Re: Can I own a NEO?

From: Alex Terrell (alexterrell_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/19/04 

Date: 19 Nov 2004 12:25:10 -0800

"Alan Erskine" <alanerskine1@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<nlknd.41860$K7.36403@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

>
> He _is_ a troll (invalid email address for a start, it posted from yahoo and
> google [always worthy of suspicion, plus the highly abusive and offensive
> email it [the troll] sent me after I made that comment), but yes, I agree
> that the question is valid.

I post from Google. Where's better? As for the Yahoo e-mail, I'm not
going to publish my main e-mail addresses here.
>
> > If I want to mine a 100m diameter NEO. Perhaps even I spend a billion
> > dollars to bring it in to Earth Orbit. I start selling oxygen, water
> > and platinum.
>
> Not worth putting into any Earth orbit - as there is almost no gravity on an
> object of that size, it would be simpler and more economical to mine insitu
> and then transport just the product(s) to Earth orbit, leaving the tailings
> (mining waste) in space.
>
But there is no waste. "Tailings" make excellent shield matter.
Further, mining may require some human presence, which is easier in
Earth Orbit, perhaps 3 days away, than a few months away in solar
orbit.

> > Can some one else land on the other side and start doing the same?
>
> Yes; it's called "competition". However, it would be better for the
> opposition to start on their 'own' object.
>
If available. If not, what's to stop their drill accidentaly cutting
my power line.

> > Can I claim the object? The Outer Space Treaty only says states can't
> > claim an object. Who is going to ensure that I don't accidently put
> > the object on an Earth collision orbit?
>
> No, you cannot claim the object, only governments and their representatives
> can do that. If a government were established (perhaps the U.N would be the
> ideal body for this?)
>
I would suggest some form of claim mechanism, at least for a limited
time within the vicinity of any mining activities. And, in the above
scenario, any organisation that appreciably moves an NEO should have
the rights to it for an extended period.

> > I think this is an area that needs to be cleared up well before mining
> > activities start on any other planet / object. Or can we rely on an
> > extension of Anglo-Saxon common law?
>
> The Outer Space Treaty cannot deal with this subject. The OST was intended
> to ensure that our stupid military obsessions didn't spew too far into the
> cosmos.

So the OST does not deal with subject. You are correct in its intent.
It was not intended to incentivise the exploitation of NEOs.

>However, Common Law is constantly being updated as people's
> problems change, but it is on a national (and even local) basis.
>
> International Law on the other hand may be a better way of dealing with
> this. It could be based on existing property, commercial and national laws
> and also on the recognition of international boundaries (see my suggestion
> regarding the U.N. above). If the U.N. were the responsible body, it may be
> that, rather than a nation saying "yes, we will let you mine our country
> even though we are not going to see one red cent of profits", it would be
> the U.N. saying "Yes, we will allow you to mine this object (whatever it may
> be) on the understanding that x% of profits benefit all nations (education,
> health, clean water, food etc)". I for one, would fully support the latter
> option.
>
That is tantamount to the UN owning the NEOs and having the ability to
auction them off. I have no objection in principle, as long as it
doesn't discourage investors - in this case a % of profit is much
better thana fixed fee.

However, how would you define a % of profits benefiting all nations?
If I invest a few billion to start capturing and mining NEOs, all
humanity will benefit in the long run. Now some unelected body,
consisting largely of non-democratic countries with appalling human
rights records, is going to specify where I should donate some of my
profit? Is the US military a worthy cause?

> This would also prevent the current, national 'aggressions' (no, not
> necessarily Iraq, but Iran, South Korea, China, Israel etc).

How?

> Hell, even
> Australia's relationship with Nauru is of concern - we've taken all their
> phosphate deposits and now the damn country's down the financial toilet due
> to decisions made 50 or more years ago!

Don't persecute yourselves. They were well rewarded for their
phosphate and have now managed to improverish themselves. (It'll be
amusing if we say the same about Saudia Arabia in 50 years).

> The U.N. would be able to prevent
> these types of things from developing in the first place.
>
Why? The UN can't even prevent genocide - not for lack of money, but
for lack of agreement.

> Most, if not all, legal problems that will occur for corporations in space,
> have occured here on Earth (border disputes, property claims, pollution
> [where do you put the waste, including heat?], contractual disputes etc ad
> infinitum).

Yes, but which common law is applicable? East Timor - Australia oil
extraction arguments are complex enough.