So I have been reading various business plans for the construction of bases on the moon and elsewhere. All of them are relient upon one thing, receiving land grants. So I looked into it a little and apparently no one can own anything off earth. There is a famous loophole that individuals can claim territory, but this is a complete farce since individual claims to land have to be granted and overseen by governments, who cannot own the land off earth. So here is my question, if no one can own land off earth, where is the incentive to private companies to venture off-world? Could the UN possibly establish a treaty that permits land grants for corporations or even a set number of land for each country of the world? Whats everyone's opinion on this?
- Status
The outer space treaty prevents nations from claiming a celestial body as their own. As it is now, I'm not really sure a private company would have to obtain any sort of land grant. They might be able to just go there and start their operations because nobody owns anything in space. But I'm sure word of it would get out and there would be some sort of UN regulation.
Right now there's no real rules for how this would work because it hasn't been attempted yet. But once a company seriously begins setting up a base on the moon or an asteroid it will probably get regulated somehow by the UN. I just hope they don't screw it up and ban mining the moon or asteroids, that would be terrible.
Right now there's no real rules for how this would work because it hasn't been attempted yet. But once a company seriously begins setting up a base on the moon or an asteroid it will probably get regulated somehow by the UN. I just hope they don't screw it up and ban mining the moon or asteroids, that would be terrible.
Property rights do not exist when no government is present. In outer space and on the moon there is no government there to provide and protect property rights. Effectively it is the law of the jungle. Sure you can try to get the UN or some other Earth government to give you rights, but what would that mean? If someone else comes along and takes the land from you or if there is a dispute what is that government going to do.
The first people on the Moon or Mars will have to establish their own local government to manage property rights and handle other community affairs.
It was the same when the first colonists arrived in the US. They quickly formed a government to manage property disputes and deal with other community concerns. That government eventually evolved into the one that exists today.
The first people on the Moon or Mars will have to establish their own local government to manage property rights and handle other community affairs.
It was the same when the first colonists arrived in the US. They quickly formed a government to manage property disputes and deal with other community concerns. That government eventually evolved into the one that exists today.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. No government can stake a claim in outer space, which means that private companies and colonists will be fending for themselves.
What I was getting at is essentially what comes first the chicken or the egg? I understand that the moment people get there they will set up their own laws and governments, however there is no incentive to go there if you cannot make immediate cash flow (from a business point of view). The easiest (and quickest) way is to essentially sell (or even better lease) land on bodies to help offset costs. Perhaps your company has research going and has developed technology to build a moon base. The company can have the base ready in 4 years and at a cost of $1 Billion. That is a MAJOR cost (and a lowball). No company, no matter how kind, is going to front that kind of money for something that won't have ROI until it is completed. With a land grant situation, the company can lease land on the moon for at least some sort of cash flow. This provides the incentive for development.
On a historical point, the governments of Europe developed grants for colonization of the New World and other places without the consent of the governments there. So, a government in a far away land obviously has the power to provide grants on places they have no hold (think Jamestown). I just believe that is a corporation could receive a land grant for 1 million acres on the moon, lease this property out for $10-$100 a year, they could easily obtain ROI within a reasonable amount of time. Even at $40 million a year for the first 3 years, then $300 million after that, you are talking a 6 year time frame for ROI (the increase is due to Space Agencies leasing portions of the base for use). If you take costs into effect, it is more like 10 years for ROI (which is still a respectable time). But the major thing here is the initial cash flow that is developed by using land grants. For god's sake, this Hope guy has mad $9 Million by selling lunar land grants (which is a total scam). Plus, i'm sure there are at least 4 million space enthusiasts that would gladly pay $100 a year to help fund the setup for a moon base. Perhaps even write in that after 10 years they own the land outright.
On a historical point, the governments of Europe developed grants for colonization of the New World and other places without the consent of the governments there. So, a government in a far away land obviously has the power to provide grants on places they have no hold (think Jamestown). I just believe that is a corporation could receive a land grant for 1 million acres on the moon, lease this property out for $10-$100 a year, they could easily obtain ROI within a reasonable amount of time. Even at $40 million a year for the first 3 years, then $300 million after that, you are talking a 6 year time frame for ROI (the increase is due to Space Agencies leasing portions of the base for use). If you take costs into effect, it is more like 10 years for ROI (which is still a respectable time). But the major thing here is the initial cash flow that is developed by using land grants. For god's sake, this Hope guy has mad $9 Million by selling lunar land grants (which is a total scam). Plus, i'm sure there are at least 4 million space enthusiasts that would gladly pay $100 a year to help fund the setup for a moon base. Perhaps even write in that after 10 years they own the land outright.
Well the thing you have to understand is that the first moon colony will be a bit like a baby. You can't expect it to go out, get a job, and start bring in money for you quite yet. You need to feed it, nurture it, and be patient until it can start bringing in money. But in the meantime you can enjoy the entertainment it provides. I think at first the biggest source of income a moon colony will provide is through tourism and recreational activities (think of televised lunar sports and such).
The helium-3 reserves will be quite useful when the time for that comes. But like I said, those who expect a moon colony to immediately start generating money are expecting too much. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a moon base, just that it will take time for it to grow and become mostly self sufficient.
The helium-3 reserves will be quite useful when the time for that comes. But like I said, those who expect a moon colony to immediately start generating money are expecting too much. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a moon base, just that it will take time for it to grow and become mostly self sufficient.
Unfortunately Yuri, there will be no private moonbase then. Cashflow is everything when it comes to business. If you cannot realistically see ROI within a few years (my guess is 15 years for a moonbase though the normal assumption if 5 years) then the project will not go through. It doesn't matter to a business if the base will generate a trillion dollars in revenue a year after 40 years of nurturing, thats just to long for investors. The problem is that people think that a moonbase has to be nurtured to obtain cashflow (even if it isn't profitable it limits the losses originally). I just postulated a way for a base to essentially offset the costs using land grants. Entertainment is another method, tourism is another method. Basically, a moonbase has to be deemed safe, which means probably 5 years of constant operation, for tourism to occur. Entertainment will likely occur after this 5 years when more people, other than scientists, are up there. This means that the only options for cashflow is land grant use, government funding, government contracting, and university funding.
By the way, by cashflow i'm not talking about profit. Previously stated, i think the breakeven point for a moonbase would be approximately 15-20 years of operation. This means operational losses! for the first few years. This simply means that there will be more money going out then there is coming in. I think that after 5 years of operation there will be dramatic increases in revenue and you will see large amounts of profits rolling in, but there has to be incentive there to begin with, and that means cashflow to at the least pay interest only payments on money.
I agree with you fully that profit will take many years of development and nurturing, but the cash flow has to be there. At least some revenue has to be coming in to replace a little of the costs. Thats where this land grant idea comes into play.
By the way, by cashflow i'm not talking about profit. Previously stated, i think the breakeven point for a moonbase would be approximately 15-20 years of operation. This means operational losses! for the first few years. This simply means that there will be more money going out then there is coming in. I think that after 5 years of operation there will be dramatic increases in revenue and you will see large amounts of profits rolling in, but there has to be incentive there to begin with, and that means cashflow to at the least pay interest only payments on money.
I agree with you fully that profit will take many years of development and nurturing, but the cash flow has to be there. At least some revenue has to be coming in to replace a little of the costs. Thats where this land grant idea comes into play.
Thankyou Steve. I would have never been able to find that myself (perhaps my googling skills have decrease 
). I like the wording in that bill except for one thing. There is no advanced land grant system. If a corporation is to seriously wish to set up a private base, there will have to be incentive immediately. They should be allowed to apply for landgrants as soon as initial planning, cost analysis, and governmental approval is finished. Or the bill should allow for claims based on equipment placed. If a robotic builder is placed on the moon, this should be sufficent evidence to allow a land grant to be initiated. Perhaps for 1/4 or 1/8th of the total land grant. Just my $0.02!
). I like the wording in that bill except for one thing. There is no advanced land grant system. If a corporation is to seriously wish to set up a private base, there will have to be incentive immediately. They should be allowed to apply for landgrants as soon as initial planning, cost analysis, and governmental approval is finished. Or the bill should allow for claims based on equipment placed. If a robotic builder is placed on the moon, this should be sufficent evidence to allow a land grant to be initiated. Perhaps for 1/4 or 1/8th of the total land grant. Just my $0.02!flyer456654":1hzzlo09 said:
It is unlikely that the first space colonists will be motivated by profit. It is unlikely because the risks are great and the development cost is high. There business ventures here on earth that are far less risky and have a far high ROI.
Most likely the first ones will go in the name of science, adventure, and belief in a future for humanity in space. They will probably be funded by government money. They will be the ones to make the initial development and take the most risk. Personally I think this process will start with a base on the moon. Once such a base has been constructed and maintained then businesses will look at ways to profit from the technology.
This sequence is really how the rest of the commercial space industry developed. The government made the initial investment in the technology for military and science reasons. Soon after commercial enterprises realized that one could make money doing these thing commercially and invested in the technology in order to do so.
My concern with government (being a government worker) is that everything is so restrictive and so incredibly drawn out that a moonbase funded and operated by the government will take more than our lifetimes to achieve. I personally would like to visit the moon when I'm 60 or 70, so this gives me a timeframe of 50 years to get a base open, operational, and full of tourism. Government is a great tool to do the impossible. No corporation could have ever developed the initial technology to get to space, or be the first to visit the moon. Without the drive of government these firsts would not have happened. However, they did happen and now the cost of doing things in space is reducing (thanks spacex, thanks Elon).
All of the current developments point toward commercial utilization of space. While I agree that the first colonists will not be there to make money but will in fact be there for idealistic reasons, I disagree that the entity that places the structures will be the government. It would take to long, cost to much, and be politically damaging to any canidate that suggested it (why build a moonbase when we can create a socialist society with cradle to the grave car, note the disdain in my tone). In otherwords, a government moonbase would be ill concieved, ill executed, and cancelled half way through completion. And this is where commerical corporations come into play.
Commercial corporations will take on large amounts of risks in the search for ROI. An idealistic corporations (spacex) decides to look at both ROI as well as human advancement. This means that a corporation, with the right ROI and Corporate Culture, would gladly take on the risk to both advance humanity as well as make money. If a corporation was in charge of moonbase development, I have no doubt that it would be accomplished in a short amount of time, with a higher quality than government can provide, and be more cost efficient than the government. It would also probably be safer than a government moonbase. Not only does a corporation provide a better product, but they do it at lower costs AND they actually finish it. They have immense incentive to actually finish a major product and start seeing their ROI.
And to address your concern that there are plenty of projects with high ROI here on Earth, I will tell you that I totally agree. But there are plenty of projects with high ROI off of Earth. It just takes the right person and the right mindset to take on the risks of off-world development. Not only that ROI off world is damn near infinite in the long term. There is mining that can be done, tourism, science leasing, government leasing, manufacturing, and so much more. I mean the possibilities for profit are out of control in an off-world base. So i would argue that while there is plenty of high ROI with low risk here on Earth, there is higher ROI to be had in outerspace just with added risk (which you could mitigate by obtaining government funding). I think that the first colonists and people in a base will not be of corporate means but of government means, but I think that the actual structure will only be built if the private industry gets involved.
All of the current developments point toward commercial utilization of space. While I agree that the first colonists will not be there to make money but will in fact be there for idealistic reasons, I disagree that the entity that places the structures will be the government. It would take to long, cost to much, and be politically damaging to any canidate that suggested it (why build a moonbase when we can create a socialist society with cradle to the grave car, note the disdain in my tone). In otherwords, a government moonbase would be ill concieved, ill executed, and cancelled half way through completion. And this is where commerical corporations come into play.
Commercial corporations will take on large amounts of risks in the search for ROI. An idealistic corporations (spacex) decides to look at both ROI as well as human advancement. This means that a corporation, with the right ROI and Corporate Culture, would gladly take on the risk to both advance humanity as well as make money. If a corporation was in charge of moonbase development, I have no doubt that it would be accomplished in a short amount of time, with a higher quality than government can provide, and be more cost efficient than the government. It would also probably be safer than a government moonbase. Not only does a corporation provide a better product, but they do it at lower costs AND they actually finish it. They have immense incentive to actually finish a major product and start seeing their ROI.
And to address your concern that there are plenty of projects with high ROI here on Earth, I will tell you that I totally agree. But there are plenty of projects with high ROI off of Earth. It just takes the right person and the right mindset to take on the risks of off-world development. Not only that ROI off world is damn near infinite in the long term. There is mining that can be done, tourism, science leasing, government leasing, manufacturing, and so much more. I mean the possibilities for profit are out of control in an off-world base. So i would argue that while there is plenty of high ROI with low risk here on Earth, there is higher ROI to be had in outerspace just with added risk (which you could mitigate by obtaining government funding). I think that the first colonists and people in a base will not be of corporate means but of government means, but I think that the actual structure will only be built if the private industry gets involved.
flyer456654":2p0j0uyz said:
My thoughts exactly. People like Elon Musk and Sir Richard Branson are doing what they are doing not just to make money, but for other reasons as well. The cost of putting hardware into space is high, but they are working to bring launch costs down. I think that these types of people would be willing to wait 5 years or 10 years for a moon base to start generating cash flow.
The idea of a land grant is interesting for sure, but I'm sure congressmen will kill it via the giggle factor. Probably the earliest NASA will get a real scientific outpost going on the moon is 2030, at the least. I appreciate all that NASA and Roscocosmos has done, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for them. But with private space companies developing their own hardware and infrastructure I think the prospects are pretty encouraging. Where NASA is constantly strangled by endless budget cuts, delays, and debates, private companies can pursue their agendas on their own while cooperating with NASA for the good of both.
Yuri_Armstrong":2bwcxk3k said:
Even Elon Musk didn't wait 5-10 years for at least some inward cashflow. The falcon 1 was produced cashflow within a short time frame (within 5 years). The falcon 9 has already developed large cash inflow in the form of a NASA contract as well as Bigilow contracts. I think that Mr. Musk would accept 10 years or longer not having operating profits, but not having cashflows is something different. Cashflows directly relate to liquidity and having cash on hand (Musk found out the hard way how valuable liquidity is). Having more cash coming in than going out is needed to accomplish anything. Even if this cash is from loans and other leveraging techniques. So to build a moonbase you would need immediate cash inflow in the form of funding, than you would need sustained cash inflow to sustain operations. This can come in the form of loans, government funding, or many other things. I am under the assumption (hopefully not wrong) that a moonbase would involve huge amounts of cash to operate. This means huge amounts of cashflow coming in to pay for these things. This means either large amounts of loans, large government support, or other inventive ways to do it. My suggestion would be to develop all of these things to produce cash flow.
In short, no project moves unless there is some cash flow coming in. Cashflow has to be immediately obtained. Cashflow does not mean profits. Musk would be willing to forgo profits for 5-20 years but cashflow would have to be obtained in the first year of operations to sustain the operation.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
SETI chief says US has no evidence for alien technology. 'And we never have- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
-
Sorry, little green men: Alien life might actually be purple
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
Latest posts
-
Question Recommendations for International Research Competitions- Latest: Andrii Dzygunenko
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram