Corporate Overlords are Mining the Sky

[Khendraja'aro]

But how are we defining rare here? They're rare compared to clouds, right?

Rare in the sense that they mostly aren't concentrated like the commonly known metals like iron or copper. Other than that, there's nothing rare about them.

The problem with rare earths is not so much finding them but rather purifying them. That's mostly a not so environmentally-nice process.

[Lewkowski]

Should have told the US not to sign the Outer Space Treaty.

Its only as strong as half of the house, half of the senate and the president.

[Aimless]

Its only as strong as half of the house, half of the senate and the president.

Out of curiosity, how many treaties do you think you can get away with violating? Which ones and for how long?

[Loki]

Its only as strong as half of the house, half of the senate and the president.

Eh? The House doesn't vote on treaties, and the Senate approves them by two-thirds.

[Wraith]

Out of curiosity, how many treaties do you think you can get away with violating? Which ones and for how long?

If we decide that a treaty like this is no longer in our interests, I don't see a problem with announcing as much and declaring an intent to withdraw. I'd only have a problem with it if we violated the treaty without first withdrawing from it.

Not that I think we'll have to do it in this case. From my reading of it, it looks like you'd have to bend a good deal to make it say that the US should be making space mining illegal for private entities. Since it's actually prohibiting claims of sovereignty over natural celestial bodies, one could even argue that it prohibits any action against an organization like Planetary Resources - nobody has jurisdiction to stop them.

[Wraith]

Space Law: Is Asteroid Mining Legal?




Can a private company claim ownership of an asteroid based on sending a probe
out to it? Can it at least get exclusive mining rights? Would it own the gold,
platinum or other materials mined from the asteroid?

Last week, a new private company, Planetary Resources
announced an ambitious plan to prospect
for and eventually mine near-Earth asteroids. Backed in part by Google execs
Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, this venture has stirred the pot once again on the
question of outer space property rights.

Understanding the legality of asteroid mining starts with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Some might argue the treaty bans all space
property rights, citing Article II:

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to
national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation,
or by any other means.

Others have argued that because Article II only applies to nations, individuals are free
to claim chunks of the solar system. But as we’ve
noted before, the treaty also requires nations to ensure their citizens
comply with the other provisions of the Outer Space Treaty — including a
prohibition against sovereign claims of property rights. So neither nations nor
individuals can appropriate territory in space. But what about asteroid
mining?

While Article II clearly bans “appropriation,” other provisions actually
support property rights. The treaty makes clear that both the exploration and
use of outer space shall be free of restraint and discrimination, and that there
will be free access to all parts of space. It also states that the use of
equipment and facilities necessary for peaceful activities is fine. And anything
launched into (or built in) space remains the private property of its owner.

To make sense of the Treaty, we must turn to customary international law —
how nations have interpreted what these treaty provisions mean in their
dealings, both internally, and with other nations. These other sources of
international law are critical because the Outer Space Treaty itself is at best
confusing and, at worst, internally inconsistent on space property rights.

Blanket claims to celestial bodies have been attempted for millennia, yet
none has been recognized by customary law. The only court case we have in this
respect arose when Greg Nemitz, a space activist, filed a claim for the asteroid
Eros with an online database known as the Archimedes Institute, and then sent
NASA a bill for parking fees when NASA landed the NEAR-Shoemaker probe on Eros
in 2001. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit because Nemitz
was unable to prove actual ownership rights for Eros.


While Nemitz failed, customary international law has essentially recognized
property rights based on possession — which, as the old saying goes, is
nine-tenths of the law. Satellite orbits, for instance, are allocated by the
International Telecommunications Union. Strictly speaking, they are not “owned”
by the assignee, but can be renewed on a regular basis, and can be leased to
other parties. This and Outer Space Treaty’s recognition of property rights for
satellites are the basis for the more than $300-billion-per-year private
satellite industry.

Similarly, asteroid mining will depend on customary international law
established by the 1960s moon race between the U.S. and USSR. The six Apollo
landings brought back 842 pounds of lunar material. NASA has strictly controlled
use of the material, and less than 10 percent has ever been experimented on.

NASA itself claims (.pdf) that the lunar samples are “a
limited national resource, a future heritage, and [requires] that samples be
released only for approved applications in research, education, and public
display.” The United States government has vigorously prosecuted anyone thought
to have improperly obtained any such samples. Yet NASA exchanged some of these
samples with the Soviet Union, which drew from the approximately 300 grams of
lunar material brought back by three Soviet Luna robotic sample return
missions.

Under any definition of ownership, the United States clearly owns the Apollo
lunar samples. Any entity that can claim something as an exclusive resource,
control its transport and distribution, and can exchange it for something else
of value (in this case, other lunar samples), clearly owns that object. Russian
lunar samples have been re-sold by private individuals, establishing that
portions of a celestial body can be subject to ownership if they are removed
from that celestial body — whether by governments or private parties — even if
the celestial bodies themselves are not subject to appropriation.

This is the single most important legal precedent for property rights in
space, and should provide great comfort to those who wish to exploit the
resources of outer space. It is also consistent with many commentators, who
allege that the Outer Space Treaty’s prohibition on “appropriation” relates only
to entire celestial bodies as they exist “in nature,” and that both individuals
and nations can claim ownership of resources extracted from celestial bodies.
The only real question, then, is the extent of this ownership: Can an entire
asteroid be claimed if it is being mined?

Under the Outer Space Treaty, if a company is mining an asteroid, no other
entity could come along and start mining on the other side if doing so could
interfere with the first set of miners. If the asteroid were large enough to
accommodate two independent mining operations, both could likely proceed, each
gaining ownership of whatever material they extract. Thus, customary
international law already gives would-be asteroid miners a sound basis for their
business model.

But what if a mining company captured an asteroid, changing its orbit to
bring it closer to Earth and thus make return of extracted materials easier?
Would the entire asteroid belong to the mining company because the asteroid, as
a whole, was “extracted” from its “natural” orbit — becoming more like a single
rock or an artificial satellite than a moon or a planet?

This question is too far in the future to answer. But the day that question
arrives, we can all pop the champagne corks to celebrate: Mankind will have
become a truly spacefaring species. We will have taken the first steps toward
bringing the nearly limitless resources of space into the economic sphere of
humanity.

Source

Just saw this after my post. That second to last paragraph raises the same question that I've been thinking about.

[Steely Glint]

I think probably sooner rather than later there's going to have to be another treaty which deals with this stuff properly. Like, what if two mining companies want to mine the same asteroid?

[Khendraja'aro]

I think probably sooner rather than later there's going to have to be another treaty which deals with this stuff properly. Like, what if two mining companies want to mine the same asteroid?

We also definitely want to have some regulations as to how and who supervises those guys when they decide to shove some stuff from outer space into a near-earth orbit.

Punitive damages simply don't cut it when your asteroid just eradicated New York.

[Veldan Rath]

Punitive damages simply don't cut it when your asteroid just eradicated New York.

Should be fne if it was just The Bronx

At least it give Doomberg something else to worry about than transfats, salt, and banning Happy Hour.

[EyeKhan]

I think probably sooner rather than later there's going to have to be another treaty which deals with this stuff properly. Like, what if two mining companies want to mine the same asteroid?

I think the current claim system on Earth - or something like it - would work out there.... It would be a lot cooler if they were allowed to fight over it.

[Nessus]

We also definitely want to have some regulations as to how and who supervises those guys when they decide to shove some stuff from outer space into a near-earth orbit.

Punitive damages simply don't cut it when your asteroid just eradicated New York.

Regulation bad, austerity good... The free markets will figure it out. What's an eradicated city or three, sooner or later it'll become obvious that more profits are to be had by preserving the cities. Can't wipe out all the consumers, after all... No, sir, you keep your big government out of my outer space! Free Mars!

[Veldan Rath]

Regulation bad, austerity good... The free markets will figure it out. What's an eradicated city or three, sooner or later it'll become obvious that more profits are to be had by preserving the cities. Can't wipe out all the consumers, after all... No, sir, you keep your big government out of my outer space! Free Mars!

Well, it's a double win. The sudden absence of NYC at the voting booth could make NY a Red state.

[Aimless]

Er, for some reason the dangers of an asteroid retrieval accident strike me as being more real and more important than the presumed dangers of the US turning into Maotopia.

Out of curiosity, would they actually need to bring back the whole damned asteroid or even a significant portion of it? I mean, they could just develop the capability to do so and then just retrieve a teensy weensy bit at a time... and use asteroids as collateral for taking out ridiculous loans

[Nessus]

It's always cheaper to toss things down the well... I am reminded of the (fake) anecdote about the two poles; a US company spent millions of dollars, they engineered a pen that does not require gravity for the ink to flow. To use in space, for the astronauts, you see. The Soviets used a pencil...

If I had to do it, my first guess would be that it's orders of magnitude cheaper to toss the whole rock down to Earth and then process it, rather than developing the processing for vacuum, weightless conditions. But maybe that is the Soviet approach!

[Veldan Rath]

SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS!

(sorry, finally had to do it)

[Flixy]

That company probably also earned millions by selling 'space pens' to the public!

[Wraith]

It's always cheaper to toss things down the well... I am reminded of the (fake) anecdote about the two poles; a US company spent millions of dollars, they engineered a pen that does not require gravity for the ink to flow. To use in space, for the astronauts, you see. The Soviets used a pencil...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...tion-nasa-spen

It's also used in other situations that require a pen that can write in low pressure, high temperature, at any angle, or on odd surfaces.

[coinich]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...tion-nasa-spen

It's also used in other situations that require a pen that can write in low pressure, high temperature, at any angle, or on odd surfaces.

Plus, pencil and graphite shavings aren't good in zero g environments.

[RandBlade]

Surely an operation this big would provide jobs for companies in much of the world and not just the USA. I could easily imagine a role for British and other European, as well as probably Japanese, Chinese and Russian engineers and other related companies in the supply chain Thus it would not just be the US which gets both taxes and jobs from this. Therefore I could imagine global support for it.

Even if the legality were questioned, it would just take one act of Congress (or even just a statement from the President or even someone lower down) for the US to explain that it views this as legal and any attacks on it will be regarded the same as piracy/whatever. I agree that the laws of the sea provide the best legal backdrop to understanding this and I can not see the law getting in the way of an activity such as this.

I simply doubt it is cost-effective or profitable enough. I also agree that the worst precedent to worry about is not legal in nature but the Spanish gold rush. The costs involved in a venture like this would be so enormous, that in order to generate enough resources at such a high enough volume to generate a profit would be enough to by itself change the value of the resource being sold. Still it could ultimately be possible - Spain was able to make a profit over its raiding the Americas even if it abused it and wasted it. But I doubt it will be a reality in the next few decades.

[Wraith]

I'm fairly certain such a venture would eventually be profitable, I just have doubts about the time horizon for profitability. It might take 20-40 years to really start making money. When it does, it'll be a hell of a lot of money, but I doubt investors have that kind of patience.

Totally agree on the point that this would benefit everyone, and not just one country, though. Especially being done through a corporation - they tend to be significantly less nationalistic than national governments, and will just go for the best of what they want no matter where it comes from.

[Loki]

How many corporations do you know of that are willing to take a loss for 20-40 years? Are they going to try to reduce their losses by advertising in space?

[Wraith]

Didn't I just make the same point?

[Loki]

Missed that sentence.

[EyeKhan]

Totally agree on the point that this would benefit everyone, and not just one country, though. Especially being done through a corporation - they tend to be significantly less nationalistic than national governments, and will just go for the best of what they want no matter where it comes from.

There's an existential benefit too that goes well beyond making money.

[CitizenCain]

I'm fairly certain such a venture would eventually be profitable, I just have doubts about the time horizon for profitability. It might take 20-40 years to really start making money. When it does, it'll be a hell of a lot of money, but I doubt investors have that kind of patience.

Well, the way things seem to go these days, with enough investment capital and/or jobs created, they could just get a government bail out and subsidies to keep them out of the red until those big profits kick in.

Not that I think it'll work either, but it's not like businesses need to rely on being profitable to stay in business these days - all they gotta do is convince the right politicians that they're strategically important or too big to fail or whatever and the public treasury is theirs to plunder.

[RandBlade]

How many corporations do you know of that are willing to take a loss for 20-40 years? Are they going to try to reduce their losses by advertising in space?

The background of a lot of these people is technology etc where years of corporate losses have been standard for new companies, but investors have made a fortune even before the corporate profits eventually arrived. Not quite this many years but still.

The nature of modern business and the stock and bond markets is such that even if a business is not making a profit, investors still can. All that is required is confidence the investment will pay off.

[agamemnus]

I applied. They declined.

Edit: read most of the posts. Interesting thoughts.