There would have to be further international agreements before anyone could legally mine the asteroids. I would imagine that it would entail a decent chunk of any company's profits going to the UN or a similar organization.
I think a more realistic situation is countries mining Antarctica for resources. And that's going to cause all sorts of problems.
Hope is the denial of reality
Source?
Look up: rebus sic stantibus and pacta sunt servanda. The former means you're no longer obligated to follow a treaty once conditions change. The latter demands that you continue respecting a treaty until you legally exit it. Unless there's a specific clause in a treaty invoking rebus sic stantibus, it is not considered grounds for international law in recent times.
Hope is the denial of reality
Contracts yes, entangling treaties that serve no purpose, no.Erm, so a legal agreement stops being relevant the second technology advances?
If no one owns the damn rocks (since no one has gotten there yet) you don't really have the standing to keep others out.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
That sounds like old-fashioned Maritime Law, well before all the global waters were mapped, let alone their "boundaries", giving way to early Pirates/Treasure hunters. "Ownership is 99% of the Law" doesn't mean the same thing today, whether by land or by sea. How would Space be any different?
Who decides whether a treaty serves a purpose?
Hope is the denial of reality
Actually, a vast majority of the water in the world isn't owned by anyone. Read up on law of the sea. Countries only own a narrow strip of water next to their borders and a slightly higher amount of water for economic purposes.That sounds like old-fashioned Maritime Law, well before all the global waters were mapped, let alone their "boundaries", giving way to early Pirates/Treasure hunters. "Ownership is 99% of the Law" doesn't mean the same thing today, whether by land or by sea. How would Space be any different?
Hope is the denial of reality
That's circular reasoning.Who decides whether a treaty serves a purpose?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
But that's part of my question! How can space resources be held to the same standards as earth's sea resources? International maritime law has gaps, especially in Title (ownership) disputes, even though we've been exploring and mining the seas for centuries.
It just doesn't make any sense to apply the same standards to space, which hasn't been explored or mined to the same extent. Treaty or not.
What is?
Would you prefer we had a bunch of wars first to determine who is right, as was the case with the international sea regime?But that's part of my question! How can space resources be held to the same standards as earth's sea resources? International maritime law has gaps, especially in Title (ownership) disputes, even though we've been exploring and mining the seas for centuries.
It just doesn't make any sense to apply the same standards to space, which hasn't been explored or mined to the same extent. Treaty or not.
Hope is the denial of reality
Opinions regarding this specific treaty differ as to 1. whether or not the asteroid mining is a clear violation, and 2. what the fallout may/will be.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm not quite sure what you mean. The earliest cases of international maritime law revolved around salvaging sunken treasures....ships and their contents previously Titled to sovereign nations (or individual boats sailing under their flag). It didn't matter so much if it happened during wartime, but who held title to original ownership. Even the sunken Titanic faces these legal Title/Ownership disputes, 100 years later.
The point is....nothing in space has been previously owned or legally titled to anyone, other than the space junk we've jettisoned or abandoned. The US may have a claim to things we left on the moon, as salvage rights, but that doesn't mean we have a claim to the moon itself, or its other resources.
That would require a quantum leap in robotics and associated technology. The difference between a robot that can trundle a few kilometers across Mars while making simple measurements and a robot that can mine an asteroid in space is enormous. Technologically, it's probably more feasible to shove it into Earth orbit or thereabouts.
Source for purity? Regardless, I have no doubt that in principle it would be easy to ship stuff down to Earth. I just question whether it would be a worthwhile investment.- assuming the assumptions I've read are accurate, the asteroid's going to have lots of relatively pure metals, relatively easy to access - nothing like it is easily available anywhere on Earth. Standard sized chunks could be sliced off and slung back to Earth orbit where some facility processes them - again with remote operators - into the balls I described, attaches the descent package, and down they go.
It cost us somewhere around $100 billion to put men on the Moon. It has cost us about $150 billion to put a small space station in low earth orbit. It would probably cost at least that much to get a working asteroid mining operation going, with significant additional expenditure for each new asteroid (not to mention prospecting costs, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised it the cost was significantly higher. Using that same investment in mining operations on Earth would probably yield far more profit.
It is likely that the appropriate asteroid would be able to produce a lot of relatively important metals, yes. But it is unlikely to make any money - unless you're competing against something that is actually incredibly expensive. A kilogram of some metal - whatever, iron? - on Earth is relatively cheap, and would become even cheaper if there was a huge amount of space iron available. But a kilogram of iron in Earth orbit is fantastically expensive - on the order of thousands of dollars per kilogram to LEO or GTO. That's where your competitive advantage comes in. If there's a market for your mined goods in orbit, then the relatively small acceleration needed for delivery makes it worthwhile compared to Earth-based alternatives. Otherwise, I find it unlikely to be worth it.- I've read the amount of metal available in a typical sized metallic asteroid is much more than the total amount of the same metals that have been mined on Earth throughout all of human history. Again, that's speculation and a prospecting mission would determine the accuracy of that before any major operation is put into place. But for the purposes of this discussion, assume it's true. That = gargantuan money. It also could = the collapse of relevant commodity prices, so the space miners have to be careful not to over produce.
This is very optimistic.I guess it all depends on how much metal is actually available and how difficult it is to extract. But just dropping one metal ball a day to the surface would be spectacularly lucrative... at platinum prices, that would mean nearly $17B USD per year for an operation that's almost entirely up-front cost. Would it cost that much to prospect an ore rock, a carbon/volatiles rock, develop and send the mining equipment and deploy the processing equipment into Earth orbit? Maybe.... But in 5 years, just with this small scale operation, you're closing on $100B in returns. And it probably wouldn't remain this small in scale.
That was fun.
I think in principle this is doable, but it only makes sense from a business perspective if there's a large market for volatiles and metals in space. For that, you'd need a huge government commitment or a sea change in how space is utilized.
Wouldn't it be loverly if we could get astrophysicists to apply the same type of principles on earth, with agreement from economists, political scientists, and government commitments? We already have large and volatile markets here on earth, just without the genius and unconventional wisdom of spacial thinkers. Maybe we should give more credence to those who think in terms of light-years and nano-seconds, black holes and string theories....instead of those who think in terms of election cycles or war seasons.
Remote operation is the sweet spot to keep the cost down and the safety up. The venture referred to in the OP is looking at near Earth asteroids probably for this very reason. An operation out beyond Mars would require very good autonomous robots or a crew and all the associated costs.
To be fair, the moon shots were all first time, cutting edge work with relatively primitive technology. The space station costs were driven up by our political system and by not having a business oriented purpose. Both projects were astronaut oriented, which is intrinsically enormously expensive. A mining venture could/ should be a lot cheaper just for not having these challenenges.It cost us somewhere around $100 billion to put men on the Moon. It has cost us about $150 billion to put a small space station in low earth orbit. It would probably cost at least that much to get a working asteroid mining operation going, with significant additional expenditure for each new asteroid (not to mention prospecting costs, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised it the cost was significantly higher. Using that same investment in mining operations on Earth would probably yield far more profit.
A little off track, but wondering about your thoughts around what iron would be used for in space? When you think of the uses we have for it on Earth, armor aside, we generally use it to resist gravity - bridges, buildings, etc. - because its alloys are very strong & flexible in comparison to weight. That's not a need in space though, unless you plan to build a giant rotating wheel like in 2001: A Space Oddessy. And using iron for space vehicles... well, maybe if we get access to plentiful fuel via space mining too....But a kilogram of iron in Earth orbit is fantastically expensive - on the order of thousands of dollars per kilogram to LEO or GTO. That's where your competitive advantage comes in. If there's a market for your mined goods in orbit, then the relatively small acceleration needed for delivery makes it worthwhile compared to Earth-based alternatives.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Depends on whether or goals are short term or long term. Whether you're trying to maximise profit from the first few operations, or build up a base of technology and experience that is going to make you fantastically rich (alright, even more fantastically rich) decades down the line... when you've gotten awesomely good at it, when rare earth metals are rarer, technology has advance to make it cheaper to get the produces of your space mining down from orbit and/or there's a robust demand for metals in earth orbit. Then you are sitting pretty because you have everything already in place, the technology, the doctrine, the infrastructure already there.
It's ironic that James Cameron may be in the process of founding the real Weyland-Yutani.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Even the close asteroids would have lag times of minutes, or at least large chunks of seconds. You can't really do remote operation that way - the Mars rovers, for examples, are pathetically slow to do anything because the autonomous/flexible robotics isn't there yet, and our 'remote operation' has a ridiculously long lag time.
The big reason to use a close asteroid is because no matter how you mine it - by mining/refining in situ or by bringing it closer and mining - the delta vee needed to shove it towards Earth is smaller for closer asteroids with appropriate orbits.
Agreed, but there are other HUGE technological breakthroughs necessary, and the distance means that boosting that much large equipment out there would cost a huge amount of energy no matter how you slice it. Energy is expensive. Absent true von Neumann machines you're not going to get around this problem very easily.To be fair, the moon shots were all first time, cutting edge work with relatively primitive technology. The space station costs were driven up by our political system and by not having a business oriented purpose. Both projects were astronaut oriented, which is intrinsically enormously expensive. A mining venture could/ should be a lot cheaper just for not having these challenenges.
The major metal used in the ISS and other human space vehicles (and probably most unmanned satellites) is aluminum, just because of its good properties (it's also used for many other flying applications, of course). However, significant amounts of steel and iron are used as well - for example, the flywheels in the ISS are made of steel. (BTW there are plenty of stresses metals in space are subjected to - very large thermal differentials, stresses from acceleration, pressure differences, vibrations, etc. Gravity is hardly the only thing people worry about.) Regardless, I just mentioned iron because the amount of recoverable iron is likely to be far greater than most other materials in raw amount (e.g. so-called nickel-iron asteroids) than rarer materials like gold or platinum, which definitely do have important applications in manufacturing but aren't used in such large amounts.A little off track, but wondering about your thoughts around what iron would be used for in space? When you think of the uses we have for it on Earth, armor aside, we generally use it to resist gravity - bridges, buildings, etc. - because its alloys are very strong & flexible in comparison to weight. That's not a need in space though, unless you plan to build a giant rotating wheel like in 2001: A Space Oddessy. And using iron for space vehicles... well, maybe if we get access to plentiful fuel via space mining too....
I don't think this is true. Most people who build infrastructure don't make money in the long run - whether it's telephone lines or railroads, they end up taking all of the upfront risk but getting little reward once it's all commoditized. (Also for the last time, RARE EARTH METALS AREN'T RARE. Phew, sorry I needed to get that out.)
I don't deny that it's reasonable to suggest that 'if you build it, they will come' may apply here. I think that moving a lot of refined raw materials into orbit (and developing a lot of advanced material processing techniques for microgravity) will lead to an explosion of near-Earth industry and could be very exciting. But I question whether people would actually ever see any real return on their investment. So, cool idea? Definitely. Profitable idea? Unlikely.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. If America supports or is okay with the proposal it can be both America's stuff and a "pirate." And if another country siezes, or attacks it America would likely defend said materials.It's not "our stuff". The second an American entity gets into space in order to engage in illegal activities, it stops being American and becomes a pirate.
I don't follow this logic. If a company builds infrastructure and they're the only company with it, aka the only company with the means to utilizing this resource, how could they not be one of the large benefactors. The other benefactors are of course the producers, who are taking the raw materials. The last benefactors consumers who take their profit in terms of the value they find in this product.I don't think this is true. Most people who build infrastructure don't make money in the long run - whether it's telephone lines or railroads, they end up taking all of the upfront risk but getting little reward once it's all commoditized. (Also for the last time, RARE EARTH METALS AREN'T RARE. Phew, sorry I needed to get that out.)
Perhaps infrastructure was the wrong word. What is mean is they'll already have the space ships designed and built and well tested, crews/operators proficient in their use, the launch platforms set up, plenty of real world experience and whatever funky outer space things they're going to put out there already out there. In short, they'll have a huge head start over everyone else.
Imagine: Space Year 2035. Planetary Resources have been working quietly at this for the past 23 years. Mining asteroids, bringing the materials back to earth orbit for use by NASA, and supplying few specialist manufacturers who work in orbit making things that are easier to make up there than down here. They're turning over a modest profit, but it remains the pet project of billionaires. It's done because it's cool not because it really makes economic sense so no one else has really bothered. They have their own orbital stations for processing the ore, they have refueling stations on some NEOs. They have a few iterations of designs behind them for their vehicles, they have got the operational procedures down to an art. They've figured out what works and what doesn't.
Now, something changes. Maybe a technological breakthrough in materials science makes a space elevator possible. Or economic changes on earth make space mining far more profitable. Or something new is invented the manufacture of which makes much more sense in orbit, and it's a mass market good not the specialist high-tech stuff that had been made up there until now. These guys are the only people who know how to mine in space. Everyone else has to learn from scratch what they've spend the last 23 years learning.
But how are we defining rare here? They're rare compared to clouds, right?(Also for the last time, RARE EARTH METALS AREN'T RARE. Phew, sorry I needed to get that out.)
I think they'll either see a massive return on investment or huge losses*. I do think though that if they face the huge losses scenario it'll be because mining asteroids turns out to be really hard, rather than the whole premise being flawed. And that the next generation of space entrepreneurs will learn from their mistakes.I don't deny that it's reasonable to suggest that 'if you build it, they will come' may apply here. I think that moving a lot of refined raw materials into orbit (and developing a lot of advanced material processing techniques for microgravity) will lead to an explosion of near-Earth industry and could be very exciting. But I question whether people would actually ever see any real return on their investment. So, cool idea? Definitely. Profitable idea? Unlikely.
* or they'll keep at it a couple of years and then be, like, "nahh too difficult" when no one is watching, which I'd pin as the most likely outcome.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Which is definitely the smart play. If it somehow succeeds, you copy it. In the more likely event that it fails, you learn from it for your own long-term plans. Makes more sense than shooting down something just because it violates an international treaty that everyone's planning to ignore anyway (much like the rest of "international law," anytime it's inconvenient).
You might have him there, if he was a signator to that agreement between tyrants, but I guess you don't know as much about libertarians as you seem to think. For future reference, libertarian != lawyer.Erm, so a legal agreement stops being relevant the second technology advances?
I would. Do I count?
It always ends up that way anyway, may as well do it while we have the advantage, instead of the other way. Besides, it's hard to see the downside in a bunch of governments bloodying each other up over riches they'll damn themselves with, at best.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
