I’m in Montreal for a conference on space debris. It’s a wonderful city (we wondered into Chinatown for dinner last night and, spiritually, I haven’t left yet) and I hope the conference is half as good. It opened today with a round table discussion on the governance of space: what can and should be agreed on to protect the commons that all space faring nations share. It’s the first conference I’ve been dedicated to some aspect of space I have already learned one thing about such conferences that they share with conferences about nuclear energy: there is a high fraction of the participants who believe their job is to boost human space flight (or, in the case of conferences on nuclear energy, nuclear power plants). One of the panel members in the opening roundtable suggested allowing states to “own” areas of the moon provided they establish permanent human occupation there. It would, he suggested, provide significant motivation for nations to establish permanent manned moon bases. He is a lawyer, too.
Article I of the Treaty of Outer Space says:
Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.
[Emphasis added.]
So he was willing to junk all that in order to encourage the exploitation of space. Of course, with a new race to the Moon shaping up, this is a funny time to start throwing out key parts of a treaty that forms the basis of all space law and enshrines some of the finest principles the world community has agreed to, but what are you going to do?
What would happen if we did allow countries to claim parts of the Moon as their own? He is undoubtedly right it would encourage countries, preferentially those who already have established space programs, to establish Moon bases if for no other reason than to prevent theoretically valuable resources from being claimed by other nations. The next thing that would happened (about 5 seconds after a new treaty establishing that right was signed) is scientific studies of the Moon would be declared state secrets and humanity’s quest to understand it’s the origins of the solar system would become proprietary information. A good example of that is the recent quest to find water on the Moon. Can you really imaging any country releasing the information that there was valuable water close to the surface of such-and-such crater? It has also turned out that the distribution of important minerals has yielded clues to the mystery of the Moon’s origin. And that is just the scientific implications. What would granting sovereignty on the Moon do to international collaboration in space? Would all space technology become state secrets?
Perhaps I’m being overly dramatic. Perhaps only good things would come from granting sovereignty over different parts of the Moon. But I’m glad the U.S. went there in peace, for all mankind.
Blog Posts
Get E-mail Updates
Montreal’s Chinatown is pretty terrible, Geoff – but if you found a place you like (and there are a few), good on you.
If you’ve got a free hour or so to go on an food-based adventure, head up to Mile End (map: http://is.gd/xoyS). At the north-east corner of the intersection is one of my favourite places in the whole city (a Chilean restaurant with amazing Barros Luco sandwiches), and just east on Fairmount are the best Montreal-style bagels you’ll find anywhere.
— Dan · May 6, 11:34 PM ·
We have only eaten at Restaurant Beijing, which is better than any Ive eaten at in Boston or Washington DC (In my humble opinion) even if the spicy food is especially mild. But I’m glad to have other suggestions!
— Geoff Forden · May 7, 06:15 AM ·
There’s a certain breed of space enthusiast (I count myself amongst them, to some extent) that wants to see humanity do things in space other than take photographs and poke rocks with robotic probes. In the long term, we’d like settlement, not just scientific exploration. Just like the old West, only this time there really isn’t anybody else there.
For that to happen, those settlers need a chance to exploit the resources available to them.
Your approach is pretty much akin to declaring anywhere outside Earth’s atmosphere National Park for all time. Great, if you want to preserve it just the way it is and study the rocks. Not so great if you’ve got ambitions beyond that.
May I suggest that you might be seeing the world (and beyond it) through the prism of your professional outlook – on nuclear power too, for that matter. Other people may think that there are bigger fish to fry, sometimes. In this case, the bigger fish is the settlement of space, rather than fetishizing treaties of internatioanl cooperation for the sake of it.
— Robert Merkel · May 7, 06:35 AM ·
If there is something that should be changed it’s the nation-state focus of all things space.
And the first article should be amended, saying “… shall be free for exploration and use by everybody without discrimination of any kind …”
Everybody as in everybody who manages to get up there.
— Distiller · May 7, 07:25 AM ·
“The next thing that would happened (about 5 seconds after a new treaty establishing that right was signed) is scientific studies of the Moon would be declared state secrets and humanity’s quest to understand it’s the origins of the solar system would become proprietary information. . . .Perhaps I’m being overly dramatic.
Yes, yes you are. Although I guess I should add that claims in Antarctica have not prevented the spread of knowledge about it, but they might have encouraged it at the start. Since the signing of the Antarctic treaty the nations claiming territory in the Antarctic have not enforced their claims, but this has not discouraged study either.
— FOARP · May 7, 08:46 AM ·
Suggest you look at the Antarctic Treaty for a good precedence .
— Kim · May 7, 08:48 AM ·
Geoff,
Perhaps the lawyer should not have used the term “own” but the section of the OST you quote only says “free access” is necessary. One can always “own” property and yet provide “free acces.” I think the more relevant part of the treaty is Art.II “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”
On the other hand, if we drop the “own” comment entirely, the OST does allow the establishment of (peaceful) facilities on the moon. See Art IV “…The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.”
— Mike · May 7, 09:05 AM ·
Just to keep everyone on Terra Firma; there are no habitable planets in this star system besides the one upon which this blog is hosted. As someone whose spent more time in Alaska then I would have cared to, let me sincerely say that had mars been even close to Alaska in habitability; a breathable atmosphere, something like Juno or Sitka along the equator and at least 60-80% earth gee; then mars already would have human colonist. But because mars is for all intents and purpose dead as a doornail, much like all the other rocks in this system, there will never be sane people willing to trade the open skies of earth for life there. Could anyone willingly do that their children? Maybe prisoners, maybe a hundred year long nuclear war would make it enticing, but I see no other reasons people would give up this overcrowded world for a sterile, near air less desert.
I’m sure some other civilization, endowed with a system with better targets of colonization then providence has bestowed upon our species, would become a starfaring civilization. After all when you have system wide trade between habitable worlds it builds up certain core competencies and excess capacities that could one day be diverted for more far flung journeys of discovery. But we, on the other hand, are meant to be the savages in canoes that will be discovered not the discoverers.
On a purely commercial note, we might one day have asteroid mining infrasturcture much like we have offshore oil rigs, but they’ll most likely be automated. And as far as the moon goes, recall basic geology; the moon lacks water,i.e. no rains or rivers, it lacks volcanism, so it has no ore concentrating mechanism; there will be no rich veins of anything just a lot of dust.
— Azr@el · May 7, 10:58 AM ·
I wouldn’t get too agitated about this. No one is ready to throw out the OST right now. And you don’t necessarily need a corporate/commercial (ownership) model to exploit the moon or other space objects (if it’s ever doable) for the good of humankind. Debris is the real issue of the day: we need the Space Hoover! :-) Not to mention a ban on debris-creating ASATs!
— th · May 7, 11:52 PM ·
It all goes back to how much real estate does a man really need. In the end, all he really needs is a 6ft plot in the local cemetery.
— Major Lemon · May 8, 09:26 AM ·
Let me reverse the question. Because even today with the various treaties in effect, it’s only the USA that releases data as a matter of policy. Does the RSA, ESA, JAXA, ISRA, or the Chinese give full data dumps of their various programs after they are complete? No. So it seems only the Americans provide such resources to the people who paid for them, and even to the people who did not. So why is it that you think the various space treaties will open up space sciences for all of humanity when it’s only the Americans who even now under ideal conditions are the only players to do so?
Given that the first recon of the Solar System was overwhelmingly done by the US and that the US opened it all up for all of humanity it’s easy to think that this is the norm for all other players. Engage in a little exercise. List all the interplanetary and lunar probes done in the past 50 years and go out and try to find as many sources of full data dumps available to the public. I’m pretty sure you’ll be hard pressed to find a non-American source.
— Andrew Tubbiolo · May 8, 11:03 AM ·
Having sat in on the same roundtable in Montreal, I would highlight slightly differently what I thought was one of his main points, which focused from what I recall more on commercial actors than on national governments:
if we want commercial actors to play a more active role in space exploration, we need to reduce the uncertainty surrounding what return on investment can be expected. He was arguing that the space treaties were created at a time when commercial players had a negligible role in space exploration, and that the clauses in Article 11 of the Moon Treaty, for example, create disincentives for such commercial involvement. What shape is the “regime” referred to in Art 11 para 5 going to have? What percentage of their profits will have to be shared with the rest of humanity? On top of all the other risks inherent in a commercial endeavour like space mining or space tourism, the current legal regime is too ambiguous to assess profitability and ensure protection of investment.
His argument was basically that some semblance of property rights is required to reduce this ambiguity, which in turn needs some framework under which they could be protected. I’m not sure that I agree with him that “sovereignty” as such is the answer, but the broader question which I think needs to be thought through is: “what type of economic model do we want to implement in space if we want commercial actors to play a role?” If we truly want space exploration and space resources to be for the benefit of all of humankind, I don’t think that commercial actors can play a role in the same way we see it on earth. But how do we still provide enough incentives for them to be involved outside of the space programs of national governments?
— anon · May 8, 02:26 PM ·
Anon’s points are more than valid. I was just trying to say that even today in a field limited to only having a look about, anything from academic publishing politics, national security, and national pride have already limited the number of open players to one. Given this can you really expect space to be developed for all of mankind?
Then there’s this question. What will the natives think of developing space for all of mankind? I would think it only a matter of time before in the course of human events it might become time for one group of people to break the ties that bind them to mother Earth. I think the entire concept of developing space for all of humanity is probably not going to happen. What would the Earth have to offer Andrew’s Asteroid Mining and Machine Tool Manufacturing and Shipping Shoppe to stop me from declaring my independence and not paying my humanity tax?— Andrew Tubbiolo · May 8, 05:21 PM ·