Private ownership of mineable asteroids moved into Earth orbit

[vger]

Pissing off an entity with a big rock in orbit seems like a bad idea, too. Any company with such an asteroid already has more "teeth" than the UN.

Yeah that would get ugly real quick. The "If I can't have this, then nobody can" attitude is pretty common in capitalism already. I could see them leaving a rocket on the asteroid with just enough fuel to send it into the atmosphere and wipe out whatever nation had the audacity to say "no" to the monopoly.

[tater]

That was a joke, "capitalism" has no interest in killing customers, and is our best bet at space exploration past our meager efforts so far. Every technology we are using to have this conversation is the result of that great lifter, capitalism.

[vger]

That was a joke, "capitalism" has no interest in killing customers, and is our best bet at space exploration past our meager efforts so far. Every technology we are using to have this conversation is the result of that great lifter, capitalism.

Capitalism is at the heart of most modern wars. I'm not making a blanket statement about capitalism being the root of all evil, but there is nothing particularly benevolent about it. If profiteers can get away with something, they will do it. It doesn't matter how underhanded it is. On the average, sociopaths have the best odds of being successful.

While I don't think corporations are likely to ever hold a nation hostage, there's no reason it couldn't happen either. It probably has happened a number of times already, just using governments as a proxy.

And for all the examples you can give to support giving it a title such as "the great lifter," you can find just as many that show how it is actually impeding progress. For instance: A great product with poor marketing will never sell, but a poor product with great marketing will become gold. The actual value of a product is nowhere near as important as what you can manipulate people into thinking its value is.

Edited July 27, 2015 by vger

[juanml82]

BTW, the UN "law" in question refers to nations, not private entities. If a private entity in my county wanted to own an asteroid I'd assume that was just fine. I'd tell the UN to come up and do something about it with their space navy, or they can pound sand.

Pissing off an entity with a big rock in orbit seems like a bad idea, too. Any company with such an asteroid already has more "teeth" than the UN.

Yeah, but that's likely to be branded "terrorism". Although, then again, I doubt any non Arab billionaire would ever be called "terrorist", no matter what he does.

I think a legal framework will be developed by the time asteroid mining becomes feasible. That doesn't mean an analogous of tax haven can't appear. After all, tax havens do exist and no G8 nation is going around bombing them into submission. I don't think any corporation would dare to open fire on a sovereign space ship, though. Countries will retaliate military to that, although to what extend, it depends on the country. The USA did bomb a medicine factory in Sudan during the '90s as a reprisal for terror attacks on their embassies and corporations operating in space can't hide as well as terrorists.

[vger]

I don't think any corporation would dare to open fire on a sovereign space ship, though. Countries will retaliate military to that, although to what extend, it depends on the country. The USA did bomb a medicine factory in Sudan during the '90s as a reprisal for terror attacks on their embassies and corporations operating in space can't hide as well as terrorists.

On the other hand, has has been mentioned around here many times, corporations are likely far more capable of cheap space travel than any government-funded space program. This means that on budgets alone, corporations in space could easily outgun any government that had something to say about it. It might simply be too expensive for governments to control the kind of chaos that might develop around space resources. Mercenaries as a practical asset could become commonplace.

Although, all of this assumes that anyone can get a rocket there. Fights over space resources would begin here. Why set up a blockade near an asteroid if you can just shoot down any ship that attempts to launch?

[AngelLestat]

Advances come from self interest, not sharing (except maybe where those unicorns and horses my daughter watches live, I think sharing works there).

Time to learn a new concept:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharing_economy

I dint see any unicorn in those examples, but I will try to look harder...

Changes takes time as always, first in some niches, then it will spread to more sectors.

This new way to see things where you dont "own" things, is the most efficient in cases where you can apply it, you save resources and money.

Elon musk share all their patents of electric cars for free to the competitors, the same did toyota with its hydrogen car.

There are huge new neighborhoods that are designed with this sharing point of view.

For example if you want to have an ecologic home or just a home that is far from the city without net connection, you need to harvester sun or wind energy, you need to collect water.. but you dont have a constant consumption, also not always there is sun or wind. So you need to storage, how big is your storage? you have a lot of uncertainty, maybe you will not be on home for 2 days... maybe some day you do a party and everybody is in your home..

But if you harverster energy and storage for a whole community, then is more easy to calculate the storage needed and much more cheap. This is like predict the result of drop 1 coin, or drop 1000 coins. In the first case you will be wrong by 50%, in the second case you will be wrong by a 3%. Also the storage and power generated is lower, and you share the initial investment that can be too high for 1 person.

The same goes for heated water, Internet connection, or any other service..

The same apply to products as cars, lawn mowers, toys, etc.

The same for task as take care the childrens, cook for everyone, etc.. It does not take you much more time cook for 10 than for 1 (the same meal), so in all the times that is not your turn, you are free.

Anyone living like this may save more than 80% of its money and task times.

So back to the space... you dont have easy access to resources, you have to do all by your self, and everything in space is much more harder.. so how you do it? Sharing...

This also apply to any company as if their were single persons, the initial investment can be huge, the risk of business failure high. So better to deal with the problem between many companies, sharing profits and cost of failures.

This is something that also many farmers does. You can have some field in one place, but you had the bad luck to lose all your crops by hail. You lost everything and you dont have money to recover yourself.

Then some farmers makes coperatives.. where everybody have the same type of crops, but in different places, and they all share lose and profits, they can also sale their product at higher price, because some buyers only do it at huge amounts.

And millons of other benefics which are impossible to list them all.

[tater]

Lol, sharing. Sounds like economics for people incapable of taking care of themselves.

Asteroids are resources, not ideas. You "share" them by selling them. If you want to give away the tech patents for doing that, great, then someone can get their own asteroid. Until then, make hay while the sun shines. I'd not have it any other way.

BTW, Musk shared patents out of self-interest.

Edited July 28, 2015 by tater

[vger]

Me thinks me smells a social darwinist.

[AngelLestat]

Lol, sharing. Sounds like economics for people incapable of taking care of themselves.

So they have the same things than anybody else, but they save more money and they have more free time in their houses, but in your definition they are the dumb?

They also pollute less doing this.

Asteroids are resources, not ideas. You "share" them by selling them. If you want to give away the tech patents for doing that, great, then someone can get their own asteroid. Until then, make hay while the sun shines. I'd not have it any other way.

asteroids are resources... not ideas??? what? is like you dint understand nothing of what I said..

You feel proud with that answer? I will be in shame..

BTW, Musk shared patents out of self-interest.

You dint get one right... Musk and toyota shared their patents in their benefic, because more electric cars means cheaper batteries for all, and it will be more support and infrastructure for them.

So they can expand and produce at the same rate as normal cars.

The same for toyota..

[vger]

So they have the same things than anybody else, but they save more money and they have more free time in their houses, but in your definition they are the dumb? They also pollute less doing this.

People often say competition is the only way for humans to progress, because without it, complacency leads to stagnation. That may be true. But usually when folks defend this kind of system and condemn one that could provide for everyone, it's mainly because they have egos needing constant stroking in a system that allows them to show off in front of the less-successful people. It's really all just an evolutionary echo of bucks butting heads with each other for a chance to get with the cute doe in the meadow.

[WinkAllKerb'']

*in*

do not mistake "capitalism model in theory" and "nowdays resulting capitalism" ... i m not convinced the model impacted individual as expected @pretty and mostly short/medium term ...

*out*

Edited July 28, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[magnemoe]

Capitalism is at the heart of most modern wars. I'm not making a blanket statement about capitalism being the root of all evil, but there is nothing particularly benevolent about it. If profiteers can get away with something, they will do it. It doesn't matter how underhanded it is. On the average, sociopaths have the best odds of being successful.

While I don't think corporations are likely to ever hold a nation hostage, there's no reason it couldn't happen either. It probably has happened a number of times already, just using governments as a proxy.

And for all the examples you can give to support giving it a title such as "the great lifter," you can find just as many that show how it is actually impeding progress. For instance: A great product with poor marketing will never sell, but a poor product with great marketing will become gold. The actual value of a product is nowhere near as important as what you can manipulate people into thinking its value is.

Who wars? I can not find any who is caused by capitalism. Most wars today are caused by ideology,ethnicity or revenge/ security.

Syria, Ukraine, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Algeria, Vietnam.

Overall war does not make economical sense. Only modern war who made economical sense was the start of gulf war one.

Yes this start to come very close to politic but more to conspiracies.

[vger]

Who wars? I can not find any who is caused by capitalism. Most wars today are caused by ideology,ethnicity or revenge/ security.

Syria, Ukraine, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Algeria, Vietnam. Overall war does not make economical sense. Only modern war who made economical sense was the start of gulf war one. Yes this start to come very close to politic but more to conspiracies.

Things like ideologies and ethnicity are usually just there to get the People behind it. There is almost always some self-centered leader (or group) with a more personal agenda, and it isn't hard for them to use any argument (they look different from us; they don't worship our deity; they put their pants on both legs at the same time; they don't even wear pants) to rally a nation to agree with supporting the war effort.

And I wouldn't say that the Iraq War was the only one that made economic sense. For example, (and I'm not suggesting it was planned) WWII was ultimately a boon for the USA. The U.S. became THE economic power, because it was the only industrialized country involved in the war that had much of a leg to stand on by the time the dust settled.

Also keep in mind: Whether or not the war makes good economic sense is irrelevant as long as the few selfish individuals get what they want out of it without completely destroying their nation in the process. The economy is a complete mess right now, but the people who call the shots, are doing better than fine.

Edited July 28, 2015 by vger

[magnemoe]

Things like ideologies and ethnicity are usually just there to get the People behind it. There is almost always some self-centered leader (or group) with a more personal agenda, and it isn't hard for them to use any argument (they look different from us; they don't worship our deity; they put their pants on both legs at the same time; they don't even wear pants) to rally a nation to agree with supporting the war effort.

And I wouldn't say that the Iraq War was the only one that made economic sense. For example, WWII was a great boon for the USA (whether it was planned or not). The U.S. became THE economic power, because it was the only industrialized country involved in the war that had much of a leg to stand on by the time the dust settled.

Also keep in mind: Whether or not the war makes good economic sense is irrelevant as long as the few selfish individuals get what they want out of it without completely destroying their nation in the process. The economy is a complete mess right now, but the people who call the shots, are doing better than fine.

And the leaders tend to follow the same ideology, its also part of that makes them self centered.

WW2 boosted the US in that it was the last man standing, it also build up the industry however the buildup was central controlled and paid, Soviet was number 2 out of the game.

Main interest for politicians are power not money, if they was only after money they would stick to business.

- - - Updated - - -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

"The Principality of Sealand is an unrecognised self-declared state"

Help me up a little bit with my english here.. what "unrecognised self-declared state" means?

Simply that no other countries accept it as an state.

Let say you own an small island, you declare it an separate state. Nobody will bother but your government will not accept it as an nation. Neither will anybody else.

Now if you do anything illegal large enough for the police to get involved they will. Note that if your island is far from mainland and only you and your followers live there you have more freedom than living in an flat. No neighbors who complains, now main friction might be if you do business and you don't pay taxes it will go years before they come after your properties on the island as its lots of paperwork and legal issues.

Now if you do something gross illegal say shooting at an fishing boat fishing outside the island the police will come at once else they will not bother.

Sealand works the same way.

[AngelLestat]

People often say competition is the only way for humans to progress, because without it, complacency leads to stagnation. That may be true. But usually when folks defend this kind of system and condemn one that could provide for everyone, it's mainly because they have egos needing constant stroking in a system that allows them to show off in front of the less-successful people. It's really all just an evolutionary echo of bucks butting heads with each other for a chance to get with the cute doe in the meadow.

I am agree with this point, but there is also a culture and education issue, in nordic countries, "show off" is frowned upon, people does not use expensive watch or very luxury cars, etc.

This is almost a constant in all places where many generations lived in cold weather and hard conditions, they become very efficient with their lifestyle.

And that kind of efficiency is what a comunity needs to survive in space.

In addiction, please try to not mistake my examples with that "insert bad word here" of zergeist or venus project.

Who wars? I can not find any who is caused by capitalism. Most wars today are caused by ideology,ethnicity or revenge/ security.

Syria, Ukraine, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Algeria, Vietnam.

Overall war does not make economical sense. Only modern war who made economical sense was the start of gulf war one.

Yes this start to come very close to politic but more to conspiracies.

Mostly all war todays (many you dont even know that are in war, because there are not mediatic) is between not democracies, or a dictatorship vs democracy.

People in democracy has more control about what their country does, also has open commerce with other countries, by the reasons that I explain before, there is not benefics in go to war if you can trade instead.

Simply that no other countries accept it as an state.

Let say you own an small island, you declare it an separate state. Nobody will bother but your government will not accept it as an nation. Neither will anybody else.

Now if you do anything illegal large enough for the police to get involved they will. Note that if your island is far from mainland and only you and your followers live there you have more freedom than living in an flat. No neighbors who complains, now main friction might be if you do business and you don't pay taxes it will go years before they come after your properties on the island as its lots of paperwork and legal issues.

Now if you do something gross illegal say shooting at an fishing boat fishing outside the island the police will come at once else they will not bother.

Sealand works the same way.

Now sure what you want to said with the last paragraph. If you said that if they comit a crime then authorities will handle.. then we are agree, if is the opposite, not.

That thing.. is in british waters, so is subject to british laws.

They let it, just as a cuiriosity to get turism.

[magnemoe]

Mostly all war todays (many you dont even know that are in war, because there are not mediatic) is between not democracies, or a dictatorship vs democracy.

People in democracy has more control about what their country does, also has open commerce with other countries, by the reasons that I explain before, there is not benefics in go to war if you can trade instead.

This is true, its also other reasons, first in an democracy politicians has to talk and do lots of compromises, an dictator who is used to kill off everyone he sees as enemies is more likely to go to war.

More checks and balances and more openness make it harder to start an war. Last most wars today are civil war who starts because the opposition has no other way of getting their way than rebellion.

Now sure what you want to said with the last paragraph. If you said that if they comit a crime then authorities will handle.. then we are agree, if is the opposite, not.

That thing.. is in british waters, so is subject to british laws.

They let it, just as a cuiriosity to get turism.

I say that any fool in a western country can declare their property an independent nation and get away with it until he breaks the law in the country he lives in.

[Stargate525]

I say that any fool in a western country can declare their property an independent nation and get away with it until he breaks the law in the country he lives in.

Which usually comes down to the first tax deadline, at which point the government will very insistently and (usually forcefully) insist that you are, in fact, a subordinate of the nation.

[Jesrad]

It can not... you can not own celestial bodies. You can do wherever you want to it.. but not owned.

If is small enoght and you mined it all.. is ok. But meanwhile a piece remains in space.. anyone can go and take it.

Sure you can. If you can move it, you own it.

As for dealing with nations' legislorrhea, all one has to do is declare the whole asteroid has been made a ship, or is now the craft's salvage cargo. And then, it's all just Law of the Sea.

There is no such thing as "world law."

Yeah there is, it's actually called "international law", or "jus [inter] gentes", and is the legal basis routinely used to put the nazis and other war / human-rights criminals on trial, and solve jurisdictional / sovereignty disputes, among other things.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Jesrad

[cantab]

This thread has got way too political.

[magnemoe]

This thread has got way too political.

Yes, and nobody would touch an asteroid put in earth orbit. Far cheaper to just buy the materials.

To say it simple you could try to take it or simply mine from it, but it would be simpler for the owners to defend it, secondary to take out your probe who has landed on it.

Its an reason why cooperations don't go to war with each other.

[Jesrad]

That, and stealing an asteroid from under someone else's hands would be an act of piracy.

<- actually a jurist, though it is not my main occupation and I usually work on jusnaturalist theory applicable to intellectual works.

[tater]

So they have the same things than anybody else, but they save more money and they have more free time in their houses, but in your definition they are the dumb?

They also pollute less doing this.

I cannot parse this in any way that constructs a complete thought that makes even a little sense, even as a stand alone. In reference to what it replies to, it makes even less sense.

asteroids are resources... not ideas??? what? is like you dint understand nothing of what I said..

You feel proud with that answer? I will be in shame..

Then you did not express yourself well. You brought up intellectual property, which are ideas, vs the OP subject, which is a resource.

You dint get one right... Musk and toyota shared their patents in their benefic, because more electric cars means cheaper batteries for all, and it will be more support and infrastructure for them.

So they can expand and produce at the same rate as normal cars.

The same for toyota..

To the extent this makes any sense at all, it agrees 100% with what I said. It is in Musk's best interest since more electric cars means more infrastructure---which is his primary obstacle for selling cars in the U.S. I know a bunch of people with Teslas, they are always at least a 2d car, usually the third car in whatever household (the nearest city from here is a 6 hour drive in a gas car, or 2 days in a tesla due to charging). It's not for cheaper batteries for all, or anything past allowing him to sell more cars. Self interest. That batteries, etc might become cheaper is a (good) side effect of self-interest.

Edited July 28, 2015 by tater

[shynung]

asteroids are resources... not ideas??? what? is like you dint understand nothing of what I said..

You feel proud with that answer? I will be in shame...

An idea is like knowledge. People can take it from you, willingly or otherwise, but you can never actually lose it. Resources, on the other hand, inevitably disappear if someone takes enough of it.

Suppose I had an idea for a ship. I drew the design over a piece of paper. People ask me for the design, so I gave copies of the drawing to them.

Here, the ship design would be an idea. I cannot completely lose this ship design, unless I forgot about it; if someone stole the original drawing, I can just draw another one. On the other hand, the actual ship itself is a resource. If someone were to hijack my ship, I cease to receive benefits from its presence - hence, I lost the ship.

Taking this into context, the knowledge that a certain minable asteroid exists, along with certain relevant information - where it is, how to get there, what tools one needs to mine, and what materials are expected to be acquired from mining it - is an idea. I can shut up about it and not tell everyone, or go ahead and tell everyone I know, but I will not actually lose the knowledge unless I forgot it. The asteroid itself, however, is a resource. I can mine it dry, and it stops being beneficial to me - I lost the asteroid. Someone could attach a rocket booster to it to move it somewhere I can't reach, and it stops being beneficial to me - I lost it.

Edited July 28, 2015 by shynung

[AngelLestat]

Sure you can. If you can move it, you own it.

heh.. how that works?? I apply 1 Newton of force on the moon, which trigger a "movement", then the moon is mine?

As I said since this topic begins, there is not law for that yet.. and is the things that needs to be added to the treaty.

Nobody can owns celestial bodies that are in space.. you can take them with you inside your ship to the earth (in case you can), but meanwhile is in space.. anyone can mine it.

Even if you capture it and place it in low orbit to easy access. So I am not saying that for this case it might count as ownership, but other companies that wants to mine it too, should pay you part of the resources that you already spent it with extra interests.

An idea is like knowledge. People can take it from you, willingly or otherwise, but you can never actually lose it. Resources, on the other hand, inevitably disappear if someone takes enough of it.....

....Taking this into context, the knowledge that a certain minable asteroid exists, along with certain relevant information - where it is, how to get there, what tools one needs to mine, and what materials are expected to be acquired from mining it - is an idea. I can shut up about it and not tell everyone, or go ahead and tell everyone I know, but I will not actually lose the knowledge unless I forgot it. The asteroid itself, however, is a resource. I can mine it dry, and it stops being beneficial to me - I lost the asteroid. Someone could attach a rocket booster to it to move it somewhere I can't reach, and it stops being beneficial to me - I lost it.

Shynung... how can you answering me a reply that was for someone else, if you dont understand why I did that reply? You need to read my previous post to understand why I reply that.. So if you want to reply me, then reply my previous post, which is the one that tanter dint understand.

- - - Updated - - -

To the extent this makes any sense at all, it agrees 100% with what I said. It is in Musk's best interest since more electric cars means more infrastructure---which is his primary obstacle for selling cars in the U.S. I know a bunch of people with Teslas, they are always at least a 2d car, usually the third car in whatever household (the nearest city from here is a 6 hour drive in a gas car, or 2 days in a tesla due to charging). It's not for cheaper batteries for all, or anything past allowing him to sell more cars. Self interest. That batteries, etc might become cheaper is a (good) side effect of self-interest.

I dint need to read why elon musk did that because for me its strategic was clear.

But I search it to show you how wrong you are.

https://hbr.org/2014/07/elon-musks-patent-decision-reflects-three-strategic-truths

This is harvard business review... Is the first link in the google search.

[tater]

Claiming I "dint understand" (sic) has the implication (in English, anyway) that you expressed yourself in an understandable way, and I lacked the mental capacity to understand you. Had you apologized for being unclear, then clarified, then it's just a failure to communicate. Your tone suggests the former, which is odd, since you are not in fact expressing yourself clearly.

In such a forum, posts that are on-topic (or tangentially related) can (and should) be replied to by anyone. I was more that clear, and really already answered your unnecessary question, but you failed to comprehend it. Intellectual property (patents, for example) are ideas. A rock in space is a resource.

The ideas expressed in Musk's making patents public are not even remotely related to asteroid utilization as you presented it. Perhaps you mean something different, but are not expressing it well.

Sharing the ideas that make such exploitation possible is not at all the same as share that particular resource you choice to exploit using those ideas.

Do you think that since Musk gave away the patents he did, that anyone then can come and drive away a Tesla for free? I'd take them up on that in a heartbeat. That would be analogous to mining the asteroid brought to orbit at great cost by some other entity. It would be theft, not sharing.

- - - Updated - - -

I dint need to read why elon musk did that because for me its strategic was clear.

But I search it to show you how wrong you are.

https://hbr.org/2014/07/elon-musks-patent-decision-reflects-three-strategic-truths

This is harvard business review... Is the first link in the google search.

Once again, you are arguing someone else. I said basically exactly the same thing. He did it for strategic reasons---which are in his self-interest. Or are you claiming it's for strategic reasons that harm Musk/Tesla? To be arguing ME, you must be claiming that Musk's strategic reasons are contrary to his self-interest. Are they? Yes or no?

Do you not understand what "self-interest" means?

Edited July 28, 2015 by tater