Property and Mineral Rights to spurl space dev.

[DarkenedOne]

Personally I have been comparing space exploration and early colonialism to figure out a model for space development and colonization.

One thing I noticed about early colonies in America was that property rights were used in order to encourage private development of the new world. People came over largely for the prospect of being land owners. The deal was that if they settled and developed the land than they would own it. This system of granting property for development was also used in early America in order to colonize and populate the western states. Essentially people, many of which had little to lose, settled these areas so that they could be land owners.

It worked the same way with resources. The private sector practically did all the prospecting. Their deal with the government was that if they found a gold mine or something that they would have the rights to it.

I feel that this practice of distributing property and mineral rights to those who develop them is largely what is lacking in the space business. No one is ever going to colonize space unless they have a economic incentive to do so. In order for people to have an economic incentive they will have to have property and mineral rights to the places that they try to develop.

Now while this idea may be a bit premature I think it will eventually be important once we have the technology to do it economically.

 

[Polishguy]

I wholeheartedly agree. Mars has experienced most of the hydrological and geological processes that earth has, so it should have reserves of precious metals (and it has been proven that it does), and the asteroids even more so. We'll need to reduce launch costs, though, so an SSTO seems necessary (provided one can be developed). Thus, we can colonize Mars and the asteroids for their resources.

The only things we lack are a) cheap launchers, and b) a logistics trail. Food is hard to grow on an asteroid, so a place like Mars can be a nice farmland, like North America was for the Caribbean in the early 19th and late 18th centuries.

 

[Swampcat]

Property and Mineral Rights to spurl space dev.

"Spurl" ??

Is there an English language translation of this word?

 

[EarthlingX]

Property and Mineral Rights to spurl space dev.

"Spurl" ??

Is there an English language translation of this word?

Sure.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spurl
Don't use it much, though ... :roll: :lol:

This has to be done with international consent, good old UN, i suppose. They have to come out with something that would allow exploitation of extraterrestrial resources for business purposes and trade.

Mining companies are already building huge ships as movable mining platforms, and those costs are in G$ and amortization in 10s of years.
If they knew, they could count on some kind of return of investment, i think they might be interested.

Similar laws as rule open sea mining should apply i think, but space might be technically less challenging than deep sea, once you are at least in LEO.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Property and Mineral Rights to spurl space dev.

"Spurl" ??

Is there an English language translation of this word?

Sure.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spurl
Don't use it much, though ... :roll: :lol:

This has to be done with international consent, good old UN, i suppose. They have to come out with something that would allow exploitation of extraterrestrial resources for business purposes and trade.

Mining companies are already building huge ships as movable mining platforms, and those costs are in G$ and amortization in 10s of years.
If they knew, they could count on some kind of return of investment, i think they might be interested.

Similar laws as rule open sea mining should apply i think, but space might be technically less challenging than deep sea, once you are at least in LEO.

There is no way the UN is going to sanction it. The reason is that the majority of the countries will not have the technology to make use of any extraterrestrial resources. Only a few large and wealthy countries will have the technology in order to make use of such resources in the near to mid-term future. Thus the other nations without such a capability will stifle the more advance countries because they know they cannot compete.

During the colonial era did the European powers ask anyone even each other for permission to build a colony. No and there is no way that they would get permission if they did because these nations were their enemies. They just went ahead and colonized as much as they could.

I think countries like the US should just go right ahead and exploit space without asking anyone. It encourages competition between nations which has been proven by what we have seen in the cold war to push development.

Just like

 

[Polishguy]

"Spurl" ??

Is there an English language translation of this word?

Sure.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spurl
Don't use it much, though ... :roll: :lol:

This has to be done with international consent, good old UN, i suppose. They have to come out with something that would allow exploitation of extraterrestrial resources for business purposes and trade.

Mining companies are already building huge ships as movable mining platforms, and those costs are in G$ and amortization in 10s of years.
If they knew, they could count on some kind of return of investment, i think they might be interested.

Similar laws as rule open sea mining should apply i think, but space might be technically less challenging than deep sea, once you are at least in LEO.

There is no way the UN is going to sanction it. The reason is that the majority of the countries will not have the technology to make use of any extraterrestrial resources. Only a few large and wealthy countries will have the technology in order to make use of such resources in the near to mid-term future. Thus the other nations without such a capability will stifle the more advance countries because they know they cannot compete.

During the colonial era did the European powers ask anyone even each other for permission to build a colony. No and there is no way that they would get permission if they did because these nations were their enemies. They just went ahead and colonized as much as they could.

I think countries like the US should just go right ahead and exploit space without asking anyone. It encourages competition between nations which has been proven by what we have seen in the cold war to push development.

Just like

Unfortunately, that's probably true. Though I'm not aware of any treaty restricting commercial development of space (Antarctica, sure, but not space...yet), all the major companies that could afford it are in the developed world, and thus their claims could extend to their country of origin. Thus, to cancel an American or European asteroid mining venture, all it would take is the representatives of Krapistan to raise a vote against it.

Yes, the USA should just flip the General Assembly off and colonize the stars. That way, we could build up the infrastructure necessary to move on to Type II Civilization status.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Property and Mineral Rights to spurl space dev.

"Spurl" ??

Is there an English language translation of this word?

Sure.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spurl
Don't use it much, though ... :roll: :lol:

Oh, OK, didn't realize it was in an Archie Bunker dialect

 

[moonfie]

Oh no, we definitely wouldn't want space development to be "spurled."

 

[EarthlingX]

Any country that will start with claims or commercial exploitation of extraterrestrial resources on it's own, will almost certainly receive a lot of at least criticism and bad vibes from the others. I would call this a bad start.

Colonial times are over, any place on Earth is mostly 2 days far away, we are interconnected as never ever before in history and i think it is time to start acting this way.

I think Churchill said something like "Democracy may not be perfect, but it's still the best of the bad", and that's what UN is trying to be.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Any country that will start with claims or commercial exploitation of extraterrestrial resources on it's own, will almost certainly receive a lot of at least criticism and bad vibes from the others. I would call this a bad start.

Why should they? Ask yourself is it right? Is it right for a country like the US to be held back from colonizing space simply because other nations do not have the capability to do the same?

Countries should be encouraged to better themselves as long as their betterment does not come at the cost of others.

Colonial times are over, any place on Earth is mostly 2 days far away, we are interconnected as never ever before in history and i think it is time to start acting this way.

Colonial times of earth are over. The colonial times of space particularly the solar system have just begun.

I think Churchill said something like "Democracy may not be perfect, but it's still the best of the bad", and that's what UN is trying to be.

Democracy fails when one group of people uses it to stifle another group of people simply because they cannot compete with them. If the UN if just going to be used by 3rd world countries to stifle the first world countries then it is simply not going to work and is detrimental to human progress.

 

[Shpaget]

There is The Outer Space Treaty that says, among other things:

The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.

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.

That could be interpreted as a ban on space mining, or at least to force the state that does the mining to share the mined resources with the rest of the states who signed the Treaty.

However, the Treaty does not place such restrictions on individuals and corporations, it only states that

The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty.

It also says:

Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed 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. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party of the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.

Which could be interpreted as a permission to mine (construction on celestial body).

 

[samkent]

You are trying to legislate rain drops. It’s pointless. This same general topic comes up monthly around here.

In short minerals from space will never ever be used on Earth!

In long the cost curve will never be in favor of space based minerals.

Look at it from a different angle. When was the last time you saw a 747 loaded with iron ore? Or maybe a A320 filled with aluminum oxide?

Since space travel will never be cheaper than air travel, you will never see space minerals being transported to Earth.

Space minerals for use in space??? There’s no market! We are still struggling to put three people into orbit at one time. This Star Trek space colonization stuff is pure fantasy.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

You are trying to legislate rain drops. It’s pointless. This same general topic comes up monthly around here.

In short minerals from space will never ever be used on Earth!

In long the cost curve will never be in favor of space based minerals.

Look at it from a different angle. When was the last time you saw a 747 loaded with iron ore? Or maybe a A320 filled with aluminum oxide?

Since space travel will never be cheaper than air travel, you will never see space minerals being transported to Earth.

Space minerals for use in space??? There’s no market! We are still struggling to put three people into orbit at one time. This Star Trek space colonization stuff is pure fantasy.

Never say never.
Using ore as an example is a bad one simply because of the availability. Strawberries & Live Lobster are a much better example.
Prior to the introduction of widely available jet travel you couldn't get either of these items at grocery stores or restaurants in Phoenix AZ. But starting in the 1960's air shipping by jet became cheap enough to allow them to be shipped by air from as far away as New Zealand for the berries & the Maine coast for the "Scavengers of the Sea."
Many things have to happen before we will start to enjoy the bounty the Solar System can provide, but I have little doubt we can & will do it eventually.

 

[moonfie]

Samkent, that seems awfully shortsighted. That might be true during our lifetimes, but what about a hundred years from now? A thousand? I don't think that any of us can predict what might happen, but to say for sure that something will not happen is sometimes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If mining in space could be made profitable, I agree that a lot of people would be against it. Countries might squabble over mining rights, and the UN would try to regulate it. In fact, I believe the 1967 Outer Space Treaty even states that resources should not be claimed by any one country.

However, I don't know if this is a good thing or not. If resources can be mined profitably, I think that it's a shame to make a blanket statement that just says "You're not allowed to." Personally, I believe that space colonies, when they exist, should eventually become sovereign entities, even nations in their own right. Of course, that is a long time in the future, unfortunately.

 

[samkent]

If we talk about self sufficient societies in space, I doubt they will abide by any earthly authority. And why should they? What’s the UN going to do about it?

Using lobsters IMO is not a good example. Lobsters are a finished product not a raw material. They may manufacture some finished product in space that earthlings are willing/able to purchase. Maybe jewelry but not large quantities or raw minerals. That would be like the US undercutting Asian steel and still making a profit. It ain’t gonna happen.

 

[DarkenedOne]

You are trying to legislate rain drops. It’s pointless. This same general topic comes up monthly around here.

In short minerals from space will never ever be used on Earth!

In long the cost curve will never be in favor of space based minerals.

Look at it from a different angle. When was the last time you saw a 747 loaded with iron ore? Or maybe a A320 filled with aluminum oxide?

Since space travel will never be cheaper than air travel, you will never see space minerals being transported to Earth.

Space minerals for use in space??? There’s no market! We are still struggling to put three people into orbit at one time. This Star Trek space colonization stuff is pure fantasy.

I'm sure people were saying things like that about America a few hundred years ago, and thousands of years before that any where other than Africa.

Simple fact of the matter is that humanity like practically all other species naturally expands into and adapts to new environments. Tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years ago out ancestor moved out of Africa, and began colonizing the rest of the planet. A few hundred years ago Europe developed the technology to travel across the oceans and came to America to colonize it. Humanity now occupies practically every continent on the globe except for Antarctica, and who is to say that in the next hundred or so years that to will be colonized now that we have the technology necessary to survive there.

Point is that we can be sure that humanity will eventually colonize space if the means to do so exist, and considering our current rate of technological advancement

Secondly this issue is going to be important in the near term. Why, because the US is at the moment planning on building an outpost on the moon. Other countries have expressed similar plans as well, thus issues with ownership are sure to arise.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Sam you are right about the example that you use. It won’t make sense to use rockets to import ore. But it’s a limited vision. What if using this ore in space you make an elevator coming down to Earth? Then you can move a lot of material at a fraction of the cost you have now. Also, remember that ore is finite on Earth and infinite in space, so as you tear up the Earth further and further to get to these ores or minerals the opportunity cost on Earth goes up. If you tear up the Earth to get ore then you won’t use that Earth for anything else, such as living space for people or critters. But I understand what you are saying. As it stands right now, this will not happen.

I want to get back to the OP for a minute. Your premise that a government entity should "grant" rights to minerals or resources to get "private" industry to go there and develop it, is not entirely accurate. For one major reason, people can’t just jump in a sail ship, with some covered wagons and go to an asteroid... Earth is relatively benign to us humans, but space isn’t. To get to space you will have a huge, let me restate that: HUGE initial cost. Maybe a company like Google may have enough money to do that, but why would they? You can’t take over the Moon that much is clear; it’s too close, too visible to everybody on Earth. If you take over the Moon there will be serious political repercussions. But say you get to an asteroid just outside of Mars orbit. Its chuck full of good "ore and minerals", and you build an infrastructure up there to mine it. Further more you now have a fair amount of life support infrastructure to have people live out there. So what now? What did Google get for all of this? In movies and TV either they start with huge cities in space without explaining how all this came to be, or as in Star Trek they start with ‘warp’ drive. By the way the books “Red Mars”, “Blue Mars”, and “Green Mars” show a fairly serious look at how an economy may start in our solar system.

Something else has to happen that has not happened yet, for people to want to go to space. Some kind of sea change, a social urges a desire that just simply is not there. As humans we are looking more inward than outward right now. Well, except for a few people on a board such as this.

 

[JeffreyNYA]

Samkent is right on with this. We will for the most part never us mineral from space on earth. The only way I see it ever happening is if we strip mine the earth to nothing. but thats a long ways away and with recycling, it will never happen.

The only way space mining will ever become a reality is if there is a manufacturing base in space. And for that you will need a space based economy and for that you will need a space based civilization. And what I mean by that is a community that actually live on space stations. Anyone living on any planetary body of any size will undoubtedly use the resources on that planet or moon or asteroid even. This will generally be the case until of course the magical transporters are developed. Then everything is wide open. Good luck with seeing that in the next 500 years.

 

[samkent]

Simple fact of the matter is that humanity like practically all other species naturally expands into and adapts to new environments.

Humanity now occupies practically every continent on the globe except for Antarctica,

There are two good reasons we haven’t expanded to Antarctica.

It’s too cold and we can’t grow food or livestock there. Both just like Mars.

Plus Mars has a few other things to screw us up.

No running water.
Enough radiation to kill you in short order.
The very real possibility of a meteorite smacking into your structure.
Oh and you can’t breathe there.

Why, because the US is at the moment planning on building an outpost on the moon. Other countries have expressed similar plans as well, thus issues with ownership are sure to arise.

No to the first point. It was political double talk and it’s too expensive. They are choking on the cost of Ares1. There is no way they will eat AresV and the cost of a permanent outpost. And to the second point of other countries, see the answer to the first point.

 

[Polishguy]

Simple fact of the matter is that humanity like practically all other species naturally expands into and adapts to new environments.

Humanity now occupies practically every continent on the globe except for Antarctica,

There are two good reasons we haven’t expanded to Antarctica.

It’s too cold and we can’t grow food or livestock there. Both just like Mars.

Plus Mars has a few other things to screw us up.

No running water.
Enough radiation to kill you in short order.
The very real possibility of a meteorite smacking into your structure.
Oh and you can’t breathe there.

Why, because the US is at the moment planning on building an outpost on the moon. Other countries have expressed similar plans as well, thus issues with ownership are sure to arise.

No to the first point. It was political double talk and it’s too expensive. They are choking on the cost of Ares1. There is no way they will eat AresV and the cost of a permanent outpost. And to the second point of other countries, see the answer to the first point.

Actually, Mars is easy enough to colonize. The reasons we haven't colonized Antarctica are, like you said, it's too cold, and food can't be grown. On Mars, putting up a polyethylene greenhouse (which can be made of Martian materials) can let you grow plants (Martian soil is actually quite fertile, once the peroxides are destroyed with water). Mars has groundwater just a few hundred meters below the surface. Cosmic Rays on Mars aren't actually that bad. A 2.5 year Mars mission will increase your chance of cancer in the next 30 years by 1%. And what the hell do I need to live to 100 for anyway? Going to Mars gives me the opportunity to walk there. Staying on earth gives me the opportunity to die of a heart attack instead of cancer.

And as for the "you can't breath" problem, that's a nonissue. You can't breath in LEO, yet people have done so. And on Mars, the Reverse Water Gas Shift reaction allows you to synthesize oxygen from CO2.

For meteorites, just build underground! Brick structures under regolith shouldn't have a problem.

 

[MeteorWayne]

For meteorites, just build underground! Brick structures under regolith shouldn't have a problem.

Sorry to be semi technical, but a meteorite is a meteoroid (when in space) that has landed on the surface of the earth. Any such objects are not useful for what you suggest, since they are not in space (by definition) anymore.

Perhaps you meant asteroids?

 

[Polishguy]

For meteorites, just build underground! Brick structures under regolith shouldn't have a problem.

Sorry to be semi technical, but a meteorite is a meteoroid (when in space) that has landed on the surface of the earth. Any such objects are not useful for what you suggest, since they are not in space (by definition) anymore.

Perhaps you meant asteroids?

No, I meant about protection from meteorites. On Mars, one can build underground for protection. Later, more advanced building methods could shield a geodesic structure on the surface from meteorite damage.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Sorry I misinterpreted. That makes sense.

MW

 

[bdewoody]

I still think the word he was looking for was spur, as in a spur on a cowboy's boot to get his horse to move faster.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Spur

 

[DarkenedOne]

You are trying to legislate rain drops. It’s pointless. This same general topic comes up monthly around here.

In short minerals from space will never ever be used on Earth!

In long the cost curve will never be in favor of space based minerals.

Look at it from a different angle. When was the last time you saw a 747 loaded with iron ore? Or maybe a A320 filled with aluminum oxide?

Since space travel will never be cheaper than air travel, you will never see space minerals being transported to Earth.

Space minerals for use in space??? There’s no market! We are still struggling to put three people into orbit at one time. This Star Trek space colonization stuff is pure fantasy.

Never say never.
Using ore as an example is a bad one simply because of the availability. Strawberries & Live Lobster are a much better example.
Prior to the introduction of widely available jet travel you couldn't get either of these items at grocery stores or restaurants in Phoenix AZ. But starting in the 1960's air shipping by jet became cheap enough to allow them to be shipped by air from as far away as New Zealand for the berries & the Maine coast for the "Scavengers of the Sea."
Many things have to happen before we will start to enjoy the bounty the Solar System can provide, but I have little doubt we can & will do it eventually.

Exactly. I can agree with you samkent that for commonly available materials it will likely always be cheaper to extract those materials from earth than it will be from space. These materials are ones dominated by the cost of mining them. Since as space tech advances so will mining tech one can be pretty certain they such materials will continue to be mined here.

However the story is different for valuable substances like gold, silver, Helium-3, tritium, uranium-235, and etc. These substances are expensive not because they are difficult to mine. They are expensive because they are both rare and valuable. Gold for example has gone for a cost as high as $21k per kilogram. Therefore these materials will remain expensive even as our technology increases, and the cost of space flight goes down.

Now it is highly likely that we will find these valuable substances in extraterrestrial deposits, and that in the future it will be economically viable to mine them.