Space is big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Of all the great adventures that humanity can embark on in the near future, none has captured the popular imagination quite like space exploration. Since before the time that humanity launched the first artificial satellite, we have dreamed of what it might be like to set foot on other worlds. Where dreams lead, however, the bureaucrats are sure to be lurching close behind. Passing judgment and crafting policy has long been the pleasure of the professional statist. In man’s adventure into space, such a creature was given a rare gift: A virgin field, unframed by any law save those of nature. Before even the first V-1 was launched, there were those who contemplated both exploration and policy. Theodore von Kármán, one of the founders of Aerojet, an early rocket company, had this to say in 1942, just after the incorporation of the company, “Now, Andy, we will make the rockets – you must make the corporation and obtain the money. Later on you will have to see that we behave well in outer space…After all, we are the scientists but you are the lawyer, and you must tell us how to behave ourselves according to law and to safeguard our innocence.[i]” There were, at that time, no laws on the books to describe allowable action, inactions, and responsibilities that would accompany space flight. But in the next two decades, such a field would develop. Andrew Haley would be one of the main crafters of space law[ii], even coining a term for it, ‘metalaw.’
The laws that would be crafted were largely a creation of their time when the UN was paralyzed between cold warriors. As such, they are imbued with a certain neutrality and compromise. The most famous and overarching of these regulatory documents was the 1967 ‘Outer Space Treaty.’ This treaty laid down some basic conventions which are still honored today, such as Article V forbidding the placement of WMD’s in orbit, on the Moon, or in any sort of stationary platform or satellite. There are gaps, though; the treaty mentions WMD’s but not conventional weapons, so in theory, orbital bombardment is still allowed. Another gap in the treaty, one that is becoming increasingly relevant, is the use of resources in space. At the time the treaty was written, the idea of commercial entities who could perform their own launches or exploit resources was inconceivable. Now there are at least eighteen competing commercial space companies. That’s only counting ones working on launch vehicles. There are many other companies that specialize in other areas and more being created every day. That would come as a grand surprise to the many bureaucrats who were stuck in a binary view of policy, who could never imagine advances beyond what they saw before them. Even more pressing today: the treaty does not allow any nation to claim territory in space. The moon, asteroids, and all other stellar bodies are seen as communally owned and for the benefit of all mankind[iii]. That might come as news to the several space mining companies that are looking to exploit the potential trillions of dollars of precious metal and rare earth elements that are locked in the numerous asteroids in the solar system[iv].
Indeed, as much the way that regulators were unable to predict the rise of disruptive technology online or in new media, they were equally unable to foresee the rise of a whole industry based around the idea of exploiting the resources present in the solar system and beyond. In attempting to placate the powers of the time, they left no room for innovators to build on the fantastic possibilities of space exploration. This has meant that those who wish to dream of riches from beyond the world must go to antiquated documents written in a time before we had even set foot on the moon. Even when the push against regulation comes, one must also wonder how hard the early pioneers of space exploitation will try to close the door behind them in order to throttle competition. In a truly free market, companies would not have to go hat in hand to the national regulators to get launch permission, then comb the international laws looking for a loophole to exploit in their quest for mineral exploitation. Rather, it would only be a matter of capital investment and an entrepreneurial spirit that would lead the way. Of course, as the race for asteroid wealth increases pace it is certain that some enterprising person will find a way around the laws, even if it means approaching their state looking for succor to reach around international regulations.
Space is big, but governments currently control the sky that separates us from heavenly riches. There will undoubtedly come a time when the exploitation of space resources becomes a common practice. It is important for the allies of economic liberty to push for the reforms needed to open up a truly free market, so when that success comes, it will be that much harder for the bureaucrats to take the credit for the success that their laws would have nearly strangled in the crib.
________________________________________________
[i] Andrew G. Haley (1963) Space Law and Government, page xii, Appleton-Century-Crofts
[ii] Daniel Lang and Brendan Gill (December 29, 1956) The Talk of the Town, “Metalaw”, The New Yorker, p. 19
[iii] Jennifer Frakes, (2003) The Common Heritage of Mankind Principle and the Deep Seabed, Outer Space, and Antarctica: Will Developed and Developing Nations Reach a Compromise? Wisconsin International Law Journal, 21, at 409
[iv] Webster, Ian “Asterank” Asterank
“Where dreams lead, however, the bureaucrats are sure to be lurching close behind.”
Did you mean lurking? I think you meant lurking.
Lurching is correct, in that the man is always lurching behind, never catching up, but always following
Lurching… like the zombies they are!
Correct
*scribbles on notepad* lurching, got it!
Hey, if your taking notes, I will gladly accept them. This is the first semi-serious piece I’ve written in some time. The rust wrapped around my formal training was just barely buffered off.
I wouldn’t be an unbiased source, since I am currently an employee of one of the 18 private spaceflight companies mentioned in the article (hint: it’s one of the companies with a currently operational craft).
Fair enough.
If it’s Bezos operation then we share a boss, if not a company
… and you’re both goofing off on his dime!
BUUUURRRRNNNN!
Are we not doing phrasing anymore?
TOLD YOU
Wait a minute – I thought Pro Libertate already had a legal lock on anything outside of Earth.
Common mistake.
Huh. I thought he stuck to the Oort Cloud, and maybe a bit of Saturn or Jupiter Moon mining.
I’d like to moon mine some celestial bodies….
One point about the Outer Space Treaty…it looks like one of those deals where (to paraphrase P. J. O’Rourke in a different context) you lock the cookies away so you won’t eat them, but keep the key.
“Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification.”
The Depositary Governments are “the Governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America.”
Yeah, the treaty itself is fairly unenforceable to begin with. I wrote my senior thesis on the problem of space debris and the Treaty came up a lot in terms of liability and responsibility. I’m working on a piece now, boiling down the lunacy that is liability in outer space. But as you said, if a nation wishes to withdraw there is no legal mechanism to stop them from doing so.
Isn’t that sort of true with all treaties though? It’s basically a ‘you and what army?’ situation all the time.
This just makes if official.
We’ve discussed this with the drug treaties –
“OMG we have to ban dope, we have treaty responsibilities to the international community!”
“And you don’t want to withdraw from this unwise treaty because…”
“Because OMG look at all the other countries we denounced for not being tough enough on drugs!”
Yeah, it’s an inherent weakness built in, to appease the USA and USSR. If either of the main space fairing powers at the time didn’t like it they could back out, and since the treaty made it legal to do so without repercussions then the balance of power was not threatened by such an action.
Yes but the Outer Space Treaty increases the ‘you and what army’ factor to new heights.
Say the Americans built a military base on the moon and declared it sovereign American territory. Or they decide to fuck with the ionosphere for giggles.
What, exactly, is the Soviet Union going to do about it? International condemnation/mean words? Sanctions? Nuclear war and/or threats of nuclear war? At least with earthbound agreements there’s the potential for proxy conflict and non-state actors. Space it’s either meaningless prattle or direct conflict over vague interests.
As a former rocket surgeon I though tit might be fun to do some moot court briefs and arguments at Lachs back in my law school days. Most of the problems were liability problems and hinged on causation. One of the most frustrating things I’ve ever done was try and argue those issues of causation, risk, and reasonably, with a room full of people who have absolutely no idea how rockets or spaceflight in general works.
“Ok, have you all played the required six hours of Kerbal Space Program yet?”
Even that might have been helpful… although the crux of the argument hung on risk corridors and Monte-Carlos so I’d probably have still lost them.
I wouldn’t risk going into a corridor in some crappy Chevy…
*ducks*
The other kind you dummy!
*throws chalk*
I have a hard time believe that basic physics concepts in regard to spaceflight would be extremely difficult for the lay person to grasp. I mean, it’s not like it’s rocke…. oh, wait *checks google* crap… nevermind.
“The fuck is a Hohmann transfer?”
An AE PhD friend of mine used to see that rocket science was easy, it was making stuff fly in air that was hard.
In mechanical engineering, the dividing line between the men and the boys is whether your fluids are compressible.
In NukE, the dividing line is not being an ME.
Which is why I like being Aerospace. Because I get to deal with compressible fluids and all kinds of radiation.
tit might be fun
Tits are ALWAYS fun.
Lunacy…I see what you did there.
/Paging Swiss!
I wonder what steps any (or all) national governments would take if a private entity tried to set up a base on the moon? Or if one of these private companies was actually able to mine asteroids?
Would a capable government launch some kind of a military strike to prevent this?
IMO, it depends on who the company is registered with. If it’s a US company then likely they have at least tacit approval and the station/placement would be staffed with US citizens, therefore an attack on it would Casus Belli, and no one wants to be on the end of that hurt. If it is any of the great powers, Chine, the EU, Russia (to some extent) it’s the same calculation. Who owns it and how pissed will they be if it’s attacked
What if it’s run by citizens of Monaco?
(sorry, carrying over from the other thread)
Ha, nice
That depends, the OST basically forbids anyone from owning property in space. You effectively have possessor rights as first in time over the soil under whatever you’ve set up, but as soon as your craft leaves the surface it’s fair game. In terms of extracting economic value of resources the signatory government gets first dibs…
In many respects, that parallels the issue of who owns the deep ocean seafloor, and (quite importantly in the early 80’s) – who owns (and has the right to assign) mineral rights to commercial ventures who seek to exploit them.
Let alone colonization.
Space law is really just an outgrowth of Admiralty. Sadly, almost nobody has faculty with any experience in that.
If a “private entity” sets up a base on the moon and declares that instead of being under the jurisdiction of an existing country on Earth, it is itself it’s own country with the territory that it now occupies and is no longer a “private entity”.
This seems weird to us now, but ten thousand years from now it would seem strange if every “sovereign state”, to be taken seriously as such, would have to have some sort of piece of territory back on old Earth.
That’s really no different from a well-funded deep ocean seasteading project. There’s no particular reason why a it couldn’t happen, but in the case of space, the issue is not establishing such an entity, it’s being able to hold onto it when someone decides it’s worth invading.
ugh.
It would be easier to hold a position on the moon than a seasteading project. On Earth, major powers would have a home base, plenty of resources to continually throw after you, etc. In space they would need to establish their own base first or attack from whatever kind of spaceship they could build. And then the question would be, “why bother?” – there would be plenty of territory at first for everybody, and by the time that territory might be scarce, the early settlers would be too well established to displace.
As RAH pointed out, in the specific case of the Moon, a hostile entity holding it may pose not only a commercial, but a military threat.
It’s not hard to imagine that a nation state builds on the moon, that settlement “nationalizes” itself, and the resulting leadership decides it wants all the trappings of nationhood – a national sport, beer, and some foreign territory.
I vote Low-G Indoor Women’s Beach Volleyball for national sport.
That’s really not going to be an issue until this private entity has set up “space farms” and managed to make itself self-sustaining. As long as the supply lines stretch back to earth, people on earth call the shots. And space-faring self-sufficiency is way further out than space-mining, space-tourism, or other space based commerce.
Carl Sagan, in Cosmos, talked about how that treaty essentially stopped interstellar travel, because it disallowed nuclear detonations in space*, and nuclear power is our only hope of breaking away from the solar system.
*presumably they specified “man-made”, because the sun is in violation of this every second of the day. But you never know. Perhaps the sun is illegal.
Carbon dioxide “emissions” in excess of a certain amount are illegal, aren’t they? I don’t see why a bunch of clowns wouldn’t try to regulate the sun, too.
I believe some French Candle Makers attempted to do just this …
http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html
(detonations is probably the wrong word. Probably better to say nuclear reactions. I also wonder if the treaty covered fusion as well as fission? Since fusion is Only 10 Years Away©, ya know?
detonations is probably the wrong word
Not necessarily.
Boom Boom.
Two Orion mentions before mine.
I should have known I wouldn’t have been first.
The one in Cosmos that caught my eye was the one with the gigantic scoop on the front to collect hydrogen atoms.
Bussard ramjet.
The Bussard ramjet is a theoretical method of spacecraft propulsion proposed in 1960 by the physicist Robert W. Bussard, popularized by Poul Anderson’s novel Tau Zero, Larry Niven in his Known Space series of books, Vernor Vinge in his Zones of Thought series, and referred to by Carl Sagan in the television series and book Cosmos. — wikipedia.
Niven, check.
Vinge, check.
Cosmos, check.
I guess I should read Tau Zero to complete the list.
Add Footfall by Niven and Pournell
Has both an alien ship powered by a Bussard Ramjet and a human variant of Orion.
Tau Zero was weird. Entertaining, but definitely Euro-style prose (kind of vague and stream-of-consciousness)
Downside of the ramjet is that the Sol system is unfortunately in an area called the ‘Local Bubble’ that has ten times less the amount of general hydrogen than most of the galaxy.
That and the million years you’ll spend accelerating.
Since the dawn of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun…
No one likes mornings.
Yeah, it really was a tightrope walk, the disallowing of nukes in space was a blow to the Orion Drive idea, which would also be a very useful tool for rapid stellar transit, but the flipside was Ruskies and Yankees placing H-Bombs on satellites for ‘engine testing’, another escalation in the arms race.
We could kill the sun for its treasonous ways.
Some of those nuclear designs are just plain weird. Every knows the Orion, but take the Medusa, which basically sails on nuclear detonations.
Because what every passenger wants to do is sail right behind a stream of high energy neutrons.
+1 Reaver Tech
1. The sun is “nuclear”
2. The sun is a leading cause of cancer and death
3. Different people have different levels of access to sunlight. The sun is inherently unfair.
4. The Sun belongs to everybody, but large agribusiness concerns use sunlight to grow crops for private profit.
5. Sun-caused heat is the number one cause of air-conditioning use.
6. The day of the week devoted to the sun is closely identified with historical religious violence and oppression.
where do I sign?!
I’m perfectly in favor of normalizing access to sunlight. I’ll give 50% of ours to Seattle if they want.
No deal. The bitching about climate change around here is already loud enough.
Stop global warming.. blow up the sun!
Don’t give those idiots ideas….
THe sun will explode and kill all of humanity! WE MUST TAKE ACTION NOW to prevent this calamity. And don’t you dare other me with your denialism that it’s ‘in the future”. If it was happening now, it would be TOO LATE. We must act — 80% taxes on the rich to support funding to research and combat this MENACE.
The struggle for solar justice.
I was in 5th grade when we saw a documentary in science class about our solar system. When it got to the part about the sun going nova and eating up earth, the young lady next to me started crying. Being a gentleman I asked her what was the matter only to be told that we were all gonna die from this… She was not happy with me when i pointed out the documentary had mentioned it was some 4 or so billion years in the future, and while I commended her on her sense of longevity, I doubted she would be around to experience the calamity. Instead of this making her happy it made me the villain for harshing her feels…
As a native Arizona, from a young age, my dark dream has been to destroy the sun.
*of
Space law is great and all, but bird law is where it’s at.
well, filibuster.
Invade a and destabilize a sovereign state under pretense in preparation for annexation?
So is growing potatoes on Mars a legitimate claim to property or not?
[incredibly offensive ethnic joke deleted]
How many potatoes does it take to kill Matt Damon?
none.
this made me laugh.
then I remembered the time some guy and I were arguing over politics and he called me a potato nigger.
Explain.
Irish. He’s probably Irish.
Taigs, micks, paddies, Fenians.
Well, I assume it was because I’m clearly of Irish background.
It didn’t make much sense in context, if i remember it was just sort of thrown in there at the end.
“You’re just a supid potato nigger!” or something. I remember bursting into laughter when he said it.
“Do I eat the potato now … or do I wait for it to ferment.”
There was a hate speech lawsuit right there.
You micks really ain’t that bright.
My life is full of challenges.
I’ll drink my through it.
Looking into it I also discovered that ‘Marsh Nigger’ is an insulting term for a Dutchman. Doesn’t have the same ring to it, the Dutch never get any good slurs.
Actually, ‘Dutch’ itself is an insult.
Hey! /Dutch heritage
Q: What do you call a rich German?
A: Dutch
Go easy with the jokes about us dagos and dutchemen please..
Thank you.
According to John Locke it is, not sure if you’d get the major spacefaring nations to go along with it though.
Space pirates don’t care.
Neither do Ice Pirates.
A seriously underrated movie
Angelica Huston was kinda hot in that.
All I can think of is Spaaaaaaaaaace Ghoooooooooooost.
And control is directly related to proximity. Earth governments should rightly fear expansion into space as it will be a direct threat to their hegemony.
That has always been my conceit as well. Once an entity is self sustaining on another world why do they need earth? And how would the earth stop a secessionist movement on another planet
some sort of star wars?
They could blow up the fledgling planet’s sun, or threaten to.
If you’re not worried about casualties and destruction, kinetic bombardment’s probably pretty cheap.
And it sets the precedent for anyone else that might get uppity…
Wait. Are we talking Space Law or bird law?
Bird Lawww!
OT — Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House. One is from Chicago, another is from Tennessee, and the third is from Minnesota. All three go with a White House official to examine the fence. The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. “Well,” he says, “I figure the job will run about $900. $400 for materials, $400 for my crew, and $100 profit for me.” The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, “I can do this job for $700. $300 for materials, $300 for my crew, and $100 profit for me.” The Chicago contractor doesn’t measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, “$2,700.” The official, incredulous, says, “You didn’t even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?” The Chicago contractor whispers back, “$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence.”
I’m using this.
Eh, any corporation capable of actually mining an asteroid has ALL the resources to defend that mining claim from any terrestrial regulators.
The leftover industrial slag from the mining operation makes for a very effective source of raw materials for orbital bombardment
If you’re doing the mining right you don’t so much have a slag pile as you have a significant amount of dust…
I like the way you think, sir!
To pass laws in space don’t you have to have dominion over it?
*ponders this. Adds it to the “to do list”*