(Yes there is a board here pretty much dedicated to this subject as a business, but I will post this recent news article in the General Discussion area, just for general information)
It does appear that things could get really messy over who owns what, seemingly with several already stepping out with claiming rights.
MOON DAILY
Lunar ownership laws: a future necessity?
by Boris Pavlischev
Moscow (Voice of Russia) Feb 20, 2014
The international treaty on outer space will likely have to be amended to include the activity of private entrepreneurs.
Private settlements and raw materials extraction enterprises could appear on the Moon in the future, thus leading to territorial disputes between their owners. In order to avoid that one must now register the property rights to the land plots on the Moon and other space objects and set up special preservation zones, US entrepreneur Robert Bigelow believes.
The Bigelow Aerospace Company, run by American businessman, designs inflatable housing modules. In the future they will be used to build flying hotels for tourists in the Earth's orbit. According to Bigelow's plan, a lunar base could also be built with the inflatable modules.
The businessman is now asking himself the question: is the owner of such a dwelling entitled to a special zone where others are not allowed to enter? The same question will be valid for the owner of a lunar enterprise extracting helium. In that case the lunar industry would not be able to function without exclusive rights to a specific territory.
To get an explanation the entrepreneur has turned to the department of commercial space transportation, a part of the Federal Aviation Administration.
He assumes that the institution could determine in each specific case the size of the protected territory by issuing licenses to companies engaged in space related business. Bigelow is convinced that the issue of the title to property outside the Earth's orbit does not violate the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.
That intergovernmental document does carry a legal collision, explains Igor Lisov, deputy editor-in-chief of the News of Cosmonautics magazine.
"On the one hand, there is the rule of international law, according to which space objects and their surfaces cannot be claimed by any nation. On the other hand, these documents say nothing about private use of such objects".
In the past Dennis Hope, an American, used that loophole in the treaty and sent a request to the UN asking if he had the right to have property on the Moon. The officials did not bother to answer him. Having waited for half a year, Hope decided that nothing stood in his way to claim the Moon as his property, as well as other planets and stars.
In 1980 he started selling plots on the Moon. Another American Gregory Nemitz also made claims to asteroid Eros and informed various institutions of that. When in 2001 NASA landed a spacecraft on the Eros, Nemitz sent an invoice to the space agency for a rent payment in the amount of $20. NASA called his claims illegal pointing at the fact that it was based on a false interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty.
Nevertheless, what Bigelow now wants to hear from the American agency will become important as private astronautics develops and housing and enterprises are built on the surface of other space objects.
Most likely the international treaty on outer space will have to be amended to include the activity of private entrepreneurs. Below is the opinion of Alexander Zheleznyakov, a member of the Russian Academy of Cosmonautics.
"Private spacecraft are already flying in the unmanned mode, but soon they will be piloted. That means that people will spend more time in space. Naturally, some legal relations will occur between them as between representatives of different companies. They have to be regulated somehow".
It is better to think through these issues ahead of time and not at the last moment when everybody rushes to space and will start pushing each other, says the expert. In that sense Bigelow's addressing the Federal Agency would at least give a reason to start discussing the subject.
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Lunar_ownership_laws_a_future_necessity_999.html
My answer:
In the Summer of 1969 a young man known to his friends as, Joey Resnick, waited in anticipation with his friends, Tommy Graff and Stevie Trulik, while they watched on the neighborhood's 'first color TV set' as Neil Armstrong made Man's first footprints on the surface of the Moon. The trio watched eagerly as Armstrong dismounted the Eagle Lunar Lander (LEM) and they celebrated with cheers and shouts when Cmdr. Armstrong made that iconic statement: "One small step for a man; One giant leap for Mankind".
From that very moment in the summer of 1969 Joe Resnick determined that some day he would 'do something great' that would involve the Earth's Moon. And he has done that. Joe (now, Dr. Joseph A Resnick, Professor Emeritus Senior Research Fellow) went on to collaborate with NASA in a number of projects directly related to the US Space Program. Those efforts resulted in a display of seven (7) of his inventions featured at Kennedy Space Center's Galaxy Arcade where these were placed on exhibition (from 1985-1996) next to one of the Moon Rocks that the crew of Apollo 11 brought back to the earth.
In 1967 the first of five (5) Space Treaties was signed, when Joe was just 14 years of age. In late 1969, shortly after Apollo 11 had landed at Tranquility Base on Earth's moon, a copy of the (first) treaty became available in the public library in Tarentum, PA, a town close to where young Resnick lived. Subsequently, Resnick obtained a copy and read the Treaty, cover-to-cover. Later that year (1969) Joe, claimed ownership of the Earth's Moon and all celestial bodies, in letters he sent to The United Nations and to the World Court (The Hague, The Netherlands). See the first Treaty at this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty .
After reading and re-reading the Treaty many times Resnick sought counsel and advice from his friend and Mentor, Dr. (Maj.) Richard Warren Heinemann (2nd in command of Gen. Patton's Field Army Hospital in Europe, commanded by Dr. Heimel Fishkin ) as Resnick stated to Dr. Heinemann that he felt that the Treaty 'didn't sound right'. Young Resnick had high respect and admiration for Dr. Heinemann. Dr. Heinemann taught young Resnick how to fly airplanes and the two frequently engaged in long discussions about medicine, anatomy, physiology and the science of navigation. Dr. Heinemann was Resnick's inspiration in Resnick's claiming 'ownership of all celestial bodies'. Dr. Heinemann, himself a learned scholar and Aerospace enthusiast, was quick to point-out to young Resnick that "the 'Treaty' only applied to the Signatories...and not 'Individuals' ". Based on that interpretation young Resnick stated that he intended to claim ownership of all celestial bodies in the known Universe. Dr. Heinemann supported his idea and determination and encouraged young Resnick as to what he needed to do, how to go about it and who he needed to 'put on Notice'. Thus, the idea and business model enabling Resnick to "claim ownership of the Moon, and all celestial bodies and minerals contained thereupon, being and lying beyond the 3rd Planet from the Sun in the Milky Way Galaxy", was born (1969).
Resnick posited the claim(s) to the United Nations and to the World Court in January 1970. In the time that has since passed (now, longer than 40 years) Resnick never received any response from any of those bodies...and his 'Claim' has stood, undisputed for more than 40 Years (actually, 44 years and 9 months). In 'legalese', if someone were to dispute Resnick's 'Claim(s)', today, he could envoke what is called, 'The Doctrine of Estopple'. What that means (under English Common Law), is that the Claim has stood for so long, uncontested, that for 42 years and a few months and several days...the person bringing the challenge/dispute, should have, or could have, prior to the passage of so much time, contested the Claim, and it was not contested. Therefore, under English Common Law, and US Constitutional Law, as well as the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC 1-207, Inclusive'), the challenge would be 'dismissed' out of necessity, in Law and Fact, by the Judge. However, even before that would happen (i.e., the case being dismissed), the case could not be 'brought', as no Court on this Planet has 'Jurisdiction', per codicils in the original Space Treaty, which is properly termed, "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies". Therein lies the 'Loop Hole'! No entity Party to that Treaty, can sue the other Parties, and all Parties have agreed, by International Treaty, that none of the Parties own any 'real estate', nor celestial bodies, outside of their respective Sovereign, State or Territorial Boundaries. Thus, Joseph Resnick's Claim to Stated and Implied Ownership stands, Undisputed, in Law and in Fact to this very day.
Yes, I understand such position but in my opinion such is complete folly. Pure undiluted folly!
No one owns anything that is not on the surface of this Earth. Even satellites are up there for anyone's taking - who could stop it? When you (or whoever) get you feet on the Moon, and stay there, then you can claim it. But, no permanent feet on the ground, then it ain't yours.
I consider such thoughts and claims as silliness, and what belongs to whom will not be determined by any Earth bound group, in the end. it will be on the basis of who holds it, and who can keep it. Even greater silliness, is to project ownership claims on beyond the Moon, to the entire Solar System. What nonsense, for all kinds of reasons!! What is next, to lay claim to the entire Milky Way Galaxy?? :))
In the real world, this such might make a good video game, but IMO nothing more.
Hhhmmm Solar System? Sounds good. Think we've got that covered. :)
Quote from: rdunk on March 28, 2014, 10:08:03 PMEven greater silliness, is to project ownership claims on beyond the Moon, to the entire Solar System. What nonsense, for all kinds of reasons!!
People have made millions selling real estate lots on the Moon and Mars for years. So a precedence has been set. These claims have never been contested in courts.
Most rational beings understand that the claim is a pretty wall hanger conversational piece UNTIL such time as they can put their boots on their lot and stake it. But the NAVY has taken such claims seriously, because way back in 1996 they posted a disclaimer on their Clementine website that they will not enforce nor protect any claims
See below this is from the NRL NAVY website
(http://umlr.net/04images/Minerals/Navy_001.png)
QuoteWhat is next, to lay claim to the entire Milky Way Galaxy?? :))
No just the closest systems like Gliese 581 :P But hey those may be occupied :P
QuoteIn the real world, this such might make a good video game, but IMO nothing more.
See the REAL WORLD
Mars real Estate for Sale
http://www.marsshop.com/
Lunar Properties for sale
http://www.lunarembassy.com/
I hear someone is even selling Name an unnamed crater" on Mars :D
People even sell Heraldry and Family crests that have no real validity (if you know anything about heraldry :P ) but they been selling for decades as wall plaques
So would you like some Opal prospects on Mars? or some nice magnetic dirt on Farside?
As to getting up there ... we are working on that both with the Saucer Crew here at Pegasus... and other more rocket based solution elsewhere :D
You forget one important fact...
...the fact that your very post is showing that there is a focus on this issue right now as it's in the news, and even Bigelow has spoken up about it.
So while us little people here do not have the needed clout to make things happen, it is possible to allign oneself with those who can.
Now as it happens on this mineral rights issue... while the claim was filed so many years ago... NO ONE NOTICED
Time and the Law are curious partners :D If no one contests something for a long enough time, it legally becomes yours.
Like if I park my car on your lawn and aabandon it after 90 days it becomes yours legally
So way back in 2006 when I first ran into John lear and started Pegasus, I found this issue about the wonership of the mineral rights.
I posted about it in fact it is in the first pages I created at Pegasus. I posted it at ATS and got a lot of WOW REALLY? replies and I gave John he info and he put it into a talk at the 2007 UFO Conference in San Jose
The next day the phone rang and we had emails... from the very people who owned those rights
And today... because I was the ONLY one who picked up on that and spoke about it, we get to have "a piece of the action" (Star Trek "A Piece of the Action")
So this will either be a mere curiosity in the blink of time OR it will take off like a rocket and flourish. In any case it will put our name "up there' with some heavy hitters.
In the end it is no different than any other fund raiser selling t-shirts or coffee mugs. But the difference is that THIS time there is a legal backing... And the UN is now calling to revamp space law because of it...
... and guess who as been offered a seat on that committee?
::)
:) But of course, in the reality of fact even the UN has no real basis of "standing" off this planet anyway.! NONE! NADA!
Quote from: zorgon on March 28, 2014, 11:49:34 PM
Time and the Law are curious partners :D If no one contests something for a long enough time, it legally becomes yours.
Like if I park my car on your lawn and aabandon it after 90 days it becomes yours legally
From what I have read about it, the problem is that, in the above situation, the owner of the lawn would present a claim to the owner of car, stating that the car had become his property because it was on his lawn, and, if uncontested for some time, the car would become his property.
In the case of the Moon, they should present the claim to the owners of the Moon, not to the UN or the Hague court, as those entities have no rights on the Moon.
Also, the fact that individual persons did not sign an international agreement doesn't mean that they aren't part of it if the country from where they are signed it, that would be the same thing as a criminal not being extradited because he didn't sign the agreement that allows it.
But I'm not a lawyer. :)