I'll give him credit for audacity and ability to get publicity.

This fellow claimed an asteroid and then sent NASA a bill for
landing a probe on it.

OrbDev Appeals To State Dept For Eros Rent Ruling
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/asteroid-03k.html

The part I enjoyed the most was:

"Orbital Development continues to dispute this controversial (IT'S
ONLY CONTROVERSIAL TO HIM!) conclusion by the Department of State
and will file suit in Federal court for a definitive decision that
will be binding on the U.S. government."

He claims soveignty but appeals to the court of another sovereign
for a ruling, thus tacitly admitting its jurisdiction over his
sovereignty. You can't have it both ways. If he's truly soveriegn he
should stop paying taxes to the IRS and then see what happens.

For an excellent primer on how to construct a seemingly compelling
argument on false premises, see:

http://www.orbdev.com/reason.html

TangoMan

--- In ssi_list@... "victoriatangoman"

> For an excellent primer on how to construct a seemingly compelling
> argument on false premises, see:
>
> http://www.orbdev.com/reason.html
>
> TangoMan

Just ading an addendum:

http://www.orbdev.com/erosfact.html

BEGIN QUOTE
Estimated Value
As an example of Eros' potential value, if a fleet of Space Shuttles
launched a mass equal to Eros into Space it would cost:
$10,000 per pound times 158,400,000,000,000,000 pounds (158.4
quadrillion pounds)= $1,584,000,000,000,000,000,000, or $1.584
sextillion dollars.

If we divide this figure by 100 million, to account for cost and
difficulty of processing the asteroid, Orbital Development is easily
world's richest company's with US$15.84 trillion in net present
assets, with no current debts.

END QUOTE

Well folks, perhaps if we ask in a kindly fashion, Orbital
Development can fund some efforts to remove some of the technical
hurdles that are facing us as we endeavor to develop space. They
sure have the net worth to bankroll us.

TangoMan

>BEGIN QUOTE
>
[...]

>If we divide this figure by 100 million, to account for cost and
>difficulty of processing the asteroid, Orbital Development is easily
>world's richest company's with US$15.84 trillion in net present
>assets, with no current debts.
>
>END QUOTE
>
>Well folks, perhaps if we ask in a kindly fashion, Orbital
>Development can fund some efforts to remove some of the technical
>hurdles that are facing us as we endeavor to develop space. They
>sure have the net worth to bankroll us.
>
That, of course, is exactly his plan (I think he hopes to build both a
reusable space transport system and a space elevator with the money).

I gave Greg Nemitz a bit of a forum in the Moon track at this year's
ISDC (http://isdc.nss.org/2003/) to have his say - he's not completely
off the wall, but I have to say the general audience reaction to his
statements was laughter...

However, the question of how does one initiate property ownership of
celestial objects (or parts thereof) is something to be taken very
seriously. Greg's approach is probably not going to work (but who knows
- I'm not a lawyer!) I think there is a much more serious alternative,
discussed here a while ago - http://www.spacesettlement.org/ - Greg
Nemitz is one of the most vocal opponents of the Space Settlement
Initiative, for obvious reasons.

So, can celestial real estate and mining rights be privately owned? How
will we develop space without those rights? Under what conditions should
those rights be granted or recognized? Any lawyers out there on the list?

Arthur

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
>
> So, can celestial real estate and mining rights be privately
> owned? How will we develop space without those rights? Under what
> conditions should those rights be granted or recognized? Any
> lawyers out there on the list?
>
> Arthur

Good questions. I don't see anything precluding private ownership,
in time. Some international negotiation will have to take place when
time comes to exploit space resources. There will have to be some
provision to insure that space resources aren't all grabbed by
enterprises from the Western world and forever precluding
participation by the developing world. Afterall, we've got most of
the technology and capital.

I see a few paths to achieve the end. One is to work through the
international legal system and develop a system that works for the
benefit of all nations. This might mean taxing authority goes to the
UN rather than the US or EU and mineral royalties and income taxes,
etc are paid to the UN for the benefit of all mankind, thus honoring
the CHM provisions of the relevant treaties. The property is thus
privately owned but taxed by another soveriegn.

Alternatively, in the absense of legal private property rights, some
corporation goes and exploits the property and privately defends its
claim. There's nothing like a crisis to prompt governments to stop
their foot dragging, if just to prevent a precedent being set that
goes counter to their interests. Personally, I think this would be
the most fun to watch as a spectator. I'd definitely cheer on the
company that would pull this off. Can you imagine the US launching a
bunch of US Marshalls, and IRS agents, and State Department officers
into orbit to take over your property only to have you not recognize
their sovereignty over you and threaten them with deportation. HAH!

This last alternative is as audacious as the Orbital Development
scheme but it would actually be exploiting a space resource and
daring the world to recognize the way things ARE, rather than just
playing games with NASA's lawyers.

I'll be so bold as to say that if you could own space resources
today, we still wouldn't be any closer to orbital development. First
we need to develop a project that requires space resources and is
being held back by their absence. That becomes the impetus for
reform.

IMHO, I'd rather see effort spent on solid business plans that
require space resources than spinning wheels on legal reform which
impacts on no players because there aren't any solid business plans.

Look at how the legal world reacted to the development of the
internet. The laws came about after things started taking shape. The
internet existed as legal chaos that the bold entrepreneurs ventured
into. Would there have been as many innovations if they were
constrained by the imaginations of the lawyers and bureacrats who
laid out the rules beforehand, thus constraining activity to pre-
existing models of business activity and regulation?

Just go out and develop space resources and then let the law catch
up. As the instigator of the crisis, the company will have a large
part to play in shaping the law if the governments of the world want
it to comply with the law.

TangoMan

Message Excellent points you're making here.

Regards,
Mike Combs

> [...] This might mean taxing authority goes to the
> UN rather than the US or EU and mineral royalties and income taxes,
> etc are paid to the UN for the benefit of all mankind [...]

I wouldn't mind that approach, though it seems doubtful given current
political winds. But you never know...

> [...] Can you imagine the US launching a
> bunch of US Marshalls, and IRS agents, and State Department officers
> into orbit to take over your property only to have you not recognize
> their sovereignty over you and threaten them with deportation. HAH!

Well... if the first space mining enterprise has to be completely
self-sufficient that's a pretty big hurdle to cross. If they're not
self-sufficient, all the US has to do is shut down land-based finances
and operations and wait for the orbital arm to run out of supplies. A
rather well-known tactic under the name 'siege'. Nascent space mining
enterprises will be terribly vulnerable for a long time.

>
> IMHO, I'd rather see effort spent on solid business plans that
> require space resources than spinning wheels on legal reform which
> impacts on no players because there aren't any solid business plans.

How can you have a solid business plan without a grasp of the legal rights?
Greg Nemitz has a business plan - his friend Dennis Hope already has
a multi-million dollar business selling lunar real estate (you know all
that spam you get to buy an acre on the Moon?) and that's just
treating it as a "novelty" item....

But space enterprise is also very interdependent - if we don't have low
cost to orbit (which will probably take a $10 billion investment to
achieve, whether private or public) then none of the space tourism,
real estate, or mining plans are going to work at all. With
cheaper access to orbit, the orbital market will spawn at least
as many business plans (some of them solid) as the internet did.

Arthur

>
> > [...] This might mean taxing authority goes to the
> > UN rather than the US or EU and mineral royalties and income taxes,
> > etc are paid to the UN for the benefit of all mankind [...]

Enh. Not to sound like a blackhelicopterian, but the UN isn't well-designed
for doing things. Talking forum for countries, sure. Efficient and fair use
of monies, no. Democratic, hell no.

> > [...] Can you imagine the US launching a
> > bunch of US Marshalls, and IRS agents, and State Department officers
> > into orbit to take over your property only to have you not recognize
> > their sovereignty over you and threaten them with deportation. HAH!
>
> Well... if the first space mining enterprise has to be completely
> self-sufficient that's a pretty big hurdle to cross. If they're not
> self-sufficient, all the US has to do is shut down land-based finances

Yeah.

Most likely the "way things would be" would be US company mixing effort with
the rock, claiming it, and paying taxes to the US, treaties be damned. Who'll
enforce it? Unless some US court rules it's not part of the US, like
Guantanamo Bay... US sourced capital might be legally placed in some tax
haven, after all, or even launched there. Hmm, so the closest nation with a
claim might be the Seychelles...

And of course the world is bigger than the US; China might get first rock for
all we know.

> But space enterprise is also very interdependent - if we don't have low
> cost to orbit (which will probably take a $10 billion investment to
> achieve, whether private or public) then none of the space tourism,

Is there really any hope for low cost to orbit without using nuclear power or
ground based launchers (like mass driver/spacegun and laser launch)? My
impression was that orbit is expensive not because of NASA but because
chemical rockets out of Earth's gravity well just suck.

-xx- Damien X-)

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
>
> > [...] This might mean taxing authority goes to the
> > UN rather than the US or EU and mineral royalties and income
taxes,
> > etc are paid to the UN for the benefit of all mankind [...]
>
> I wouldn't mind that approach, though it seems doubtful given
current
> political winds. But you never know...

Right to the point! I agree with your analysis and you never really
do know . .

>
> > [...] Can you imagine the US launching a
> > bunch of US Marshalls, and IRS agents, and State Department
officers
> > into orbit to take over your property only to have you not
recognize
> > their sovereignty over you and threaten them with deportation.
HAH!
>
> Well... if the first space mining enterprise has to be completely
> self-sufficient that's a pretty big hurdle to cross. If they're not
> self-sufficient, all the US has to do is shut down land-based
finances
> and operations and wait for the orbital arm to run out of
supplies. A
> rather well-known tactic under the name 'siege'. Nascent space
mining
> enterprises will be terribly vulnerable for a long time.

Too true. But the tactics don't have to stop there. How deeply
entrenched will the resistance to private ownership of space
resources be and how far into realpolitik do you want to go to
establish your claim.

The IDEAL situation is to iron out all of the details before any
orbital activity takes place. This gives you the most certainty but
IMHO, it's unlikely to take place because there is no impetus to it
and reaching worldwide consensus on a topic of abstract legal issues
may be a daunting task.

An enterprise that sees profit in orbit may be unwilling to forego
that profit because of the uncertain legal environment, so it will
protect its own assets without recourse to national governments.

If governments start to lay seige, it has a few options. It can play
governments against each other by transferring operations, jobs and
tax base to a more friendly country. It can invoke its own lobbying
within the country laying siege. If it's the US, we all know how
money talks in political circles.

If the seige starts to hurt the enterprise, and the cause is just,
and the actors are believers (patriots) they can retaliate and lay
seige to US space assets. Who has more to lose? Quarantine
satellites, disrupt their operations. If you've already lost the
battle by following the rules of engagement as laid out by your
opponent, then change the rules. Up the ante, otherwise you've lost,
and for your survival you MUST win your cause. Nothing like being
backed into a corner to stiffen your resolve :)

I think that the boldest tactic is to forego earthly jurisdiction
and claim sovereignty as a space based nation. You can have just an
orbital two man station. Make all your claims under the umbrella of
this new nation.

Use your influence to be recognized as a landless sovereign with
operations in space. There are precedents for landless sovereigns.
The Vatican is a country (yes, I know it has a few hectares of land
in Rome.)

There is also the Order of the Knights of Malta. They are a landless
organization whose sovereingty has been recognized.

For a list of embassies and countries that recognize the Order, of
which the United Nations is included, see:

http://www.smom-za.org/smom/index.htm

They have the same status at the UN as does the Palestinian
Authortiy, the EU, the Commonwealth, and the Red Cross. They can all
issue passports, have diplomats and make treaties.

http://www.un.org/Overview/missions.htm#nperm

The Knight's HQ is it's embassy in Rome and is sovereign territory
and thus possesses sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of the
host state

Other's comments on the Knights of Malta.
BEGIN QUOTE
The Soveriegn Military Order of Malta is a sovereign entity
according to international law, but is actually used as a classic
example of an entity which is sovereign (like a country) but is not
a country. It does not have a territory, and therefore, it does not
live up to the requisites of a country. A sovereing entity does not
have to be a country. SMOM is an example of this. For sovereignity,
it is generally considered that the entity should recogniced as such
by other sovereign entities.
R.M.M. Wallace: "International Law", Sweet & Maxwell, 2nd edition,
London 1992, page 76
END QUOTE

Let me be clear; this is not the optimum approach and it is riddled
with obstacles. But it may come to be that international actors may
not want space resources claimed and utilized for a variety of their
own reasons, (think developing countries, think OPEC, think Coal and
mining companies, think environmentalists who don't want increased
launch activity for whatever reason, etc.) thus they will delay
agreements far into the future. Another issue is equitability for
all the nations of the Earth. How can that be resolved? In the
meantime there are profitable projects that must be held in
abeyance. How to break that logjam? How much risk are you willing to
take to earn that profit? How much risk are you willing to take to
change the state of affairs (think back to the US revolution - they
tried to work with the system before the revolution but couldn't
reach an accord which necessitated a new order.)

It might be that a new sovereign can assure equal access to all
countries, the benefits of space resource use don't accrue to a few
nations on earth to the exclusion of others, private property is
recognized but the US doesn't have to go out on a limb to be its
champion and engage in diplomacy to be its champion, rather it can
just recognize the new sovereign and make provisions for US
enterprises to be players in the new game/territory. It doesn't have
to lay seige for that could actually be working against US interests.

> >
> > IMHO, I'd rather see effort spent on solid business plans that
> > require space resources than spinning wheels on legal reform
which
> > impacts on no players because there aren't any solid business
plans.
>
> How can you have a solid business plan without a grasp of the
legal rights?

There's a difference between operating on a frontier and opening a
shop in downtown PoDunk. The former has more risk because of the
uncertainty of your environment. There will always be legal
uncertainty on frontiers. Recall the disputes about territorial
limits (airspace) that greeted the launch of Sputnik. These weren't
resovled before the launch. Should the launch have been delayed to
iron these issues out beforehand?

Think through what the term legal rights means. If you claim an NEO
to be mined are you worried that someone else will also claim it.
Well, enforce your possession. Worreid about how to adjudicate
disputes between partners? Make private legal arrangements with your
other involved parties where you both designate a judging authority
whose decisions you'll both abide by. This doesn't have to be the US
judiciary. Worried about the EEOC, OSHA, IRS. Don't be. Make your
own arrangements via employee contracts. Company police to monitor
your employees compliance with company laws.

> Greg Nemitz has a business plan

That's stretching the definition!

> - his friend Dennis Hope already has
> a multi-million dollar business selling lunar real estate (you
know all
> that spam you get to buy an acre on the Moon?) and that's just
> treating it as a "novelty" item....

Which doesn't advance property rights or orbital development one
iota.

> But space enterprise is also very interdependent - if we don't
have low
> cost to orbit (which will probably take a $10 billion investment to
> achieve, whether private or public) then none of the space tourism,
> real estate, or mining plans are going to work at all. With
> cheaper access to orbit, the orbital market will spawn at least
> as many business plans (some of them solid) as the internet did.
>
> Arthur

I'd say that this is true as far as it goes. What's been left unsaid
is that even with a reduction in launch cost, there still aren't any
killer apps for orbital development. As far as I'm concerned I still
don't see how to make a profitable business in orbit using space
resources. I'm still waiting for that solid business plan to be made
public.

TangoMan

--- In ssi_list@... "Damien R. Sullivan"
> >
> > > [...] This might mean taxing authority goes to the
> > > UN rather than the US or EU and mineral royalties and income
taxes,
> > > etc are paid to the UN for the benefit of all mankind [...]
>
> Enh. Not to sound like a blackhelicopterian, but the UN isn't
well-designed
> for doing things. Talking forum for countries, sure. Efficient
and fair use
> of monies, no. Democratic, hell no.

I'm adding my voice to your conspiratorial concerns but with the
proviso that somethings are a necessary evil. Better the devil you
know. It's not our conern how the monies are spent by the UN as long
as it buys us legitimacy and recognition of claims and quiets down
the protest from the disaffected countries.

TangoMan

> I'm adding my voice to your conspiratorial concerns but with the
> proviso that somethings are a necessary evil. Better the devil you
> know. It's not our conern how the monies are spent by the UN as long
> as it buys us legitimacy and recognition of claims and quiets down
> the protest from the disaffected countries.

Oh, "leave us alone" money. That works. I'd been thinking about the chance
of the monies actually being *used* for the benefit of mankind. :)

Hmm, business plans. _The Stone Canal_. Unemployed orbital lasers...
Lots of SF has had orbital threats used for independence. There's always the
business plan of taking the high ground and extorting tribute from the world.
:)

(Actually part of what people were afraid of in _Orion Shall Rise_).

-xx- Damien X-)

>Is there really any hope for low cost to orbit without using nuclear power or
>ground based launchers (like mass driver/spacegun and laser launch)? My
>impression was that orbit is expensive not because of NASA but because
>chemical rockets out of Earth's gravity well just suck.
>
Yes, there's definitely hope - the fuel is only a tiny fraction of
launch costs right now; since everything but the shuttle is expendable,
i.e. thrown out after a single use, the cost of the rocket itself is a
big piece (more than 10 times the cost of fuel generally). But worse
than that are the amortized costs of development with current low launch
rates, and the extensive ground crews needed for all current launch
systems. High launch rates and improved automation of launch processes
would cut costs significantly even for expendables; a truly reusable
chemical system should cut costs down to just 5 or so times the cost of
fuel (as for airlines), rather than 1000 or more times as it is now.

The problem is getting to that point requires significant technology
investment, and nobody's willing to pony up the money given the shaky
commercial launch market (and with Congress and NASA continually
fighting over federal efforts in this direction).

By the way, I'd wager on the space elevator before nuclear, space guns,
or laser launches being practical from Earth's surface.

Arthur

> I'd say that this is true as far as it goes. What's been left unsaid
>
>is that even with a reduction in launch cost, there still aren't any
>killer apps for orbital development.
>
Space-based solar power needs only a 10-fold reduction in launch costs
(and a 2-fold reduction in solar cell costs, but that's generally
expected to happen with the necessary demand level) to become a very
profitable, trillion-dollar scale business, launching 10's of thousands
of tons or more per year. The US Commerce department also published
some numbers on space tourism that sound pretty promising, if launch
costs were lower.

> I'm still waiting for that solid business plan to be made
>public.
>
What's a solid business plan? The space elevator folks (liftport) have
one - which includes space solar power as one of their primary markets
by the way. But it's rather hard to know how solid a plan is in the
absence of precedents. That's the nature of a frontier :-)

Arthur

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
>
> > I'd say that this is true as far as it goes. What's been left
unsaid
> >
> >is that even with a reduction in launch cost, there still aren't
any
> >killer apps for orbital development.
> >
> Space-based solar power needs only a 10-fold reduction in launch
costs
> (and a 2-fold reduction in solar cell costs, but that's generally
> expected to happen with the necessary demand level) to become a
very
> profitable, trillion-dollar scale business, launching 10's of
thousands
> of tons or more per year. The US Commerce department also
published
> some numbers on space tourism that sound pretty promising, if
launch
> costs were lower.

Anyone who's read my post knows I strongly advocate SPS.

Some ideas are so fundamentally correct that they don't need
revision. I think Glaser/O'Neill got it right with SPS 30 years ago.
Nothing's changed. It's still brilliant but uneconomical.

I think that SPS is truly the linchpin to orbital development but
this sure isn't a small endeavor. It's a societal project. How many
things haven't we thought of, like reassigning EM frequencies that
you raised in your article. Do you think that there'll be resistance
to that from the established players?

In terms of this discussion I wasn't thinking of SPS because of its
monumental scope. Rather I was thinking of smaller operations that
wouldn't require as much infrstructure and from that perspective I
don't see many viable options.

>
> > I'm still waiting for that solid business plan to be made
> >public.
> >
> What's a solid business plan?

One in which investors are willing to place capital. One in which
consumers are willing to purchase the product or service.

The space elevator folks (liftport) have
> one -

I looked at their website a few months back and the impression I got
was that it was a dream/hobby type of plan. I could be completely
offbase here and am willing to stand corrected if someone has facts
about their operation.

It looked to me like they had an idea, worked out some of the
technical aspects, put up a website and started looking for capital
and that's as far as they'll get.

which includes space solar power as one of their primary markets
> by the way. But it's rather hard to know how solid a plan is in
the
> absence of precedents. That's the nature of a frontier :-)
>
> Arthur

Yes, that is the nature of a frontier. At sometime, someone will
invest in an enterprise and get it going in the new frontier. They
will have thought enough about the prospects of the business plan to
risk their capital, reputation, and possibly their lives to get the
enterprise up and running. That's really the test, isn't it?

TangoMan

> The space elevator folks (liftport) have
> > one -
>
> I looked at their website a few months back and the impression I got
> was that it was a dream/hobby type of plan. I could be completely
> offbase here and am willing to stand corrected if someone has facts
> about their operation.

Yes, they have a much more detailed business plan available to
prospective investors; I guess it's not exactly public, so
I won't say any more about it, but it looked pretty
sound to me. Now whether they can actually get enough investors to agree
is another matter (investors like precedents too).

Arthur

> This might mean taxing authority goes to the UN rather than the US or EU
> and mineral royalties and income taxes, etc are paid to the UN for the
> benefit of all mankind, thus honoring the CHM provisions of the relevant
> treaties. The property is thus privately owned but taxed by another soveriegn.
I have one gripe with this, at least with the structure that the UN has now. Much as I support UN authority in some areas, the UN is not a democratically elected body. For this reason I do not think that they should have a direct source of income through taxes. For one thing, it would corrupt them for sure.

Jon Lennart Beck.

>
> So, can celestial real estate and mining rights be privately
> owned? How will we develop space without those rights? Under what
> conditions should those rights be granted or recognized? Any
> lawyers out there on the list?
>
> Arthur

Good questions. I don't see anything precluding private ownership,
in time. Some international negotiation will have to take place when
time comes to exploit space resources. There will have to be some
provision to insure that space resources aren't all grabbed by
enterprises from the Western world and forever precluding
participation by the developing world. Afterall, we've got most of
the technology and capital.

I see a few paths to achieve the end. One is to work through the
international legal system and develop a system that works for the
benefit of all nations. This might mean taxing authority goes to the
UN rather than the US or EU and mineral royalties and income taxes,
etc are paid to the UN for the benefit of all mankind, thus honoring
the CHM provisions of the relevant treaties. The property is thus
privately owned but taxed by another soveriegn.

Alternatively, in the absense of legal private property rights, some
corporation goes and exploits the property and privately defends its
claim. There's nothing like a crisis to prompt governments to stop
their foot dragging, if just to prevent a precedent being set that
goes counter to their interests. Personally, I think this would be
the most fun to watch as a spectator. I'd definitely cheer on the
company that would pull this off. Can you imagine the US launching a
bunch of US Marshalls, and IRS agents, and State Department officers
into orbit to take over your property only to have you not recognize
their sovereignty over you and threaten them with deportation. HAH!

This last alternative is as audacious as the Orbital Development
scheme but it would actually be exploiting a space resource and
daring the world to recognize the way things ARE, rather than just
playing games with NASA's lawyers.

I'll be so bold as to say that if you could own space resources
today, we still wouldn't be any closer to orbital development. First
we need to develop a project that requires space resources and is
being held back by their absence. That becomes the impetus for
reform.

IMHO, I'd rather see effort spent on solid business plans that
require space resources than spinning wheels on legal reform which
impacts on no players because there aren't any solid business plans.

Look at how the legal world reacted to the development of the
internet. The laws came about after things started taking shape. The
internet existed as legal chaos that the bold entrepreneurs ventured
into. Would there have been as many innovations if they were
constrained by the imaginations of the lawyers and bureacrats who
laid out the rules beforehand, thus constraining activity to pre-
existing models of business activity and regulation?

Just go out and develop space resources and then let the law catch
up. As the instigator of the crisis, the company will have a large
part to play in shaping the law if the governments of the world want
it to comply with the law.

TangoMan

> means to live on the property that they are dispensing, the Spacemen
> will secede from the governments of Earth, probably sparking off civil
> war, and then determine how the territories in the solar system will be

The Commonwealth countries were let go by Britain without much fuss. Could go
either way.

> And in the future, we can look forward to a repetition of this pattern
> when we exceed the boundaries of our Solar System, and expand
> galactically.

Without FTL, government across light years is silly, though. I'd expect
colonies to be independent from the start.

-xx- Damien X-)

--- In ssi_list@... "Raven"
>
> > This might mean taxing authority goes to the UN rather than the
US or EU
> > and mineral royalties and income taxes, etc are paid to the UN
for the
> > benefit of all mankind, thus honoring the CHM provisions of the
relevant
> > treaties. The property is thus privately owned but taxed by
another soveriegn.
> I have one gripe with this, at least with the structure that
the UN has now. Much as I support UN authority in some areas, the
UN is not a democratically elected body. For this reason I do not
think that they should have a direct source of income through
taxes. For one thing, it would corrupt them for sure.
>
> Jon Lennart Beck.

So what's the alternative? As an aside, you don't think that the UN
is corrupt now? Is the evil in corrupting the already corrupted :)

Like I wrote earlier - it may be better to deal with the devil you
know that the one you don't.

I can't really see national sovereignty being extended to celestial
realms. This asteroid belongs to Zimbabwe. This portion of the Moon
belongs to Slovenia. This arc of the asteroid belt belongs to the
US. This kind of thinking strikes me as taking a good idea too far.
Kind of like trying to figure where to hitch the horses to that new
fangled horseless carriage :)

I think the lunacy of this scenario was a part of the thinking
behind the OST.

So, either we claim celestial objects together as a planet, or we
don't claim them at all.

There has to be a better way.

That's why I'm tossing around the idea of a standalone sovereign and
do away with UN participation, but also with US claims, EU, Chinese,
OAS, etc.

Besides, who better to look after and represent the interests of
orbital citizens and commerce than a government entirely concerned
with their representation and not beholden to Earth-based interest
groups?

TangoMan

>
> I can't really see national sovereignty being extended to celestial
> realms. This asteroid belongs to Zimbabwe. This portion of the Moon
> belongs to Slovenia. This arc of the asteroid belt belongs to the
> US.

I think there are good reasons to believe that something along these
lines is exactly what will happen. It makes no sense, but there will be
a perception among third world nations that the developed world is
making a land grab and that by the time the third world is sufficiently
developed to participate all the prime territories will be gone. There
is some basis for this concern, but the most likely solution is to pass
UN resolutions which have the effect of hampering development of ET
resources by anyone. The US could simply ignore such resolutions, but
it will be harder to raise venture capital if there's a perception of
increased risk due to the possibility that every election might sway
the government towards changing policy. Especially in the early phases
of ET resource development the industry won't be employing enough
people to deliver significant numbers of votes, so there is
considerable risk that foreign policy concerns will outweigh space
development concerns.

Some small amount of UN involvement might be better than a go-it-alone
strategy, since that would mitigate the risk associated with ignoring
the UN. Probably the best would be to acknowledge some amount of UN
sovereignty, such as allowing the UN to parcel out ET resources to
individual nations, or payment of a direct tax on profits to the UN
general fund. Both of these have problems, but the problems aren't as
bad as the problems caused by not knowing for sure whether your
property claim is going to be yanked out form under you.

......Andrew

>
> > I can't really see national sovereignty being extended to
celestial
> > realms. This asteroid belongs to Zimbabwe. This portion of the
Moon
> > belongs to Slovenia. This arc of the asteroid belt belongs to the
> > US.
>
> I think there are good reasons to believe that something along
these
> lines is exactly what will happen. It makes no sense, but there
will be
> a perception among third world nations that the developed world is
> making a land grab and that by the time the third world is
sufficiently
> developed to participate all the prime territories will be gone.

That's exactly what happened in 1967 and the result is the OST and
the acknowledgement of the Common Heritage of Mankind Principle.

I went into a lot of detail on this topic in message #3508 if you're
interested.

There
> is some basis for this concern, but the most likely solution is to
pass
> UN resolutions which have the effect of hampering development of
ET
> resources by anyone.

Those UN resolution are the OST and the Moon Treaty. Thery're
already guiding State Dept. policy, even thought the latter treaty
isn't ratified.

> The US could simply ignore such resolutions,

It won't. IMHO, of course.

but
> it will be harder to raise venture capital if there's a perception
of
> increased risk due to the possibility that every election might
sway
> the government towards changing policy.

I'm not sure venture capital will be funding it. This looks like a
job for more established players and they already have access to
capital markets. But hey, there might be something just right for
venture financing. I hope! :)

Especially in the early phases
> of ET resource development the industry won't be employing enough
> people to deliver significant numbers of votes, so there is
> considerable risk that foreign policy concerns will outweigh space
> development concerns.

I still hold the opinion that the law has to catch up to reality,
not the reverse. If you want to stay within the law, then you can't
exploit orbital resources. From the Gov't perspective, there is no
room for debate. That's what this forum is for :)

Look here: This might give you some ideas. I describe 8 legal
arguments that could be used.

>
> Some small amount of UN involvement might be better than a go-it-
alone
> strategy, since that would mitigate the risk associated with
ignoring
> the UN. Probably the best would be to acknowledge some amount of
UN
> sovereignty,

Well, they're the best candidate because they have the strongest
mandate to claim that they represent all of humanity. I'm sure many
of us would quibble with that, myself included, but what is the
alternative to represent all of humanity?

> such as allowing the UN to parcel out ET resources to
> individual nations, or payment of a direct tax on profits to the
UN
> general fund. Both of these have problems, but the problems aren't
as
> bad as the problems caused by not knowing for sure whether your
> property claim is going to be yanked out form under you.
>
> ......Andrew

On a related note, if you have the time, see post #2608 for my
version of the big picture.

TangoMan

> Especially in the early phases
> > of ET resource development the industry won't be employing enough
> > people to deliver significant numbers of votes, so there is
> > considerable risk that foreign policy concerns will outweigh space
> > development concerns.

For stuff like this I don't think votes are what matters, but money. Both in
the sense of bribing people/making campaign contributions, and arguing "we can
bring in lots of tax dollars". Or supply jobs in districts of influential
legislators. There'll probably be a lot of jobs on the ground, either
directly involved or in support.

-xx- Damien X-)