http://cei.org/issue-analysis/homestead ... l-frontier
Interesting but I personally would prefer keeping it as it is now. If you built a base on the moon or mars the base itself, that is the bigelow inflatable modules buried in the regolith are private property, but the land itself is not. Seems to me you don't need to be able to claim the land upon which it rests provided no one else can either. If EXXON has an oil platform in the middle of the pacific, the platform is private property even if the sea it floats on isn't owned by anyone. The oil in the seabed belongs to no one, but once it is in the environs of the platform or the oil tanker it belongs to EXXON. That would work just fine in space, and keep earthside govs mits off the land.
Homesteading the Final Frontier
That is an interesting argument. So if you dig tunnels/caverns, then line them. You own everything inside the outer edge of the lining?
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
In a practical sense yes...on paper as far as earth is concerned not neccesarily. But as long as no one else can claim it do I really need and earthside piece of paper saying I own it? If I build a house on earth on a piece of land I had better own it, because if i don't someone else sure as heck does. Sooner or later he/she will show up say "thanks for the free house now get off my land". In space like the aforementioned oil platform at sea I can own the the base don't need to own the land upon which it sits. If any gov on earth like the US had the authority to recognize land ownership claims, explicit in that is the ability to deny/regulate such claims. Who gets them who doesn't what use they can or can't make of the land.ladajo wrote:That is an interesting argument. So if you dig tunnels/caverns, then line them. You own everything inside the outer edge of the lining?
-
kunkmiester
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
- Contact:
If I don't own a commodity until I actually extract it, that implies that someone else can mine the exact same site at the same time, perhaps even taking advantage of developments I've made(such as digging a strip mine pit) to get to it.
I really don't see a problem with owning land on say, the moon. Regulation is going to be solved by distance--the first once up there will be some of the most independent and innovative ones, and they'll have little time for superfluous regulation--i.e. regulations not agreed upon by local councils of themselves.
Earth is going to have little input on how the moon is used, especially once moon colonies start becoming self sufficient.
I really don't see a problem with owning land on say, the moon. Regulation is going to be solved by distance--the first once up there will be some of the most independent and innovative ones, and they'll have little time for superfluous regulation--i.e. regulations not agreed upon by local councils of themselves.
Earth is going to have little input on how the moon is used, especially once moon colonies start becoming self sufficient.
Evil is evil, no matter how small
kunkmiester wrote:If I don't own a commodity until I actually extract it, that implies that someone else can mine the exact same site at the same time, perhaps even taking advantage of developments I've made(such as digging a strip mine pit) to get to it.
I really don't see a problem with owning land on say, the moon. Regulation is going to be solved by distance--the first once up there will be some of the most independent and innovative ones, and they'll have little time for superfluous regulation--i.e. regulations not agreed upon by local councils of themselves. Earth is going to have little input on how the moon is used, especially once moon colonies start becoming self sufficient.
I am referring to earth deciding who owns what. Left out so far would be the mars/moon colonists themselves deciding who owns what. By the time large scale mining operations exists on the moon/mars would think the colonists themselves would make their laws/regs about who is allowed to do what as needed.
I think that it will take two parts. One is surely, as mentioned, self-sufficient. The other is self-defense.
'It is yours, if you can keep it.'
It really will be interesting to see who gets 'there' first. 'There' being another rock. Government expedition to colonize, or private venture colony, be-it corporate or citizen's conglomerate.
Whichever, I don't think I'll see it in my life.
'It is yours, if you can keep it.'
It really will be interesting to see who gets 'there' first. 'There' being another rock. Government expedition to colonize, or private venture colony, be-it corporate or citizen's conglomerate.
Whichever, I don't think I'll see it in my life.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Musk say a mars colony in 10-20yrs or so...think you have a shot at living that much longer? And he is too smart to have not thought of my idea of a "bank of mars".ladajo wrote:It really will be interesting to see who gets 'there' first. 'There' being another rock. Government expedition to colonize, or private venture colony, be-it corporate or citizen's conglomerate.
Whichever, I don't think I'll see it in my life.
Base do current tech, (initiatives not withstanding), that may be a bit optimistic. Visits yes, sustained colony, maybe not that soon.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Since they're now pretty sure there is water on the moon, the only thing stopping us is a business model. We've had designs on the books for doing this for decades. I see no reason we could not have a quasi-permanant lunar colony in a decade.
The question is "why?" We don't seem to have the political will to do it just "because." The Russians can't afford it. Elon Musk could probably pull if off if he thought there was profit in it, but I rather doubt he'll go for that particular option based on our present knowledge.
The Chinese ... now there's an interesting possibility. They certainly could if they had the national will. They might do so just for pretty much the same reasons we went to the moon ... international bragging rights.
Musk might be more likely to partner up with industry and explore some asteroids. I'm personally convinced that's the smarter industrial target. But you'll see explorations before you see colonies.
The question is "why?" We don't seem to have the political will to do it just "because." The Russians can't afford it. Elon Musk could probably pull if off if he thought there was profit in it, but I rather doubt he'll go for that particular option based on our present knowledge.
The Chinese ... now there's an interesting possibility. They certainly could if they had the national will. They might do so just for pretty much the same reasons we went to the moon ... international bragging rights.
Musk might be more likely to partner up with industry and explore some asteroids. I'm personally convinced that's the smarter industrial target. But you'll see explorations before you see colonies.
What wrong with my idea? If is done privately by Musk or someone else go with: "Bank of Mars(or Luna)" viewtopic.php?t=3383&highlight=Tom Ligon wrote:Since they're now pretty sure there is water on the moon, the only thing stopping us is a business model. We've had designs on the books for doing this for decades. I see no reason we could not have a quasi-permanant lunar colony in a decade.
The question is "why?" We don't seem to have the political will to do it just "because." The Russians can't afford it. Elon Musk could probably pull if off if he thought there was profit in it, but I rather doubt he'll go for that particular option based on our present knowledge.
Your taking advantage of the one thing space has to trade on right away...its physical location away from earth laws/regs/taxes. Other than tourism of some kind seems that would be the thing you would have to go with. All the other ideas, mining, SPS's etc would take many years and dollars to set up.
No problem but gravity wells. One recent analysis of NASA's Orion concept suggested it could be used to visit near-Earth asteroids, and it might actually be easier than a lunar surface visit. You don't even need a lander ... maneuvering thrusters can set you down on all but the largest asteroids.
Plus, people are less attached emotionally to asteroids, and would probably consider it a public service to take these potential disaster movie rocks and grind them up for industrial materials. You would hear little about property rights, at least until they proved profitable.
There was a good candidate discovered a year or so ago, a "Trojan" oscillating back and forth in Earth's orbit around the Sun, which should take little energy to reach. We might have to wait for a solar minimum, or else bring it back near Earth robotically.
Plus, people are less attached emotionally to asteroids, and would probably consider it a public service to take these potential disaster movie rocks and grind them up for industrial materials. You would hear little about property rights, at least until they proved profitable.
There was a good candidate discovered a year or so ago, a "Trojan" oscillating back and forth in Earth's orbit around the Sun, which should take little energy to reach. We might have to wait for a solar minimum, or else bring it back near Earth robotically.
Land area in outer space bodies may belong to noone.
BUT that doesnt seem to affect the vehicles/bases in such bodies, nor anything that comes from that land area.
MEANING: you can´t own an asteroid, but apparently, there is no legal impedment to owning minerium extracted from the asteroid.
Meaning the first guy to mine an asteroid will make a fortune before a second person is able to get the tech to reach an asteroid and mine it.
Thus, the argument that clear laws are the only thing holding back space exploration seems WEAK at best.
The laws were made so no country would say the moon belongs to them just because they put a flag on it.
The laws were made so noone declares owning an entire planet without ever setting foot on it, or just because they put a cheap base there. (how much of an asteroid or planet do you own by setting a SINGLE base there?)
Its clear the laws were made for a purpose and were NOT modified so far BECAUSE there was not any real possibility of nations or people setting up bases or living for real in any of these planets, or exploring their natural resources.
Should we have a law about taking ownership of whole galaxies or star systems, if we can´t even reach beyond our own solar system. No, we dont need such laws.
And we so far have not needed laws dealing more specifically with people and companies owning stuff outside Earth, because till 10 years ago there was absolutely no real talk of private space exploration.
There arent laws regulating this issue because there was no real near future possibility of COLONIZING and EXPLORING commercially planets/moons/asteroids, not the inverse!!!!!!!!!
BUT that doesnt seem to affect the vehicles/bases in such bodies, nor anything that comes from that land area.
MEANING: you can´t own an asteroid, but apparently, there is no legal impedment to owning minerium extracted from the asteroid.
Meaning the first guy to mine an asteroid will make a fortune before a second person is able to get the tech to reach an asteroid and mine it.
Thus, the argument that clear laws are the only thing holding back space exploration seems WEAK at best.
The laws were made so no country would say the moon belongs to them just because they put a flag on it.
The laws were made so noone declares owning an entire planet without ever setting foot on it, or just because they put a cheap base there. (how much of an asteroid or planet do you own by setting a SINGLE base there?)
Its clear the laws were made for a purpose and were NOT modified so far BECAUSE there was not any real possibility of nations or people setting up bases or living for real in any of these planets, or exploring their natural resources.
Should we have a law about taking ownership of whole galaxies or star systems, if we can´t even reach beyond our own solar system. No, we dont need such laws.
And we so far have not needed laws dealing more specifically with people and companies owning stuff outside Earth, because till 10 years ago there was absolutely no real talk of private space exploration.
There arent laws regulating this issue because there was no real near future possibility of COLONIZING and EXPLORING commercially planets/moons/asteroids, not the inverse!!!!!!!!!
I think it has been more than ten years. I recall knocking the topic around with Lawrence Roberts at the CATS conference in 1997, fifteen years back, and it was not new even then.
http://archive.spacefrontier.org/Events/CATS1997/
http://www.quora.com/Lawrence-D-Roberts ... er-Space-1
Based on my objections to the obvious chilling effects on commercialization of the Moon Treaty and other proposed measures saying, essentially, that NOBODY could own anything in space, Dr. Roberts generated a proposal for, in essence, staking claims. You had to go there with resources, not just file papers.
In any event, there are not laws on this because there is no world lawmaking body with authority to create them. There has been some UN activity among non-space-faring nations wanting a free piece of space pie, but nations with the capability to go there tend not to sign these treaties.
http://archive.spacefrontier.org/Events/CATS1997/
http://www.quora.com/Lawrence-D-Roberts ... er-Space-1
Based on my objections to the obvious chilling effects on commercialization of the Moon Treaty and other proposed measures saying, essentially, that NOBODY could own anything in space, Dr. Roberts generated a proposal for, in essence, staking claims. You had to go there with resources, not just file papers.
In any event, there are not laws on this because there is no world lawmaking body with authority to create them. There has been some UN activity among non-space-faring nations wanting a free piece of space pie, but nations with the capability to go there tend not to sign these treaties.
The UN would love to be in charge of the heavens as far as soverignty or short of that the de-facto soverignty of being able to decide whose claims of ownership are valid and whose are not. Ruling the heavens as a long term step of ruling on earth that, "common heritage of mankind" rot. The space faring nations obviously beg to differ. The US doesn't want China/Russia/India declaring soverignty and vice versa, likewise for any other country doing it, and of course the UN doesn't want anything other than itself in charge either. Far as I am concerned their inability to get on the same page for once is a good thing. Earth government has no business ruling the heavens, let the people who have the cajones to go decide for themselves what gov/laws/regs they should have to live under.Tom Ligon wrote:In any event, there are not laws on this because there is no world lawmaking body with authority to create them. There has been some UN activity among non-space-faring nations wanting a free piece of space pie, but nations with the capability to go there tend not to sign these treaties.