🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <nlknd.41860$K7.36403@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Alan Erskine <alanerskine1@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Not worth putting into any Earth orbit - as there is almost no gravity on an
>object of that size, it would be simpler and more economical to mine insitu
>and then transport just the product(s) to Earth orbit, leaving the tailings
>(mining waste) in space.

I think that's too broad a statement; much depends on details.  One big
advantage of bringing the thing in close is that it makes teleoperated
activities much easier. 

>> Can some one else land on the other side and start doing the same?
>
>Yes; it's called "competition".

Setting aside the issue of possible land claims, I'd say that if you've
*moved* the asteroid, it's not that clear.  The question is, when does a
natural object cease to be "land" and become an incompletely-processed
product being transported to market?  Clearly, if you saw off a piece of
the object, put it in your spaceship, and haul it back to your Earth-orbit
processing plant, that piece should be considered yours.  Clearly, whether
you put it *in* your spaceship or strap it to the outside ought to be
irrelevant.  Clearly, the exact size of the piece ought to be irrelevant. 
So why doesn't this apply to a whole asteroid?

Perhaps the issue is whether you intend to, and are realistically capable
of, processing the whole thing.  But over what time scale?

This is a strange intermediate case between land ownership and ownership
of movable property, something that hasn't been faced before.

Realistically, I think we're going to need a rule that you can't move the
thing unless it's already (by some legal means) entirely your property...
in which case, no, somebody else can't set up operations on the other side
of it. 
-- 
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend."    |   Henry Spencer
                                -- George Herbert       | henry@spsystems.net