Re: Russia to build factories on Moon?

"Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:On 15 Apr, 23:57, John Schilling <schil...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:59:32 GMT, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
:> wrote:
:>
:> >John Schilling <schil...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> >:>:>It'd be great if countries started staking claims, but that seems
:> >:>:>unlikely.
:> >:>:Why?
:> >:>:The very *best* that can happen if people start staking territorial
:> >:>:claims to the moon, is that when someone eventually figures out a
:> >:>:business plan for actually *doing* something on the moon, that someone
:> >:>:is fortunate enough to have a universally recognized claim to the piece
:> >:>:of lunar territory their business plan calls for.
:> >:>:Which is no better than what we already have, and that's the *best*
:> >:>:case.
:> >:>Uh, do we really have that now?
:> >:Yes, we do. It's called the Outer Space Treaty, and it provides a
:> >:nearly ideal environment for early space development.
:> >Well, no, it doesn't. I think you need to go reread that thing again.
:> >Pay particular attention to Article I and think about what might be
:> >done to a private company (and its host nation) that starts something
:> >like He3 mining on the Moon.
:>
:> Sorry, but no. "Think about what might happen...", isn't an argument.
:> It's an evasion by someone who doesn't have an argument, who is trying
:> vainly to place the burden of proof on the other party.
:>
:> Per the Outer Space Treaty, what might be done to a private company
:> mining He3 on the Moon, and/or its host nation, is nothing at all.
:> The OST guarantees free access for any nation that wants to use the
:> moon. It does not place any limits on what they want to use the Moon
:> *for*, except stuff like e.g. not putting military bases there. And
:> it does not allow anyone else to interfere with whatever useful
:> enterprises any nation wishes to pursue on the Moon.
:>
:> A hundred years from now, this may be inadequate on account of the
:> Moon being so crowded that any one party's attempted use of the Moon
:> will necessarily interfere with someone else's. We can deal with
:> that later - preferably something like fifty years from now, when
:> we know a lot more about what we're dealing *with*.
:>
:> Right now, we've got a treaty that says nobody can get in our way
:> as we go off to mine He3 on the Moon. We've got plenty of scientists,
:> engineers, businessmen and economists pointing out that mining He3
:> on the Moon is a pretty daft idea, but that's a different matter.
:>
:> >:>:More likely, if we go that route, the first guy to figure out
:> >:>:how to actually do something worthwhile on the moon, is delayed and
:> >:>:possibly blocked outright by conflicting territorial claims.
:> >:>That's as opposed to being blocked by having to buy off half the
:> >:>countries in the UN General Assembly or having a constant 'bite'
:> >:>applied in the form of 'Special World Taxes'.
:> >:I must have missed something - when did the UN General Assembly ever
:> >:get the authority to levy taxes of any sort?
:> >They call them 'dues'. Given the phrasing of the Outer Space Treaty,
:> >they would be perfectly within their rights to mandate dues ('special
:> >levy') against a member country that would force 'sharing with all
:> >mankind' of any benefits from any space activity.
:>
:> You really don't have a clue, do you? First off, the phrasing of the
:> Outer Space Treaty doesn't make the slightest mention of "dues" or
:> "special levies". Nor, for that matter, does it include the phrase,
:> "sharing with all mankind". Doesn't include the word "sharing" at
:> all. Second, in order for a treaty to grant anyone that sort of
:> authority, it has to be done explicitly - no vague language about
:> international do-gooding will ever be construed to allow anyone to
:> take money from anyone else on account of their insufficient level
:> of goodness. Third, UN dues are based on a nation's ability to pay,
:> not value judgements about that nation's activities. Fourth, UN dues
:> ammount to a whopping 0.0033% "tax" on US economic activity and there
:> is no legal basis or mechanism for imposing a higher level on the
:> basis where or how the economic activity in question takes place.
:> Fifth, the UN has already hit the ceiling regarding how much dues it
:> is allowed to levy on the United States. And sixth, the UN cannot
:> collect and the US does not pay the dues that are levied in the first
:> place.
:>
:> So no, I don't think anyone planning any industrial activity on the
:> Moon has anything to fear from the UN 'levying special dues' on them
:> or any other such nonsense.
:>
:> And you, seem to be confusing the Outer Space Treaty with the Moon
:> Treaty. More importantly, though, you seem to be starting with your
:> conclusion, that We Absolutely Must Claim Lunar Territory Under The
:> American Flag, and trying to force the evidence to fit the conclusion
:> by vague and dubious interpretations unsupported by text or precedent.
:>
:> --
:> *John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
:> *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
:> *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
:> *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
:> *schil...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx * for success" *
:> *661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
:
:The outer space treaty is sufficiently vague that it would cause doubt
:for investors. Equally, it would provide incumbents. Example:
:
:"The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other
:celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the
:interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic
:or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind."
:
:So if I go and start mining the moon, someone is going to take me to
:some court saying I need to share the proceeds with all countries. I
:will tell them where to go, and point out that by making a profit
:mining what ever, I am benefiting all mankind.
:
:The denial of property rights could be problematic. Not so much for
:Helium 3 mining which isn't really location specific (it's a bit like
:mining argon from the Earth's atmosphere - you don't need to own a
:specific location). More likely, if after much exploration I find a
:type M asteroid on the surface of the moon, with billions of pounds of
:PGMs withing a few hundred metres. I'll start digging. Then along
:comes a Chinese ship and starts digging next to me. There's nothing I
:can do about it.
:
:Off the moon its even worse. Lets say I send a billion dollar mission
:to change the orbit of a 50m diameter NEO. After three years I capture
:it in High Earth Orbit. Then along comes a French rocket and starts to
:mine it. When can I claim it? Once I've landed on it? Moved it? Bagged
:it? Or converted it into a space station?
:
:This is less of a problem if I'm a US company, paying US taxes,
:because I'd probably have some help from the marines. But I rather be
:able to make a limited claim on my mine or my asteroid.

This is pretty much exactly my point, which is why I referred him to
Article I of the treaty. He apparently couldn't be bothered to think
or actually go look, so I didn't bother to reply to his long tirade,
where he demonstrated that the only thing he has going for his
position is ad hominem attack.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Russia to build factories on Moon?
    ... like He3 mining on the Moon. ... Per the Outer Space Treaty, what might be done to a private company ... mining He3 on the Moon, and/or its host nation, is nothing at all. ... they would be perfectly within their rights to mandate dues ('special ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Russia to build factories on Moon?
    ... like He3 mining on the Moon. ... Per the Outer Space Treaty, what might be done to a private company ... mining He3 on the Moon, and/or its host nation, is nothing at all. ... They call them 'dues'. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Rover Rights
    ... Essentially all nations ... > have signed the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and Article II of it reads: ... > Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not ... I thought this came from the Outer space Treaty, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Russia to build factories on Moon?
    ... like He3 mining on the Moon. ... Given the phrasing of the Outer Space Treaty, ... the moon and other celestial bodies, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Russia to build factories on Moon?
    ... like He3 mining on the Moon. ... :>:possibly blocked outright by conflicting territorial claims. ... Given the phrasing of the Outer Space Treaty, ... A fisherman does ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast