Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday July 23 2018, @01:58AM   Printer-friendly
from the ask-Heinlein-who-sold-it dept.

Did the Stars and Stripes on the moon signify the establishment of an American colony?

Most likely, this is the best-known picture of a flag ever taken: Buzz Aldrin standing next to the first U.S. flag planted on the Moon. For those who knew their world history, it also rang some alarm bells. Only less than a century ago, back on Earth, planting a national flag in another part of the world still amounted to claiming that territory for the fatherland. Did the Stars and Stripes on the moon signify the establishment of an American colony?

[...] Still, the simple answer to the question of whether Armstrong and Aldrin by way of their small ceremony did transform the moon, or at least a major part thereof, into U.S. territory turns out to be “no.” They, nor NASA, nor the U.S. government intended the U.S. flag to have that effect.

Most importantly, that answer was enshrined in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, to which both the United States and the Soviet Union as well as all other space-faring nations, had become a party. Both superpowers agreed that “colonization” on Earth had been responsible for tremendous human suffering and many armed conflicts that had raged over the last centuries. They were determined not to repeat that mistake of the old European colonial powers when it came to decide on the legal status of the moon; at least the possibility of a “land grab” in outer space giving rise to another world war was to be avoided. By that token, the moon became something of a “global commons” legally accessible to all countries—two years prior to the first actual manned moon landing.

So, the U.S. flag was not a manifestation of claiming sovereignty, but of honoring the U.S. taxpayers and engineers who made Armstrong, Aldrin, and third astronaut Michael Collins’ mission possible. The two men carried a plaque that they “came in peace for all mankind,” and of course Neil’s famous words echoed the same sentiment: his “small step for man” was not a “giant leap” for the United States, but “for mankind.” Furthermore, the United States and NASA lived up to their commitment by sharing the moon rocks and other samples of soil from the lunar surface with the rest of the world, whether by giving them away to foreign governments or by allowing scientists from all over the globe to access them for scientific analysis and discussion. In the midst of the Cold War, this even included scientists from the Soviet Union.

Case closed, no need for space lawyers anymore then? No need for me to prepare University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s space law students for further discussions and disputes on the lunar law, right?

[...] The very fundamental prohibition under the Outer Space Treaty to acquire new state territory, by planting a flag or by any other means, failed to address the commercial exploitation of natural resources on the moon and other celestial bodies. This is a major debate currently raging in the international community, with no unequivocally accepted solution in sight yet. Roughly, there are two general interpretations possible.

Countries such as the United States and Luxembourg (as the gateway to the European Union) agree that the moon and asteroids are "global commons," which means that each country allows its private entrepreneurs, as long as duly licensed and in compliance with other relevant rules of space law, to go out there and extract what they can, to try and make money with it. It's a bit like the law of the high seas, which are not under the control of an individual country, but completely open to duly licensed law-abiding fishing operations from any country's citizens and companies. Then, once the fish is in their nets, it is legally theirs to sell.

On the other hand, countries such as Russia and somewhat less explicitly Brazil and Belgium hold that the moon and asteroids belong to humanity as a whole. And therefore the potential benefits from commercial exploitation should somehow accrue for humanity as a whole—or at least should be subjected to a presumably rigorous international regime to guarantee humanity-wide benefits. It’s a bit like the regime originally established for harvesting mineral resources from the deep seabed. Here, an international licensing regime was created as well as an international enterprise, which was to mine those resources and generally share the benefits among all countries.

[...] While ultimately it is up to the community of states to determine whether common agreement can be reached on either of the two positions or maybe somewhere in between, it is of crucial importance that agreement can be reached one way or another. Such activities developing without any law that is generally applicable and accepted would be a worst-case scenario. While not a matter of colonization anymore, it may have all the same harmful results.

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Monday July 23 2018, @04:24AM (3 children)

    by MostCynical (2589) on Monday July 23 2018, @04:24AM (#711058) Journal

    "space police" jobs will be very hard to fill.
    Life expectancy will be very low.
    "Accidents" will be very common.

    It will be the early stages of any gold rush on earth, with more certain death ("running away" becomes problematic, and survival far less likely)

    Miners will have more money behind them, and therefore better equipment (or at least bigger guns), and be prepared to "protect" their claims against all comers- including the law.

    Until "the law" has a sufficient presence and an effective method *for* enforcement, it will be worse than the wild west.

    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @02:19PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @02:19PM (#711231)

    In the end, the miners will have to sell their stuff on Earth. And unlike on Earth, it's hard to cover your traces in space.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @10:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @10:08PM (#711461)

      No, the miners can sell their stuff to intermediaries, perhaps on a permanent satellite in Earth orbit. Or on the Moon outpost. And those can sell it back and forth a few times, before someone gets around to selling it on Earth. Whatever you need to avoid any Imperial entanglements.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday July 24 2018, @04:16PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday July 24 2018, @04:16PM (#711765) Journal

      What the other AC said. I don't see it being very cost effective to ship goods or minerals back to Earth. Maaaaaybe, a BFR-like fully reusable ship could be used to haul tons of precious metals for a controlled landing... 150 tons of gold would be worth about $6 billion, for example. That's pretty far above the ~$400 million estimated cost of building a BFR.

      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 []