<< Let's get this property out into the private sector as soon as possible.
If we impose the restriction that one must handle or improve the asteroid,
then we'll have to wait a lot longer, and this property will remain in a
nebulous and uncertain legal state.>>
What if we used the robots to stake our claim to mining rights on an
asteroid? It's more cost-effective this way.
Carl
Why impose any such restriction in the first place? Far more cost effective would be to have no such restriction.
Divide the Moon into 1km square plots. Plots could be claimed by individuals, one per individual, from a distributing body. There would be no fee paid, except perhaps a nominal administration fee to the distributing body. All that would be required to claim your plot would be proper identification, contact addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses, etc. Then you would receive a deed.
Once you've claimed your plot, you could hold it or sell it. It would be a piece of fully-tradable property: you could sell it to a corporation or to another individual or to a government or to some other buying entity.
Mining companies would advertise their willingness to buy plots. [ I imagine that the plots in the polar regions would have the highest market values... What do you think? ]
Thus, a mining company could secure property before investing millions in a robotic probe. This reduces risk. I'd hate to have a situation where we have disputing parties asserting that "My probe got here first!" and "No way, mine did!". Yuck. I want secure property rights well in advance of any probes.
As for the "distributing body", others in this thread have mentioned the United Nations as a possibility. Maybe. I would offer another possibility: have a non-profit organization such as the Archimedes Institute be the distributing body. As the plots are distributed and trading begins, property would be created "de facto" if not "de jure" according to the U.N. But if it's de facto property for long enough, then various nations and perhaps eventually the U.N. would eventually de jure recognize the property. I offer this alternative to the U.N. because I fear that many of the constituent nations of the U.N. are hostile to private property. The issue might get tied up in some U.N. subcommittee, never to emerge from the beauracracy.
The Archimedes Institute or some other non-profit could quickly organize such an effort, and we could have active trading in Moon mining rights within a year or two. As it is the case that nobody's really ready to mine on the Moon just yet, this long delay between the acquisition of mining rights and the actual mining would allow the transition from de facto to de jure to happen.
Ravenart@...
02/27/2001 10:49 AM
<< Let's get this property out into the private sector as soon as possible.
If we impose the restriction that one must handle or improve the asteroid,
then we'll have to wait a lot longer, and this property will remain in a
nebulous and uncertain legal state.>>
Ron Menich,
What if we used the robots to stake our claim to mining rights on an
asteroid? It's more cost-effective this way.
Carl
Why impose any such restriction in the first place? Far more cost effective would be to have no such restriction.
Divide the Moon into 1km square plots. Plots could be claimed by individuals, one per individual, from a distributing body. There would be no fee paid, except perhaps a nominal administration fee to the distributing body. All that would be required to claim your plot would be proper identification, contact addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses, etc. Then you would receive a deed.
Once you've claimed your plot, you could hold it or sell it. It would be a piece of fully-tradable property: you could sell it to a corporation or to another individual or to a government or to some other buying entity.
Mining companies would advertise their willingness to buy plots. [ I imagine that the plots in the polar regions would have the hi! ghest market values... What do you think? ]
Thus, a mining company could secure property before investing millions in a robotic probe. This reduces risk. I'd hate to have a situation where we have disputing parties asserting that "My probe got here first!" and "No way, mine did!". Yuck. I want secure property rights well in advance of any probes.
As for the "distributing body", others in this thread have mentioned the United Nations as a possibility. Maybe. I would offer another possibility: have a non-profit organization such as the Archimedes Institute be the distributing body. As the plots are distributed and trading begins, property would be created "de facto" if not "de jure" according to the U.N. But if it's de facto property for long enough, then various nations and perhaps eventually the U.N. would eventually ! de jure recognize the property. I offer this alternative to the U.N. because I fear that many of the constituent nations of the U.N. are hostile to private property. The issue might get tied up in some U.N. subcommittee, never to emerge from the beauracracy.
The Archimedes Institute or some other non-profit could quickly organize such an effort, and we could have active trading in Moon mining rights within a year or two. As it is the case that nobody's really ready to mine on the Moon just yet, this long delay between the acquisition of mining rights and the actual mining would allow the transition from de facto to de jure to happen.
Ravenart@...
02/27/2001 10:49 AM
<< Let's get this property out into the private sector as soon as possible.
If we impose the restriction that one must handle or improve the asteroid,
then we'll have to wait a lot longer, and this property will remain in a
nebulous and uncertain legal state.>>
Ron Menich,
What if we used the robots to stake our claim to mining rights on an
asteroid? It's more cost-effective this way.
Carl
A major item I feel has been overlooked in all of this, is the prior ownership or current residency by exo-terrestrial organisms. Yes it would be convenient if these worlds,bodies ,were sterile masses of building material,which indeed they may very well be. I feel any visit should first include a Bio-assay ,and environmental impact survey.How might the Endangered Species Act be applied? Even one e.t. nanoscopic organism would be of majorimportance worth much more than the nickels and dimes refined for nuts and bolts! Preston Smith This may be an issue on Mars, and possibly on Europa (or in Europa), but is very unlikely to be an issue on the moon and the asteroids, which are the prime targets for near-term development.
Mike Combs
The biggest point in my original email has obviously been missed. The
big part of the homestead act was you had to improve the property. In
our case this means you have to start mining. Sending a probe would
not constitute enough for a claim requirement.
> The biggest point in my original email has obviously been missed. The
> big part of the homestead act was you had to improve the property. In
> our case this means you have to start mining. Sending a probe would
> not constitute enough for a claim requirement.
Sending a probe and analyzing the roid *would* be improving that
tumbling piece of real estate. It would give greater knowledge about
it: useful when making your business plan. Also a company that has gone
through the expense and effort of sending that probe deserves the claim.
And if a company can expect all the competitors to hunt the roid that
they analyzed and found worthwile, they will be unlikely to send that
probe in the first place: business will be curbed.
Send a probe, analyze the results, and be given a grace period: if
you haven't done anything with the roid within that period, you lose the
claim. Only if probing a roid proves unnecessary to determine its worth
and make the plans should a probe be considered less than enough for a
claim.
> Send a probe, analyze the results, and be given a grace period: if
> you haven't done anything with the roid within that period, you lose the
> claim.
the model for internet domain names, for example, at least for .com's)
that have to be renewed periodically or lost?
Arthur
It is hard enough to raise capital for ventures in space. The
improvement requirement is an extra requirement that will make an already
difficult business proposition yet more difficult. Companies should be
able to secure property rights in advance of any physical contact with the
target body. Otherwise, the company will have to go before it's venture
capitalists with an argument something like,
into some glitch that delays us longer than the
property rights grace period, then we'll have to replan our mission
and choose a different target."
Such a replanning contingency would be costly, and any sane venture
capitalist would interpret that as financial risk. Methinks it would be
better to go before the VC and say,
"We've secured mining rights to 2000 SG344. No matter what delivery
delays we might encounter, our mining rights
will remain secure."
I feel the improvement requirement will slow the space industrialization
process by increasing financial risk.
Ron Menich
"Raven"
ssi_list@...
02/28/01 05:33 PM
Please respond to
ssi_list
> The biggest point in my original email has obviously been missed. The
> big part of the homestead act was you had to improve the property. In
> our case this means you have to start mining. Sending a probe would
> not constitute enough for a claim requirement.
Sending a probe and analyzing the roid *would* be improving that
tumbling piece of real estate. It would give greater knowledge about
it: useful when making your business plan. Also a company that has gone
through the expense and effort of sending that probe deserves the claim.
And if a company can expect all the competitors to hunt the roid that
they analyzed and found worthwile, they will be unlikely to send that
probe in the first place: business will be curbed.
Send a probe, analyze the results, and be given a grace period: if
you haven't done anything with the roid within that period, you lose the
claim. Only if probing a roid proves unnecessary to determine its worth
and make the plans should a probe be considered less than enough for a
claim.
Jon L. Beck
> It is hard enough to raise capital for ventures in space. The
> improvement requirement is an extra requirement that will make an
> already difficult business proposition yet more difficult.
> Companies should be able to secure property rights in advance
> of any physical contact with the target body. Otherwise, the
> company will have to go before it's venture capitalists with an
> argument something like,
> if we run into some glitch that delays us longer than the property
> rights grace period, then we'll have to replan our mission and
> choose a different target."
"We're going to plan to mine asteroid 2000 SG344. However, if we
run into some glitch that delays us longer than the asteroid stays
within range, we'll have to replan our mission and either choose a
different target or wait until the blasted thing comes near opposition
again."
> Such a replanning contingency would be costly, and any sane venture
> capitalist would interpret that as financial risk. Methinks it would
> be better to go before the VC and say,
> "We've secured mining rights to 2000 SG344. No matter what
> delivery delays we might encounter, our mining rights will remain
> secure."
"Even if it leaves the vicinity of the Earth for the next three
years? What other possible targets have you secured that may come
within range in case of a delay?"
But perhaps choosing a different target will not be so costly. The
expedition will necessarily need several months for the trip itself,
plus the time spent mining the thing, or preparing it for return to HEO.
Choosing a different target of similar size may mean nothing more than
adding or subtracting a month to the travel time. It does not seem to
me that the asteroids are so diverse that equipment tailored to mine one
roid will be nearly useless on most of the others. Unless you
specifically hunt a roid with a rare composition.
Jon L. Beck.
Such a claim with time limits would be acceptable. But the limit would
have to be reasonable. It couldn't be 50 years like some of the claims
given in Northern Canada.
>
> > The biggest point in my original email has obviously been missed.
The
> > big part of the homestead act was you had to improve the property.
In
> > our case this means you have to start mining. Sending a probe
would
> > not constitute enough for a claim requirement.
> Sending a probe and analyzing the roid *would* be improving that
> tumbling piece of real estate. It would give greater knowledge
about
> it: useful when making your business plan. Also a company that has
gone
> through the expense and effort of sending that probe deserves the
claim.
> And if a company can expect all the competitors to hunt the roid
that
> they analyzed and found worthwile, they will be unlikely to send
that
> probe in the first place: business will be curbed.
> Send a probe, analyze the results, and be given a grace period:
if
> you haven't done anything with the roid within that period, you lose
the
> claim. Only if probing a roid proves unnecessary to determine its
worth
> and make the plans should a probe be considered less than enough for
a
> Such a claim with time limits would be acceptable. But the limit would
> have to be reasonable. It couldn't be 50 years like some of the claims
> given in Northern Canada.
It could be defined to be two synodic periods. :-)