Does Asteroid Mining Violate Space Law?

[markomalley]

From Space Magazine:
Several well-known billionaires are forming the new company Planetary Resources with plans to send a robotic spacecraft to mine precious metals from an asteroid and bring them back to Earth. Google executives Larry Page and Eric Schmidt and their business partners say the enterprise will “add trillions to the global GDP.”

But to whom do those trillions belong — the company, or everyone? Does a private company have a right to stake claim to an asteroid, or are celestial bodies such as the moon, planets and asteroids the communal property of all Earthlings?

“The law on this is not settled and not clear,” said Henry Hertzfeld, professor of space policy and international affairs at George Washington University. “There are lots of opinions on the status here, and nobody is necessarily right because it’s complicated.”

The legal ambiguity hasn’t needed to be addressed before, Hertzfeld said, because no company has previously come forward with a serious asteroid mining mission plan and the funds to back it. When the debate over space property rights is forced to ensue, old international wounds will likely be reopened.
Figures…the leftists are perfectly fine with some entrepreneurs investing billions into a project…but heaven forbid that they would be allowed to profit from the capital they put at risk.

With attitudes like that, we would still be writing (not typing) by candlelight.

 

[JimG]

There’s lots of asteroids–even counting just those in this solar system. I’m pretty sure that the government doesn’t own them. Nor does the U.N. Not even NASA or the EPA.

 

[Maryann_C]

From Space Magazine:

whom do those trillions belong — the company, or everyone? Does a private company have a right to stake claim to an asteroid, or are celestial bodies such as the moon, planets and asteroids the communal property of all Earthlings?

“The law on this is not settled and not clear,” said Henry Hertzfeld, professor of space policy and international affairs at George Washington University. “There are lots of opinions on the status here, and nobody is necessarily right because it’s complicated.”

d.

First I thought …are you serious!!? BUT seriously …I am no lawyer but if I were I would argue that if a precedence is set that the “planets” are “communal property of all Earthlings” then I own an oil field , a gold mine and the land that the White House sits on wait a sec I do actually since I am a taxpayer in the US!..so lets say the land that Buckingham Palace sits on. Then also one would have to say that no country ever had the right to lay stake to any land - some already do argue that - and therefore we are just one big happy Nation so we only should have one United governing body…hmmmm !

 

[Dale_M]

As the article makes clear, international law is unclear regarding this topic. But limiting the exploitation of asteroids or other bodies in space isn’t without earthly precedent.

The continent of Antarctica is protected from commercial exploitation and development by the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. And national claims to sections of the land were suspended by the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 and related agreements.

 

[Aeden]

Well, since there are no laws regarding this issue, or at least none that I know of, and since a given country’s legislation does not apply outside their borders (asteroids are well beyond the borders of any given country) I would say that everything is fair game.

 

[Armyvet007]

The asteroids belong to the guy [or gal] who gets there first with the biggest gun.

 

[Dawnia]

Is it just me or does anyone else see some major problems with the idea of trying to mine a rock hurtling through space that has no atmosphere or gravity and has the potential of slamming into other rocks in space at a very high rate?

 

[TheDoors]

How does that old quote go?

“Those that can, will.”

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Is it just me or does anyone else see some major problems with the idea of trying to mine a rock hurtling through space that has no atmosphere or gravity and has the potential of slamming into other rocks in space at a very high rate?

Good point.

Ultimately, though, I’m sure the people involved in this and have planned measures appropriate for this.

Hopefully.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Good point.

Ultimately, though, I’m sure the people involved in this and have planned measures appropriate for this.

Hopefully.

I’m pretty sure one of the articles I read said that the mining will be done with robots and not people.

 

[curlycool89]

Well, the main law on this is the Outer Space Treaty (full text).

Articles of interest:
Article 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.

States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. 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…

So, it’s international territory, the US government has to approve any activities undertaken by a US company, and the US government has full liability for any activities.

Considering the liability, there will probably be some sort of fee for any permit that would be issued, and it would be very expensive. That would be my guess.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

So, it’s international territory, the US government has to approve any activities undertaken by a US company, and the US government has full liability for any activities.

Considering the liability, there will probably be some sort of fee for any permit that would be issued, and it would be very expensive. That would be my guess.

My reading is that if some other company wanted to mine the same asteroid, Planetary Resources would have no legal recourse. They would have to allow the other company to also operate on their asteroid. I don’t think its saying that we can’t exploit resources in space, just that we can’t claim some region in space as our own.

 

[JimG]

So if a group of intrepid colonists set out to colonize a planet of some other star, a few light years distant, they would still be subject to the laws of planet earth which they had left behind?
That doesn’t seem right.

Of course, the English colonists in North America were in theory still subject to England as well, but that didn’t work out.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

So if a group of intrepid colonists set out to colonize a planet of some other star, a few light years distant, they would still be subject to the laws of planet earth which they had left behind?
That doesn’t seem right.

Of course, the English colonists in North America were in theory still subject to England as well, but that didn’t work out.

It will be interesting how this all plays out decades and centuries down the road. A new inter-planetary colonialism. Hmmm.

 

[Oblaidon]

If this company wants to study asteroids, I say let them. Their reward should be what ever they get from the asteroids.

Maybe they will be able to create some kind of safety net that would someday save life on earth.

Maybe the moon also should be free domain. If you are willing to colonize the moon or develop a station there, you should be able to do it freely as long as you are able to populate the station or use it on a regular basis.

 

[curlycool89]

My reading is that if some other company wanted to mine the same asteroid, Planetary Resources would have no legal recourse. They would have to allow the other company to also operate on their asteroid. I don’t think its saying that we can’t exploit resources in space, just that we can’t claim some region in space as our own.

I think you misunderstood me, of course you can mine an asteroid. You are correct though, there are no property rights and some other company could mine the the asteroid.

Of course, the English colonists in North America were in theory still subject to England as well, but that didn’t work out.

Well, that’s a distinct possibility, although we have to develop technology to survive in space first.

Maybe the moon also should be free domain. If you are willing to colonize the moon or develop a station there, you should be able to do it freely as long as you are able to populate the station or use it on a regular basis.

The Moon is covered by the same Outer Space Treaty. No one can claim any part of the moon as their own territory.

 

[Trader]

Given the enormous cost of space travel, entrepreneurs would need to locate an astreroid made of solid cocaine to make a profit from mining; Many South American governments would object to that. Still, a government that subsides obsolete solar cell technology and ethanol production from corn might be dumb enough to subsidize such a venture for someone with the right political connections.

 

[Tenofovir]

From Space Magazine:

Several well-known billionaires are forming the new company Planetary Resources with plans to send a robotic spacecraft to mine precious metals from an asteroid and bring them back to Earth. Google executives Larry Page and Eric Schmidt and their business partners say the enterprise will “add trillions to the global GDP.”
​

I’m pretty sure that while in theory these asteroids “belong” to everyone or their appointed representatives, in practice it will always work out that those with more money and power will always benefit the most.​

 

[septimine]

As the article makes clear, international law is unclear regarding this topic. But limiting the exploitation of asteroids or other bodies in space isn’t without earthly precedent.

The continent of Antarctica is protected from commercial exploitation and development by the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. And national claims to sections of the land were suspended by the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 and related agreements.

I think the laws are what holds back space exploration. If we had this kind of nonsense in 1500, no one would have settled the new world. People moved and faced the dangers because they would be able to make money – Spain sent thousands of expeditions in search of gold. No one went “just to see what is there” – it was dangerous, dirty, and lonely work. Space is all that and then some. It costs millions to launch a man into space and if there’s no profit to doing so, it’s going to end up being a lark rather than a serious attempt to found colonies and mine resources. And larks are easily abandoned.

 

[JimG]

I think the laws are what holds back space exploration. If we had this kind of nonsense in 1500, no one would have settled the new world. People moved and faced the dangers because they would be able to make money – Spain sent thousands of expeditions in search of gold. No one went “just to see what is there” – it was dangerous, dirty, and lonely work. Space is all that and then some. It costs millions to launch a man into space and if there’s no profit to doing so, it’s going to end up being a lark rather than a serious attempt to found colonies and mine resources. And larks are easily abandoned.

I agree. And even though the moon is a close enough celestial object to be considred a part of the earth, even the treaty prohibiting private ownership of any part of it could simply doom further moon exploration. What company would take the risk for no potential benefit?