10 year plan

> >
> > > The taxpayers and the consumers are the same people. You
can't
> ask
> > > them to cough up another dime when there are snipers picking
them
> off
> > > while they pump gas.
> >
> > Um, I claimed the problem was not enough money being spent on
> > space development. You seem to be saying that there is no
> > more money to be spent that way, neither as consumers nor
> > as taxpayers? Where do you propose the money comes from then?
> > If there's no money in it, how can commercial firms justify
> > any investment at all?
>
> Oh there's money in it all right - if governments stay out of the
> way.

While I'm enjoying reading this thread and contemplating the points
raised in the back and forth volley, I just can't let some points
you raise slide by unchallenged. The above statement is
unsubstantiatied. I'd be happy to lend support to your position but
I'd need some convincing. As it reads now, it comes across as
wishful thinking on your part, or as a philosophical anti-government
rant. What groups are governments keeping out of the space market?

>
> > > You cannot bequeath exclusive rights to a
> > > property in space: neither can governments. Only individual
> people
> > > can claim property rights in space.
> >
> > Why is space different from Earth?
>
> Well, let's see... there's the intense heat, cold, vacuum,
radiation,
> microgravity... and there is the fact that no country can claim
> property in space, but private citizens can.

Why are you under the impression that private citizens can claim
property in space? That's not true. If you're basing your claim on
the Outer Space Treaty, be aware that that treaty was negotiated
with nation states as the representative bodies. That no mention is
made of individuals or corporations was not an oversight nor was it
an unstated acknowledgement of private citizen's property rights.
Frankly, international treaties presume that nations represent
their citizens and that they will govern and police them in order to
maintain compliance with international treaties. Your property
rights are conferred to you by your national government. You can't
have property rights without a national government supporting your
claim. If they don't support your claim to property on celestial
bodies, then you're out of luck.

Thus, if you claimed some property in orbit, and some nations
objected that it violated the Outer Space or Moon Treaties, they
would complain to the U.N., who in turn would notify your government
of the objection, and your government would have to stop you, remove
you, invalidate your claim and make diplomatic peace.

Now if your government secedes from the treaty in question, then
other nations's objections can't be satisfied via treaty procedures,
but you can be assured that other forms of diplomatic pressure would
be applied.

If you're looking to affect a change in law, then I suggest you
consider the following legal principles in your deliberations:

1.) The principle of DE FACTO: Go out, claim an asteroid, and damn
the consequences. You'll be subjected to a lot of governmental
pressure, i.e. property siezed, being sued, perhaps arrested, etc.
But never let go of your claim, develop it, and over time the law
will come to recognize what is.

2.) As an adjunct to the above, if you conduct yourself so as to
garner international respect while still maintaining your claim
based on DE FACTO, you could also seek to invoke the principle of DE
LEGE FERENDA, the principle of what the law ought to be. You could
demonstrate to the internaitonal communtiy that it would be in their
interest to not allow a DE FACTO claim to proceed, but to recognize
your claim by changing the law. This would insure future respect for
international law and impose an order to the claim of property
rights.

3.) The principle of ESTOPPEL, which is a requirement to be
consistent in legal argumentation. This argument might work f any
national actor uses celestial resources while not claiming
ownership. You could take away from them their resources, even by
force, because they would have no claim to the ownership. If they
objected, you would require them to be legally consistent, have the
objection be based on theft of ownership, which in turn applies to
where they got the material, etc. etc.

4.) The principle of JUS SOLI. Take your pregnant wife with you when
you visit your asteroid. Wait there until she gives birth. That
child will be a citizen of the asteroid by virtue of his birth, and
will not be a citizen of the country of his parent's birth (JUS
SANGUINES.)

5.) The principle of REBUC SIC STANTIBUS. Argue that the treaties in
question should no longer apply because the conditions of today are
sufficeintly different from when the treaties were signed.

6.) The principle of TERRA NULLIUS. This is land without an owner.
Any state can claim it. This one will be tough to argue because the
Outer Space and Moon Treaties, both recognize that celestial bodies
cannot be claimed by signatory nation states, and by implication,
their citizens. Nothing stopping a NEW nation state, one situated on
the moon or asteroid, from claiming sovereignty. This is a
monumental undertaking though. It would take lot's of capital, which
will be earth based capital subject to earth based regulation.
Basically, if you want to play this hand, you need to cooperation of
Earth's nations. If they see that no other Earth nation is getting
the upper hand on them, and that this really is a NEW nation, not
tied to any particular Earth nation, then there may be lessened
restrictions on Earth based cooperation with your new state.

7.) Along a similar theme, is the principle of UTI POSSIDETIS. That
is, that which you possess, you may continue to possess.

8.) If you do set up some new nation state, you could invoke the
international law principle of ULTRA VIRES. This is a statement that
the Treaty violations you are accused of and the resulting sanctions
are beyond the powers of the Treaties, which never considered the
case of a NEW nation state being created on the celestial body.
Thus, to impose penalties as though you were a violating signatory
state, or a citizen of such state is not valid under the law.

The above list is by no means comprehensive. I just wanted to throw
out some obvious arguments that you could make. Give them some
thought.

>
> > Only through some rather
> > vague treaties. And we already have "property rights" in space
> > through the spectrum allocations for geo-synchronous satellites
> > etc. Those rights come to corporations and government entities
> > through an international body (the ITU).
>
> Hmm... I don't recall personally voting for the ITU.

That's neither here nor there. Your national government had a say in
the creation and adminstration of the ITU.

>Or the UN for that matter. I don't get to vote on that.

Same as the above.

> However, these spectrum
> allocations (geosynchronous orbital slot allocations) seem to work
> fine, for now.
>
> The thing is, only human beings have rights. Governments and
> government entities do not.

Huh? Who says? Human rights are conferred upon people by laws
created by governments. Live in an anarchy and see how well rights
are enforced. As for international law, the individual person does
not exist, the nation states are the actors.

>
> > The model certainly
> > could be extended to all sorts of usage rights, if there was a
> general
> > desire for it. But too many people think they don't need any
> > government regulation in space, and therefore they get no
generally
> > recognized rights, and consequently no investment.
>
> Suppose for a moment that government somehow finds a way to allow
> cheap access to space, and I send some of my robots to an
asteroid.
> The lander and robots are owned by me, and I have paid for the
launch
> to the asteroid. Who would own the rock? My country, the country
> from which I launched, or the country where I had the robots and
> lander manufactured?

To be argued before a court by the interested parties. It would be
interesting to see how it is resolved.

>
> And just what would stop me from ordering the robots to start
mining
> operations? Only the barrel of a gun.

No, governments can be more subtle than that. Your assets can be
frozen. You can be denied access to deep space communication
equipment, future launch priviledges can be restricted, export
control licenses can be denied, you can be audited, etc.

>
> And if I brought back to earth orbit a million tonnes of Tungsten,
> could I sell it to General Electric?

Could you sell it cheaper than your Earth based competitors? Would
GE want to get involved in a legal quagmire? Do you actually have
legal title to the Tungsten? How would you get it down to Earth?

>
> > [anti-tax rant deleted - but note that US taxpayers pay
considerably
> > less of their income than any other developed country; most
current
> > taxes go to social programs, not NASA; the defense department
budget
> > is 25 times NASA's; and NASA's has not grown, rather it has been
> > shrinking for decades. Is it because space enthusiasts have, more
> > than most others, swallowed the anti-government myth to their
own
> loss?]
>
> How convenient it is to claim victory without refuting anything.
I
> live in Canada - the most heavily-taxed country in the free
world.

Uh, Hello? Consider Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, other OECD
countries.

Consider the information in this link:

http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Basics/Tax/Tax_Structure.html

>

> You said it yourself. "NASA... is just a way for government to
spend
> a bunch of money... mostly in southern congressional
districts..."
> Now tell me again in small words why NASA needs more taxpayer
dollars.

Well, unfortunately, they're really the only game in town and
they're being hamstrung by politics, bureaucratic mandarins,
competition between the different NASA centers, etc.

The private sector isn't rushing in to exploit the opportunites that
those of us on this list see very clearly.

So, more money might translate into something that isn't a
compromize solution, i.e. shuttle, ISS.

> >
> > Other than for telecommunications, there are only two
> > space-related "monopoly's" the US government
> > enforces right now, and they're not so much "monopoly's" as
> > regulations: (1) all NASA-funded launch contracts must use
> > a US company (basically Boeing or Lockheed), and (2) any private
> > company trying to use a non-US launcher has to run the
> > state department "export control" gauntlet.
>
> 1) Thus bloating Boeing and LockMart at NASA's "infinite" teat.
> 2) I am not familiar with this. Please fill me in.

What 2.) means is that if you are using US technology, even as a
Canadian, German, English, etc payload assembler, never mind actual
launch provider, you have to get U.S. State Department approval to
export the technology. An example of recent violations:

http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/sd2000-05-001.shtml

>
> > What I mean by "monopoly" here is, basically any sort of
> > "property right". If you own a home, the government recognizes
> > your exclusive right of ownership - I can't just bring a bunch
> > of my friends along, kick you out and move in. It's against
> > the law. We need similar laws and regulations for space
development.
> > It's way too much of a free-for-all right now for any serious
> > investor to be interested.
>
> Private property rights! Now we're getting somewhere.
>
> As for what a government can and cannot do:
> expropriate Pronunciation Key (k-sprpr-t)
> tr.v. expropriated, expropriating,
> expropriates
> 1) To deprive of possession: expropriated the property owners who
> lived in the path of the new highway.
> 2) To transfer (another's property) to oneself.
>
> Such a pretty word for stealing.

You'll have to elaborate. This just sounds like a libertarian anti-
government rant. Make your case.

>
> > Alan Wasser's space settlement initiative is a good example of
> > what I'm talking about: property rights on a celestial
> > body are recognized for those commercial entities that satisfy
> > certain regulatory requirements, on a first-come first-served
basis.
> >
> http://www.permanent.com/archimedes
>
> I have Class D claims on 11 Parthenope, 18 Melpemone, 121 Hermione
> (and it satellite and libration orbits), and 243 Ida (and its
> satellite Dactyl, as well as libration orbits).

Yeah, some guy who's trying to make a buck selling different classes
of claims. His organization has no standing before any international
body. Good luck enforcing your claims when someone else does
actually claim the celestial body. :)
>
> > > > >>My point: despite the fervent wishes of many, the free
market
> > > isn't
> > > > >>going to get us there all by itself.
> > >
> > > The free market will get there itself, if government gets the
hell
> > > out of the way.
> >
> > Funny, there doesn't seem to be much business investment in
> > the world's anarchies... (Liberia, Ivory Coast, Congo, Colombia,
> > Afghanistan, etc...) In truth there's no such thing as a free
> > market independent of government regulation. And there is, so
far,
> > no such market for space development.
> >
> > Arthur
>
> Liberia, Ivory Coast, Congo, Columbia... these are not anarchies,
> they are thugocracies.
>
> :) ed

And the difference is what? In an anarchy, the strongest will rule
over the weakest. Thugs are usually the strongest. Anarchies don't
usually happen with a bunch of polite, civil minded, tea drinking
genteel old ladies trying to co-operate.