🚀 go-pugleaf

"Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d81e59c9.0411190222.7b4da913@posting.google.com...
> "Alan Erskine" <alanerskine1@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:<O8cnd.41430$K7.20242@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "Joann Evans" <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> > news:419D446E.F751A267@frontiernet.net...
> > > Hans-Marc Olsen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I want to conquer Ganymede or Io
> > >
> > >
> > >    Exactly whom would you be conquering there?
> >
> > Joann, the guy's a troll - have a look at the rest of his posts.
>
> He may be a troll, but there is a valid related question.

He _is_ a troll (invalid email address for a start, it posted from yahoo and
google [always worthy of suspicion, plus the highly abusive and offensive
email it [the troll] sent me after I made that comment), but yes, I agree
that the question is valid.

> If I want to mine a 100m diameter NEO. Perhaps even I spend a billion
> dollars to bring it in to Earth Orbit. I start selling oxygen, water
> and platinum.

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.

> Can some one else land on the other side and start doing the same?

Yes; it's called "competition".  However, it would be better for the
opposition to start on their 'own' object.

> Can I claim the object? The Outer Space Treaty only says states can't
> claim an object. Who is going to ensure that I don't accidently put
> the object on an Earth collision orbit?

No, you cannot claim the object, only governments and their representatives
can do that.  If a government were established (perhaps the U.N would be the
ideal body for this?)

> I think this is an area that needs to be cleared up well before mining
> activities start on any other planet / object. Or can we rely on an
> extension of Anglo-Saxon common law?

The Outer Space Treaty cannot deal with this subject.  The OST was intended
to ensure that our stupid military obsessions didn't spew too far into the
cosmos.  However, Common Law is constantly being updated as people's
problems change, but it is on a national (and even local) basis.

International Law on the other hand may be a better way of dealing with
this.  It could be based on existing property, commercial and national laws
and also on the recognition of international boundaries (see my suggestion
regarding the U.N. above).  If the U.N. were the responsible body, it may be
that, rather than a nation saying "yes, we will let you mine our country
even though we are not going to see one red cent of profits", it would be
the U.N. saying "Yes, we will allow you to mine this object (whatever it may
be) on the understanding that x% of profits benefit all nations (education,
health, clean water, food etc)".  I for one, would fully support the latter
option.

This would also prevent the current, national 'aggressions' (no, not
necessarily Iraq, but Iran, South Korea, China, Israel etc).  Hell, even
Australia's relationship with Nauru is of concern - we've taken all their
phosphate deposits and now the damn country's down the financial toilet due
to decisions made 50 or more years ago!  The U.N. would be able to prevent
these types of things from developing in the first place.

Most, if not all, legal problems that will occur for corporations in space,
have occured here on Earth (border disputes, property claims, pollution
[where do you put the waste, including heat?], contractual disputes etc ad
infinitum).

-- 
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge
Alanterskine1@bigpond.com