Legalities of space mining - SPACE act of 2015

[Nibb31]

Typically, nations don't abide to treaties because they are afraid of military action. There are all sorts of incentives that make them respect a treaty that they have signed, the first one being that when signing a treaty, they gave their word. If you ever want to be trusted with other treaties in the future, then you need to show that you are trustworthy. The OST doesn't exist in isolation. Then there is a whole range of unpleasant diplomatic sanctions, including pressure from allies, trade bans, getting other treaties cancelled, etc... In reality, most countries don't want to end up isolated like North Korea. Becoming a rogue state doesn't usually benefit anyone.

Secondly, a corporation in space will always be based on Earth and pay taxes. Nobody is going to be living in space, producing stuff in space, and only selling it in space to other people who live in space, without ever interacting commercially within the geographic borders of a country on Earth. As long as it has assets on Earth, then it is bound by the laws of the country where those assets lie.

[GeneralVeers]

Short and sweet and right to the point:

Seeing as how the international community is already (and has been for decades) completely failing to enforce anything that has the label "international law" stamped on it, what's going to happen is this: some nation somewhere is going to simply fly out there and claim Mars in the name of whoever, and not care about the OST, because while everybody else on Earth will complain loudly, nobody will actually do anything.

[Nothalogh]

Secondly, a corporation in space will always be based on Earth

True, because as soon as it's not based on earth, it will be a sovereign

[Shpaget]

"Always" is such a long time to be making such general claims.

[Friend Bear]

Unless there's another article of the OST or other treaty you're not quoting, that's not how it reads. It says there's no weapons testing of any kind on the moon, and no military activities. This still allows conventional weapons, so long as they're there for "peaceful activities". So a firearm in a survival kit (like the TP-82, which was used as part of the Soyuz kit up until 2006) would still be legally allowed, assuming its there in case you need to defend yourself from wild animals while awaiting pickup back on Earth.

The Moon treaty does not allow testing and conventional weapons on celestial bodies.

The OST does not allow WMDs in orbit.

Two treaties we are discussing here.

This is a bit...off. First, while the president does have sole discretionary authority concerning foreign nations, any treaty has to be approved by the majority of the Senate. Any deal reached that isn't approved by the Senate is basically an Executive Order, and can be either overturned by the Congress (provided they can get enough votes to override a veto), or it can simply be revoked by the next president.

Second, (and I'll admit this is a bit nitpicky) all treaties are subservient to the US Constitution, so they're not quite on the same plane. Otherwise, any treaty could effectively amend the constitution, skipping over the whole 3/4 of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of all states requirement.

Absolutely right. What we were getting at is Congress's act of legislation to counter the Executive's sole ability to deal with foreign nations. Yes, treaties are subject to the Constitution, but they merely need the advise/consent of the Senate.

It is Congress's (Senate and House) act of trying to illegitimize the Executive's Executive Action that was unconstitutional.

[Kryten]

The Moon treaty does not allow testing and conventional weapons on celestial bodies.

The OST does not allow WMDs in orbit.

Two treaties we are discussing here.

Sorry, you've got confused again.

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.

[Friend Bear]

Sorry, you've got confused again.

Lets go with your post. I am throwing out things based on memory from a couple years ago, rushing to post here at work.

I appreciate the clarity. I knew one was one, the other was the other.

However, I do remember that an issue of conventional weapons on celestial bodies was a topic of discussion vis-a-vis the Moon treaty. Even then, again, I think only two nations signed it. Did the U.S. even sign it?

[Kryten]

The moon treaty is the one that bans weapons in orbit, the rest is already included in the OST. No nation with orbital capability has ever signed the moon treaty.

EDIT: Actually India has, but they didn't ratify it and aren't party to it.

[Friend Bear]

The moon treaty is the one that bans weapons in orbit, the rest is already included in the OST. No nation with orbital capability has ever signed the moon treaty.

OST does not allow weapons in orbit or on celestial bodies. Moon concerns bases and conventional weapons (argued because of ambiguity in language, also why not signed by, basically, anyone)

Under the OST:

"States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner"

So I did remember correctly =)

But this is off topic. This blog is about mining. So the issue is about resources acquired under international law. As such:

"States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities."

As I recall, nations are having a hard time deciding what route to take regarding resource collection and distribution since all non-space faring nations argue they should get resources, as well. Yes, space faring nations are not signing the OST, but they are members of the UN. That is where the issue arises.

--------------------

As for arguments about nothing happening, no matter the law...

Americans will complain and complain and complain, persistently, and without knowing everything ('tis the American way of life). But Internationally, this is not the trend. Canada, Britain, Japan, Russia, now China; they are all acting on threats, or at least acting towards/forwarding those threats. They are all also heavily involved in molding a future that allows for less negative interaction internationally. Additionally, their populous stay out of these affairs a good amount of the time. Conversely, Americans pretend to know then complain. We have a "U.N. Free Zone" in central Utah full of people who think they can do this and have that same mentality.

Other first world nations' peoples lean heavily and trustingly on their international representatives since those people are there to benefit their nation and not their political agenda. Believe it or not, that is what we do with our UN rep. All the rough stuff points in the President's direction because it's easy for people who don't read the hugely short Constitution to do.

One superb example is the international collaboration in holding China accountable for its 2013ish missile-to-satellite military test. The explosion caused more than 11,000 (again, off top of head) tackable pieces of debris. If I remember correctly, trackable is the size of a quarter and larger. This is the same debris you heard ISS was nervous about a couple months ago. Accountability, however, is difficult in this scenario under the UN because the test was just that. People are upset because it is pretty obvious what would happen and there was no international request to commit the test. Even so, this is not required entirely under the OST and the UN has been trying to move forward to amend the treaty as such but no agreements can be found.

People did not complain loudly. The governments got together and tried to come to their conclusions as per their international obligation.

All I'm saying is...do what these nations do. If people want to complain about a bill, read it first then discuss. Limbaugh doesn't tell it how it is.

This is not aimed at anyone in the blog. Everyone here has merely pointed out that people will act this way. I am simply showing the international community will not act the same as the American public, so deeper thought needs to be put into legislation and treaty formation.

Also, I realize my opinion is rather abrasive, but I think with my exposure it is a rather accurate depiction of what goes on, unfortunate as it may be.

------------

Typically, nations don't abide to treaties because they are afraid of military action. There are all sorts of incentives that make them respect a treaty that they have signed, the first one being that when signing a treaty, they gave their word. If you ever want to be trusted with other treaties in the future, then you need to show that you are trustworthy. The OST doesn't exist in isolation. Then there is a whole range of unpleasant diplomatic sanctions, including pressure from allies, trade bans, getting other treaties cancelled, etc... In reality, most countries don't want to end up isolated like North Korea. Becoming a rogue state doesn't usually benefit anyone.

Secondly, a corporation in space will always be based on Earth and pay taxes. Nobody is going to be living in space, producing stuff in space, and only selling it in space to other people who live in space, without ever interacting commercially within the geographic borders of a country on Earth. As long as it has assets on Earth, then it is bound by the laws of the country where those assets lie.

Yes!

In this arena, people holding banners against anything plays absolutely no role.

I would also like to add that the country in which that company is based has every incentive to ensure it is performing to their standards. Countries are bound by the decisions/actions of companies and persons, whether private or public, in space, and recourse for wrongdoing is sought against the launching nation, not the company.

The country seeking recovery from the company is a different matter.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Friend Bear
Emphasis that I am not trying to offend

[RainDreamer]

So, hopefully this is not going to be considered a necro, but update to this news:

http://www.popsci.com/congress-votes-to-legalize-asteroid-mining

The bill has been passed in the Senate.

Companies can't own asteroid still, but the current version of the bill reads:

“A United States citizen engaged in commercial recovery of an asteroid resource or a space resource under this chapter shall be entitled to any asteroid resource or space resource obtained, including to possess, own, transport, use, and sell the asteroid resource or space resource obtained in accordance with applicable law, including the international obligations of the United States."

So they can still own the resource they mine.

Also, the Senate amend the bill by adding "abiotic" in the definition of "space resource"

The term ‘space resource’ means an abiotic resource in situ in outer space.

So, nope, no biotic resource for private ownerships, including alien lifeforms. Though I wonder what that would mean for lifeforms that doesn't fit in our definition of "biotic"

Oh and they did cover their butt this time when it comes to the Space Treaty:

It is the sense of Congress that by the enactment of this Act, the United States does not thereby assert sovereignty or sovereign or exclusive rights or jurisdiction over, or the ownership of, any celestial body.

So yeah, if people mine stuff from asteroid, the US will let them have the stuff, but will not support any claim of ownership over the places they get the stuff from.

I guess this will turn out to be a new age of gold rush once we got reliable and cheap space travel.

Edited November 14, 2015 by RainDreamer

[Scotius]

Interesting. But until we develop teleportation beam technology, any mine will have to take some space on the surface of the relevant body. This will have to be regulated too.

[RainDreamer]

Can't they just blast stuff off the surface and collect the pieces from a very close orbit? Probably not very effective, but that would go around regulation, would it?

[Kryten]

Can't they just blast stuff off the surface and collect the pieces from a very close orbit? Probably not very effective, but that would go around regulation, would it?

That would be completely pointless.

[Findthepin1]

Are people allowed to build bases and claim those under this law?

[RainDreamer]

Not at all. They can keep what they mine, but not where they mine. Although I wonder what if they find an asteroid made of all the resources they are mining. Like an asteroid with 99% iron or something. Would they be able to bag the whole thing and haul it back?

[Kryten]

[quote name='Findthepin1']Are people allowed to build bases and claim those under this law?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Outer Space Treaty, Article VIII, in part']
Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed [b]or constructed[/b] on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. [/quote]
So bases are the property of whoever built them and the responsibility of the state they're registered under. Basically the same as ships at sea.

[RainDreamer]

Right, I was thinking of the piece of asteroid they build on as part of the base. That means they can set up mining camps like the gold rush age !

[Kryten]

[quote name='RainDreamer']Right, I was thinking of the piece of asteroid they build on as part of the base. That means they can set up mining camps like the gold rush age ![/QUOTE]
Not that that's ever likely to happen. Humans are just too expensive to maintain in deep space.

[RainDreamer]

They can send just a single person there to justify building a big base (yes, our technician does need that giant zero G swimming pool), and thus occupy more area for mining, while all the real work are done with machines mounted under the base. Can be an interesting plot for a story.

[*Aqua*]

The presence of a human on an asteroid doesn't mean he'll possess it. He can keep what he mines but the asteroid itself can't be claimed.


Also interesting:
Every space ship falls under the jurisdiction of its home country and every space suit is in fact a space ship. That means you can't claim an asteroid or a part of it because you didn't left your countries jurisdiction. Also building another space suit and changing into it wouldn't help because the countries jurisdiction would extend to that suit too (because it's a space ship made using another space ship).
You would need to exit the suit, revoke your citizenship and found a new nation. Then you are free to claim the asteroid. Obviously that's not a healthy thing. There's the problem whether other countries acknowledge your new nation and your claim too... but I think at that point you don't care.


Another funny thing:
Germany specifies the upper limit of its airspace as the atmospheric height (there's no definition in the laws what that is) where it can impose authority. So if you send a police to an asteroid and if that asteroid is right above German territory then the asteroid will fall under Germany's jurisdiction. At least for a short moment. :P

[RainDreamer]

[quote name='*Aqua*']The presence of a human on an asteroid doesn't mean he'll possess it. He can keep what he mines but the asteroid itself can't be claimed.


Also interesting:
Every space ship falls under the jurisdiction of its home country and every space suit is in fact a space ship. That means you can't claim an asteroid or a part of it because you didn't left your countries jurisdiction. Also building another space suit and changing into it wouldn't help because the countries jurisdiction would extend to that suit too (because it's a space ship made using another space ship).
You would need to exit the suit, revoke your citizenship and found a new nation. Then you are free to claim the asteroid. Obviously that's not a healthy thing. There's the problem whether other countries acknowledge your new nation and your claim too... but I think at that point you don't care.


Another funny thing:
Germany specifies the upper limit of its airspace as the atmospheric height (there's no definition in the laws what that is) where it can impose authority. So if you send a police to an asteroid and if that asteroid is right above German territory then the asteroid will fall under Germany's jurisdiction. At least for a short moment. :P[/QUOTE]

I am not saying they have to claim an asteroid as their own, just make their base big enough that others can't get in to mine in that area without damaging their base (which then they can sue for damage), and they can justify having a bigger base due to life support systems and everything else to keep a single human alive healthily, if there is a law limiting the operational size of the drone-operated base. But that is just a fictional idea.

I think there will be less liability if they just use drones and mine things super fast without having to care for human safety. It will be a literal race where whoever get there first has already got the majority of the resource on an asteroid.

Also, what about space structures built by collaborative efforts from multiple countries, like the ISS? I guess we can split up the thing by each modules, but what if multiple countries contribute to a single module? Who gets to own it?

[*Aqua*]

[quote name='RainDreamer']I am not saying they have to claim an asteroid as their own, just make their base big enough that others can't get in to mine in that area without damaging their base (which then they can sue for damage), and they can justify having a bigger base due to life support systems and everything else to keep a single human alive healthily, if there is a law limiting the operational size of the drone-operated base. But that is just a fictional idea. [/QUOTE]
OST article 4 says:
[I]"The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited."[/I]
IMO that implies that your are prohibited from prohibiting others if they are exploring peacefully using some equipment or facilities. Or in short: You are not allowed to block my mining ship with your mining base.


[quote name='RainDreamer']I think there will be less liability if they just use drones and mine things super fast without having to care for human safety. It will be a literal race where whoever get there first has already got the majority of the resource on an asteroid.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there'll be a race. Opening 10 mines on Earth will generate a 100 times more profit than mining asteroids (if asteroid mining is profitable at all). Do you really expect there're asteroids with enough gold up there so it's worth mining it? Most are made of ice, carbon, iron and/or dust particles. Those are not exactly rare on Earth. :rolleyes:


[quote name='RainDreamer']Also, what about space structures built by collaborative efforts from multiple countries, like the ISS? I guess we can split up the thing by each modules, but what if multiple countries contribute to a single module? Who gets to own it?[/QUOTE]
Those countries usually create a joint venture or something similiar which builds and owns the module. And that jount venture will have a place of juridiction. In case of the ESA that's Paris, France. Edited November 25, 2015 by *Aqua*

[RainDreamer]

[quote name='*Aqua*']OST article 4 says:
[I]"The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited."[/I]
IMO that implies that your are prohibited from prohibiting others if they are exploring peacefully using some equipment or facilities. Or in short: You are not allowed to block my mining ship with your mining base.
[/QUOTE]

For me, it just sound like, by law, a company can't prohibit another company to mine there, but if they occupy enough space and claim it is essential to operation and cannot move things for another company to come in and mine, welp, they are incapable of making space for someone to come in. And to keep a human alive need a lot of essential equipment and space for them to claim a larger area. But again, if they have some kind of fast mining equipment that can strip mine the whole thing quickly, they wouldn't need human there.

[quote name='*Aqua*']
I don't think there'll be a race. Opening 10 mines on Earth will generate a 100 times more profit than mining asteroids (if asteroid mining is profitable at all). Do you really expect there're asteroids with enough gold up there so it's worth mining it? Most are made of ice, carbon, iron and/or dust particles. Those are not exactly rare on Earth. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

I don't think we will have a race in near future either, until we have better space travel tech, and we are starting to exhaust the resource on earth, which can be pretty far in the future.

[magnemoe]

[quote name='RainDreamer']Not at all. They can keep what they mine, but not where they mine. Although I wonder what if they find an asteroid made of all the resources they are mining. Like an asteroid with 99% iron or something. Would they be able to bag the whole thing and haul it back?[/QUOTE]
Current plans are mostly to go after water and the idea is to bag the asteroid and heat it, avoiding the issue.

An kilometer sized asteroid will probably be landed on and then drilled, this has the benefit that its likely to be ice inside it.
Here you can not refuse others to land and do the same as long as they don't bother you.

Note that in this setting it will usually be more economical to cooperate anyway.
You rent the other companies drilling rig who they don't have any use for, the asteroid is larger than you need anyway while any equipment is very expensive.
The only issue for the first company is that more mining will reduce the price of retrieved resources.

[*Aqua*]

[quote name='RainDreamer']For me, it just sound like, by law, a company can't prohibit another company to mine there, but if they occupy enough space and claim it is essential to operation and cannot move things for another company to come in and mine, welp, they are incapable of making space for someone to come in.[/QUOTE]
Leaving excuses (life support) aside the whole thing reduces to the problem "Do I have the freedom to restrict other's freedom?".

My own personal believe is [I]no[/I]. My freedom ends where it restricts the freedom of others. If everybody thinks this way we would have far less problems on Earth.