The Outer Space Treaty

[neutrino78x]

Here is an interesting article on The Outer Space Treaty we should discuss in this forum

Case for Withdrawing from The Outer Space Treaty

I agree with most of what the author says, with the exception of the Moon. I think the Moon should be treated like Antarctica because it orbits the Earth. Parties should be able to claim territory on other bodies, but interplanetary space should be treated like international waters.

I support private colonies on other planets, with the goal of them becoming independent nations.

--Brian

 

[webtaz99]

It is, after all, just a treaty.

 

[neutrino78x]

It is, after all, just a treaty.

Well, the US Constitution states that treaties ratified by Congress must be treated as having the same weight as the Constitution.

I think we should pull out of the Outer Space Treaty as known today (the President can do this without consent of Congress), and replace it with something better, that allows nations to claim territory on celestial bodies, with the exception of the Moon.

If we want people to live on places like Mars, and establish colonies, nations have to be able to claim territory. Otherwise it will always be only research bases forever.

--Brian

 

[docm]

The abrogation of a treaty isn't unknown at all. The most recent major one was when the ABM treaty was abrogated so the US could pursue ballistic missile defense.

Thing is the earlier Outer Space Treaty only restricts the national, not commercial or private, appropriation of lunar resources. The Moon Treaty was largely negotiated to close that loophole.

Problem is that for a private/commercial appropriation (ie the staking of a mineral claim for exploitation) to succeed it would eventually require the protection of its nation of origin, legally and possibly physically, and for that to happen both treaties would have to be abrogated.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Nation-States abrogate treaties all the time. Ask the Native Americans of North America how many times official treaties were abrogated by the British, Canadian, American, and Spanish and Mexican governments. (Not just the United States gov, btw.)

Since the day when private enterprise is willing to take the risk in not only paying for going to the Moon or elsewhere, and coming back, but also to invest in the necessary economies of scale to make a viable profit in the venture and return, I'd say we have a lot of time to consider the legal and moral aspects of the issue.

But don't bet the house on it! IOWs, by the time private interests ARE able to reasonably, securely, and with minimal risk exploit the mineral(or other) resources of the Moon, Mars, the asteroids, or whatever, the laws will be squarely and solidly in place to ensure that the largesse is shared and to the benefit of all humankind.

Like it or not, that will most likely be the case.

Comparisons to maritime law will probably prove to be irrelevant. While the analogy of seafaring to spacefaring is an elegant one, the fact remains that spacefaring is unprecedented in the history of Man. (We had 'seafared' thousands of years before Columbus and the Age of Discovery.)

There's no way in Hell or on Earth, that any country- the US, Russia, China, India, Japan, or freakin' Guinie Bissau are going to sit by and watch other nations or private corporations rape and reap the resources beyond the Earth. It simply won't happen that way because of modern communications; contemporary mores; opinions, and ways of thinking.

To this day, some countries have tried to make viable claims on Antarctica. Sweden, Russia, Japan, and others. None of those claims are recognized by the International Community. Same will happen for space resources, in my opinion.

Nevertheless, at the rate we're going, it's going to be centuries, if not millennia, before we have to seriously consider such thorny space-law legal issues. And by the time it matters, we'll probably be some kind of socialist united humanity anyway, hundreds-if not thousands- of years after we are all dead and buried.

 

[docm]

Might be sooner than you think - reports that Obama may chose Augustine's Option 7: Deep Space, and with a strong emphasis on using commercial space providers to do it. NSF has this thread;

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... ic=18441.0

 

[neutrino78x]

Nation-States abrogate treaties all the time. Ask the Native Americans of North America how many times official treaties were abrogated by the British, Canadian, American, and Spanish and Mexican governments. (Not just the United States gov, btw.)

That's what I'm saying, we need to back out of the Outer Space Treaty, replacing it with something better.

Since the day when private enterprise is willing to take the risk in not only paying for going to the Moon or elsewhere, and coming back, but also to invest in the necessary economies of scale to make a viable profit in the venture and return, I'd say we have a lot of time to consider the legal and moral aspects of the issue.

Well, one way to stimulate that is for the government to go there and claim territory, then sell land rights.

Comparisons to maritime law will probably prove to be irrelevant. While the analogy of seafaring to spacefaring is an elegant one, the fact remains that spacefaring is unprecedented in the history of Man. (We had 'seafared' thousands of years before Columbus and the Age of Discovery.)

Hmm I disagree. I think space is analogous to the sea, and planets are analogous to continents. It is as if Earth is Europe, and Mars is North America. Nations should be able to claim land on Mars.

There's no way in Hell or on Earth, that any country- the US, Russia, China, India, Japan, or freakin' Guinie Bissau are going to sit by and watch other nations or private corporations rape and reap the resources beyond the Earth. It simply won't happen that way because of modern communications; contemporary mores; opinions, and ways of thinking.

I'm not sure of the point to this paragraph; are you saying there will never be a private colony or independent nation on another planet? If so, I disagree; I think it is not only probable, but desirable. It expands the economic sphere of the United States and other nations on Earth to new territory, opening up new markets. It would enrich the treasury of the United States dramatically.

To this day, some countries have tried to make viable claims on Antarctica. Sweden, Russia, Japan, and others. None of those claims are recognized by the International Community. Same will happen for space resources, in my opinion.

Then there would never be any private colonies there. There are bases in Antarctica, scientific research bases, but not cities like Los Angeles. I don't see how man sustains a presence in space if the government has to make all the decisions and own all the property. If there is any presence in space under such conditions, it will not be a society of free men.

And by the time it matters, we'll probably be some kind of socialist united humanity anyway, hundreds-if not thousands- of years after we are all dead and buried.

I certainly hope Earth will never be a communist or fascist (or other type of extremism; socialism can be left wing extremist or right wing extremist) society, but yes, it is desirable to have an international body which helps resolve international disputes. However, I think if we do things properly, there will be private colonies established on Mars within my lifetime. Which means it matters now, as I write this.

--Brian

 

[docm]

I'm not so hopeful. Already the treaties covering the n. pole are under threat as Norway, Canada and especially Russia compete for resources there. If you can't maintain agreements on Earth how in hell can you depend on them holding 250,000 miles above the surface? Not until some nations start growing up (see Russia).

 

[ThereIWas2]

I take an opposite view: Earth countries should not 'claim' anything on any planet. Administering something at such a distance is impractical. The people who end up living there can decide best how they want to manage things, with a common starting point provided by the UN.

 

[docm]

The UN is a walking talking contradiction that gets little done when there are conflicting interests. Private property claims on resources there will have to be backed up by their home nations unless some nations grow a brain and make a new treaty, and I see no signs of that happening.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Claiming parts of celestial bodies by countries should not be allowed. Only companies and independent people should be allowed to stake claims on the moon, supported by international law.

The important thing about the OST is that it prevents militarization of space. At least keep that in there.

 

[SteveCNC]

The important thing about the OST is that it prevents militarization of space. At least keep that in there.

yeah I have to agree with you there , the situation since that treaty was created is so far different now that most of it dosen't make any sense . But with the time frame with which things get done there needs to be action started now to move into the new space era within 15 to maybe 25 years . There needs to be established some type of controlling government whether it be self/or terrestrial is less important but it should be well known and established ahead of time .

 

[DarkenedOne]

Claiming parts of celestial bodies by countries should not be allowed. Only companies and independent people should be allowed to stake claims on the moon, supported by international law.

The important thing about the OST is that it prevents militarization of space. At least keep that in there.

First of all why should countries not be allowed to claim celestial bodies?

Second of all why is the militarization of space a bad thing?