claim moon land?

[ehs40]

should we be allowed 2 it would make interst in space a lot more exicting

 

[spacester]

Space Law at this point in time is largely a blank slate, and will remain so until actual people go out and do actual things requiring new laws.<br /><br />The short summation of current space law is that it <i>appears that</i><br /><br />* There is no provision for private property rights<br /><br />* Squatters rights would apply<br /><br />* Salvage rights would apply<br /><br />If I can set up my robot playground on the Moon, I will establish operations on a chunk of territory that has been declared to be the common heritage of mankind. This will endow me with squatter's rights and thus no one can legally force me to cease or desist or vacate.<br /><br />If I come across abandoned hardware, salvage rights apply. The 'common heritage of mankind' principle may or may not dictate the sanctity of hardware due to its historic value. IOW, don't touch the Apollo Hardware - you can look but don't touch.<br /><br />One would think property rights are important to space development, but in my personal observation, I see no urgent need for property rights. Robotic surveys notwithstanding, until people arrive, it remains terra incognita, wilderness, there-be-dragons country. Once folks show up, they will begin to forge a legal system, but with an abundance of unoccupied land having roughly the same intrinsic value, the need for property rights still seems less than urgent.<br /><br />Having said that, I feel I'm missing something important and that there is an urgent need for property rights after all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[le3119]

Real estate on Earth can be farmed, locations on rivers and on sea coasts are often more sought after than those on an open plain. On the moon, none of considerations would apply. The low gravity makes access to the surface fairly convenient. Lunar real estate would be valued based on resources, certainly the crater harboring ice in the polar regions would be contested or considered "international" as Antarctic territory is today. It depends where the metals are, the value of basalt casting, and availability of oxygen and nitrogen in the lunar soils. Lunar land would probably be "dirt cheap" if we think in terms of real estate, but an interest could lease "cabin space" and life support to another interest wishing to prospect and develop resources. Aside from the lunar poles, where permanent sunshine and permanently shaded ice fields exist, I don't think there's much incentive to just go grab up land. <br /><br />Near earth asteroids would be more valued because of their high water, carbon and metal content, they would be totally disassembled for profit.

 

[ehs40]

im sorry what i ment to say was claim moon land for minning im sorry my bad

 

[lunatio_gordin]

there's a website where you can buy land on the moon, supposedly, but i imagine it's not honored, like the "name a star" thing.

 

[radarredux]

There has been a series of essays on this topic at the Space Review (see below). My summary of their positions (as seen through my personal biases) is that private property laws must be extended to space in order to attract commercial investment. How you do that, however, is not entirely clear.<br /><br />US public land policy and applications for the Moon and Mars<br />by Sam Dinkin<br />Monday, July 26, 2004<br />http://www.thespacereview.com/article/190/1<br /><br />A better way to promote space settlement in our lifetimes<br />by Alan Wasser<br />Tuesday, September 7, 2004<br />http://www.thespacereview.com/article/219/1<br /><br />Races, beauty contests, franchises, and build-out requirements for lunar property<br />by Sam Dinkin<br />Monday, September 13, 2004<br />http://www.thespacereview.com/article/224/1<br /><br />Auctions, races, and space settlement<br />by Alan Wasser<br />Monday, October 11, 2004<br />http://www.thespacereview.com/article/242/1<br /><br />It’s time to rethink international space law<br />by Michael J. Listner<br />Tuesday, May 31, 2005<br />http://www.thespacereview.com/article/381/1<br />

 

[mikejz]

I actually have a few 100 achers of prime lunar land if intrested. Its perfect home site or investment property. Good schools, close to shops, low crime. <br /><br />I also have bridge in Brooklin if you are intrested.

 

[spacester]

Thanks for those links, it was great to review them all at once like that. We've actually seen that argument take place along very similar lines here at sdc more than once and end up at the same place.<br /><br />I agree with all three authors' latest conclusions after they commendably answered each other productively.<br /><br />I stand by my post, except I forgot that the squatter's rights seem to include the right to extract local resources at will.<br /><br />I know I'm being simplistic, but I see no *imperitive* for private property rights on the moon. I can totally understand why they would be a good thing, why they would help, but for the kinds of actual activities to be done there, I just don't see what they would give us that we can't already lay claim to under squatter's rights which allow resource extraction, which is what we've got IMO.<br /><br />In any case, the legislation should be advanced for clarity if nothing else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">should we be allowed 2 it would make interst in space a lot more exicting</font>/i><br /><br />By the way, property rights are why Americans speak English and not Spanish (more or less). In 1479 Spain and Portugal agreed to recognize each other's exclusive control over any islands or coast they discovered. In 1494 the Treaty of Tordesillas further divided the Atlantic between Spain and Portugal (this is mine, and that is yours).<br /><br />When Francis Drake sailed around the world in 1577-1580, and captured of Spanish bullion along the way, Spain protested vehemently. This forced England to issue their own legal opinion which included the line: "<font color="yellow">Prescription without possession is not valid.</font> In other words, "effective possession alone confers ownership" [McDougal 2004]. This opened the door for England to establish colonies in North America.<br /><br />And by the way, England promoted <i>privately</i> financed colonization.</i>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

That's "Sir" Francis Drake and you're welcome <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"I actually have a few 100 achers of prime lunar land if intrested. Its perfect home site or investment property. Good schools, close to shops, low crime."</font><br /><br />How far to the nearest gas station? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[john_316]

to follow up on the idea of property rights...<br /><br />real estate is one of the biggest money making businesses on the planet earth. without the land being able to be purhcased or claimed it would seem or be 'state owned and controlled' and therefore be no ownership allowed.<br /><br />thus no money making enterprise unless of course you want the government to run that too. another social welfare program akin to french socialism.<br /><br />so if i had the power to land on the moon and occupy it for extended periods of time then yes i would claim some land. matter of fact alot of land and i would establish my own robotic army to defend such land from socialist states such as france and greedy big business companies from taking my resourses without my permission... lol of course i would lease my property to be mined as long as i get a precentage. see business proposition thus real estate deal.<br /><br />its all about power, money, greed, and control anyways and i dont think id like some international treaty to take away my rights on lunar ownership.<br /><br />oh wait i could always denounse my earthy citizenship once i move there and then the space treaty is null and void for me because my new residence would be luna prima so i guess i can do what i want then...<br /><br />lets get serious.... ownership of land and mineral rights makes and breaks companies and encourages competition and for everyone to make a buck...<br /><br />isnt that what its all about making a buck and having some place of your own to call home and not have ot deal with your neigbors all the time?????????<br /><br /><br />what is a man if he does not own land or his own home??? <br /><br />

 

[cuddlyrocket]

I actually had to look all this up (and took legal advice from UK Government law officers) following complaints from concerned UK citizens (read: amateur astronomers). The advice on the BNSC website re naming of stars was drafted by me (although looking at it now, it seems to have reverted somewhat to its former incorrect position).<br /><br />Regarding Moon property, the Outer Space Treaty says: "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." This means that you cannot establish a claim to land on the Moon within the legal systems of any of the signatory states, and that those states won't recognise any such claim under any other country's legal system either.<br /><br />However, there is nothing to stop any private organisation setting out a policy and asking people to abide by it, perhaps with a private arbitration service (a bit like the 'ownership' of domain names on the Internet, or the Court of Arbitration for Sport), although it's possible that such a private agreement could be expressed to comply with a particular law and be subject to a particular court's jurisdiction (like the Admiral's Cup). You'd probably need some sanctions against non-compliance - boycotts from transport and supply companies etc.<br /><br />Eventually, if there was a Moon colony that gained its independence and recognition as a state, it would not itself be bound by the Outer Space Treaty (unless the new state signed it, which seems unlikely), and it could enforce its own municipal law on the subject.

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">what is a man if he does not own land or his own home??? </font><br /><br />Mountian Man? Animal Trapper? Prospector? Day Laborer? Freeman? Novelist?<br /><br />Drifter? Pirate? Roustabout? Freeloader? Usurper? Neer-do-well?<br /><br />Six good 'uns, six bad 'uns . . . <br /><br />It will be an adventure, won't it? Let's go and find out what happens!<br /><br />***<br /><br />It seems to me that while property rights are essential to *long-term* economic space growth, they are not required to *get started*.<br /><br />The prospectors and squatters and adventure tourist guides will show up and they will do things and that will lead to laws being written in due time. Property rights can be established at that time.<br /><br />In the meantime, I do not see why the risk of being kicked off of a, say, moon mining operation, is so substantial as to dissuade those already seriously contemplating joining the early wave of space exploitation.<br /><br />The governments will send their representatives but will want effective diplomacy up there. Mostly, they'll be doing science anyway, so no worries there really.<br /><br />Go. Do your thing. No one is going to stop you, but yes you will be expected to be neighborly. <br /><br />IMHO property rights are not the obstacle many claim.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

However, I don't think it is an issue. I think if someone just go to the moon and claim some land and see what happens..

 

[vidar]

It is interesting this reference to the international treaty. It is a UN Treaty I suppose. It seems to me that all the nations can do, is to make hinders for the other, and thereby to themselves. UN seems to need some change of attitude, after the ending of the cold war. But until then, that treaty is the reality for today and the near future. There are other possibilities for development in space, though.<br /><br />I do not think it is fair to call NG (non-governmental) enterprises for amateurs. I think Virgin and others have proved their professionalism. The ambitions are most certainly there. Now they need recourses. With sufficient financing, resource persons might find such NG enterprises more interesting. Imagine an alliance of Virgin and Bill Gates. The decision-making process would be very simplified, compared to governmental agencies. They could literally be ‘sky rocketing’.<br /><br />Another NG possibility are international organisations. Is the international organisation ESA bound to the Outer Space Treaty? Could ESA claim sovereignty of a region at the Moon, within the legal systems? If ESA put up an observation post at the back side of the moon, it would at least be a long and complicated discussion in the UN before any change of the Treaty. <br /><br />But there has to be some benefits to all the costs of space-exploration. Or else such high-risk programs would not pass any commercial, or international, boards. Suggestions to such benefited programs could be; Telescopes at the moons ‘dark side’, launch station, permanent remote station at Mars, probes to Europe (Jupiter’s moon) and a Kuiper observer.<br />

 

[tomnackid]

Don't some equatorial countries claim the moon as being part of their air space? Some religions also claim the moon as an integral part of their beliefs. The point is planting a flag (national or corporate) and "claiming" something has about as much weight as a 6 year old yelling "I saw it first!"

 

[grooble]

My view is that the moon should be divided into zones, 1 quarter for corps, 1 quarter for governments, 1 quarter for general use and 1 quarter for private colonists and such.<br /><br />

 

[vidar]

I saw a DVD about the solar system and how space exploration started. There was this first probe of SU that scared the US. It contained a flag and headed for the moon. It missed and kept on floating into space. They hoped it would hit another object. Later we have seen the pictures of an US astronaut place a flag on the moon. Does this events matter? <br /><br />It is very dependent of what forces rule and what the constitutions are. At the time, for global issues, FN rules and the Outer Space Treaty is the constitutions. However, regimes come and go, and constitutions changes. I have never heard of an empire that lasts forever, consequently the constitution.<br /><br />All in all, it is about who can get it and hold it. Once there was The Concert of Europe, it fell with ww1. Then there was The League of Nation, it fell with ww2. Now there is the UN. There are some unsettled territorial matters left from the League that the UN could not handle. There were new Treaties and the old agreements were not legal anymore. <br /><br />Saying ‘this is mine’ does not make anything its property. Unfortunately, some have managed that for a short time to large overall costs. Humanity do not need more such examples of such attitude to reject it in time.<br /><br />