Augmentation of the Outer Space Treaty

[Warren Platts]

The collection treaties and agreements that I shall refer to collectively as the Outer Space Treaty (OST) are rather vague about exactly how the exploitation of the Moon's natural resources should be regulated. There are a few points that are repeatedly emphasized, however, such as:

1. the Moon is not to be weaponized;

2. all installations sent to the Moon or constructed thereon are the property of the organization that sent or constructed the installations;

3. the surface and subsurface, however, will always be part of "the common heritage of mankind".

4. there shall be "an equitable sharing by all States Parties in the benefits derived from [lunar] resources, whereby the interests and needs of the developing countries, as well as the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly to the exploration of the Moon, shall be given special consideration."

And there are a few environmental caveats:

1. the "existing balance" of the Moon shall not be disrupted;

2. "contamination" shall be avoided;

3. the U.N. Secretary-General shall be notified of the purpose of any radioactive materials sent to the Moon;

4. consideration be given to areas of especial scientific interest that they be designated as specially protected international scientific preserves.

Beyond these considerations, it's pretty much a free-for-all. However, paragraph 5 of Article XI of the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies implies that more regulations will be established in the future, when it becomes appropriate to do so:

5. States Parties to this Agreement hereby undertake to establish an international regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon as such exploitation is about to become feasible. This provision shall be implemented in accordance with article 18 of this Agreement.

Back in 1979, when the agreement was drafted, regulating the development of the Moon was a moot issue; however, now that both China and the U.S. are proposing independent manned lunar missions to the Moon, the potential for conflict and competition for real estate is becoming a realistic possibility. There is only one lunar South Pole.

Therefore, "Desiring to prevent the Moon from becoming an area of international conflict, and Bearing in mind the benefits which may be derived from the exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies," I thought this forum might be a good place to start hammering out some fresh ideas. The starting premise of this thread is that future exploration shall be done under the auspices of the OST (I shall assume that withdrawing from the OST is not an option). Therefore, the question is how to sufficiently augment the OST so that a complete, and fair international regime governing lunar exploitation can be established that will be adequate for the future.

The topic of the thread is by its very nature political. Discussing outer space politics, however, is permissible according to the board rules. Still, I take it that there's no need to descend to China bashing or jingoist American triumphalism.

Questions to be considered might include (but are not limited to):

1. What percentage, if any, of the Moon should be left in pristine condition as international scienfic wilderness areas?

2. How are people to be rewarded for the trouble it takes to get to the Moon?

3. How are the interests of developing countries that take no direct part in lunar exploration to be taken into account?

[Warren Platts]

As for how much wilderness should be set aside, I would argue that fully 50% to 1/3 of the Moon should be set aside and kept permanently undeveloped. What is needed is an assessment of the entire lunar surface to find zones especially useful for humans (including useful mineral deposits), so that these especially useful sites will not be locked up in wilderness areas. It is a shame that we have higher resolution maps of Mars than we do of our own Moon.

As for how to reward the efforts of those who go to the Moon, the way to do this while staying within the letter of the OST is to grant Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ's), like those that are granted to coastal nations and that extend 200 miles into international waters. These zones are still technically international waters, but a country has the right to send out its navy to prevent others from fishing or pursuing other economic activities within the EEZ.

This could be done on the Moon as well. That way, the surface and subsurface would still be collectively owned by humanity as a whole (and adminstered by the U.N.), but the state that had the concession would have the exclusive right to develop that zone. Thus, for practical purposes, national and private property rights would accrue within the EEZ.

Thus, the question then naturally arises: How big should an EEZ be?

I think a 200-mile (333 km) radius would be a little small. Based on some of the concessions that were granted in the New World early in colonial history, as well as the cost and risk associated with lunar colonization, I would say that Texas-sized chunks (about 633,333 square kilometers) would be the appropriate size. Since the surface area of the Moon is 38 million square kilometers, the Moon could be divided into 60 such chunks. 20 to 30 of these chunks would be left as undeveloped scientific preserves, leaving 30-40 chunks that could be turned into EEZ's.

I would recommend that a map showing boundaries of potential EEZ's be drawn up in advance, and agreed to ahead of time, and made a formal part of the OST. The other alternative would be to simply draw a 450 km radius circle around a settlement. But this then runs into the following problem: someone builds a colony, and gets the full 450 km radius EEZ, and then someone else builds another colony 500 km from the first one. Then what? Do you redraw the boundary of the old EEZ so that both colonies have equally sized EEZ's? Or is the second colony just going to have to be satisfied with a partial circle with the first EEZ superimposed on the second?

By predefining EEZ's, a country contemplating establishing a lunar colony would get to pick out the EEZ that would be most suitable for its current purposes, and then pick out the very best site within that EEZ to put the colony, even though it might be near the edge of the potential EEZ. It will reduce international bickering and the problem of constantly redrawing maps.

The next question is: How does a country gain the right to claim an EEZ? Could a country just file some paperwork at the U.N.? (No.) How about landing an unmanned probe within the desired EEZ? (No.) I would say claiming an EEZ would require a continuous manned presence. Again, we can look to history for examples to guide the future. The U.S. Homestead Act (which later became a model for similar legislation in Canada and Australia) provides a model (mining law might be another place to look for a legal model). Under the Homestead Act, a farmer had to stay on the land for 5 years in a row before he could gain title to the land. Five years seems about right to me. It would demonstrate a concerted effort for a sustained manned presence, and not be perceived as a mere land grab.

Then how will "continuous" be defined? If people only stay at the colony for 3months out of the year, does that count as "continuous"? What about 50 weeks out of 52 weeks? Is there room to cut some slack there?

Also, what if for some reason the colony has to be abandoned after 5 years? How much time must expire before the EEZ reverts back to the public domain?

[somerandomguy]

I like the Homestead Act concept, because it keeps the incentive alive of "being there first." After all, if everything is mapped out ahead of time and I already know I'm going to get the northeast quarter of the southwest quadrant down the hill from the Big Rock Candy Mountain, then there's no rush for me to actually get up there and do anything with that space. So that chunk of land goes to waste while someone with more initiative but fewer resources yearns to set foot on my tract.

What if EEZ's were permitted on some kind of lease basis -- with a fee to be paid into an account that then bankrolls an international space project (an elevator, perhaps)? That would satisfy the requirement that the resources of the Moon be used in a way that benefits all states -- not just the ones with preexisting space programs.

The problem then becomes one of bureaucracy -- how to manage all those millions or billions and direct them in a way that accomplishes something while at the same time being fair to all involved. It's kind of like a stormwater enterprise -- everyone pays a little, so that a big project that no one would want to take on by themselves gets done.

[Warren Platts]

I like the Homestead Act concept, because it keeps the incentive alive of "being there first." After all, if everything is mapped out ahead of time and I already know I'm going to get the northeast quarter of the southwest quadrant down the hill from the Big Rock Candy Mountain, then there's no rush for me to actually get up there and do anything with that space. So that chunk of land goes to waste while someone with more initiative but fewer resources yearns to set foot on my tract.

What if EEZ's were permitted on some kind of lease basis -- with a fee to be paid into an account that then bankrolls an international space project (an elevator, perhaps)? That would satisfy the requirement that the resources of the Moon be used in a way that benefits all states -- not just the ones with preexisting space programs.

The problem then becomes one of bureaucracy -- how to manage all those millions or billions and direct them in a way that accomplishes something while at the same time being fair to all involved. It's kind of like a stormwater enterprise -- everyone pays a little, so that a big project that no one would want to take on by themselves gets done.

I don't think I like the idea of selling leases for money here on Earth. The dollars raised would have a short term positive effect, while our patrimony would be forever sold off. It could have the opposite effect of what we really want--and what we all really want is to promote space exploration, to make it routine (preferably in our lifetime). We sell off the Big Rock Candy Mountain EEZ to someone for a few hundred million, and then it languishes, depriving others who have more gumption the opportunity to make something of it.

As for international space projects, well the ISS is a stellar example of that!

As for the requirement that lunar development benefit all nations of the Earth, I say what's good for the U.S. and China is good for the world. If lunar exploitation can spur economic growth and technological innovation within space-faring nations this growth will "trickle down" to developing nations without space programs, raising the boat for all. The proof of this is that when the U.S. hits a major economic recession, it's bad for the rest of the world--there's less wealth floating around to buy imports with.

Otherwise, how would you do it? There could be direct transfers of space profits (if they ever materialize) to poorer countries, but that would constitute a tax on space exploration. We wouldn't want that, I don't think. And just handing bundles of cash to leaders of third-world countries rarely has the desired effect of improving the lives of the common folk who live in such places.

[somerandomguy]

Whatever you do, you've gotta preserve the incentive for people to get there. If I stand to profit from lunar exploitation regardless of whether I support it, then there's no reason for me to put resources into the risky endeavor.

That's why I like the lease system, although you're right, there has to be a mechanism to keep a company/state/individual from squatting on property and then just squandering it.

Perhaps something like ICANN -- a lease that has to be renewed every two years, or five years, or whatever. You have to re-up the fee AND show that you're actually up there, doing what you said you'd be doing with the territory.

There also could be a means for people to lease moon property for use as a private preserve -- just keep your sustained presence there and your allotted tract is there to do with as you wish.

[Warren Platts]

Whatever you do, you've gotta preserve the incentive for people to get there.

I heartily agree. That's why the OST needs reformed. I believe it's redeemable. Although the OST sounds rather communistic on the surface, once you read it carefully, you can see that the capitalist signatories to the treaty left lots of wiggle room. The task now is to come up with a formal regime that would let a capitalist earn a return on his or her investment, while at the same time preserving some of the other values mentioned in the OST.

If I stand to profit from lunar exploitation regardless of whether I support it, then there's no reason for me to put resources into the risky endeavor.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you meant to write something like "If I don't stand to profit from lunar exploitation regardless of whether I support it, then there's no reason for me to put resources into the risky endeavor."

That's why I like the lease system, although you're right, there has to be a mechanism to keep a company/state/individual from squatting on property and then just squandering it.

So maybe something like the Mining Law of 1872 would be relevant here. It used to be the case that if you found a mineral deposit of some kind, you could file a claim and get a lease on the land for 99 years or something. All you had to do was something like $100 worth of "improvements" per year in order to maintain the lease. Unlike under the Homestead Act, you didn't need to have a continuous, manned presence on the land to maintain your lease. If the deposit were within an EEZ granted to a state on Earth, it would be up to that state's mining laws and regulations to figure out how to do it. If the deposit were on one of the zones designated as international science reserves, it would be up to the U.N. to figure out what to do. If the deposit was a concentrated, high-value vein of diamonds, for example, perhaps a lease limited in area to just that necessary to do the mine could be granted (which is basically what the OST calls for now). In the grand scheme of things, the high value returned would justify the relatively small footprint. On the other hand, if they proposed strip mining hundreds of thousands of square kilometers for He³, this would be rejected out of hand, since such a project would destroy the wilderness character of the international scientific preserve.

Perhaps something like ICANN -- a lease that has to be renewed every two years, or five years, or whatever. You have to re-up the fee AND show that you're actually up there, doing what you said you'd be doing with the territory.

I assume you're talking about the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. I thought under ICANN you can get a domain name, and then just sit on it in the hopes that someone who really wants it will someday buy it from you. So, mining law might be a better model, where one is actually required to do improvements every year.

There also could be a means for people to lease moon property for use as a private preserve -- just keep your sustained presence there and your allotted tract is there to do with as you wish.

By all means. Let's say Virgin Atlantic wanted to set up a resort on the Moon. Since the company is headquartered in London, under the OST, British taxpayers are ultimately liable for anything bad that happens as a result. Therefore, the U.K. government would be granted the 633,333 km² EEZ.

Then it would be between the U.K. government and Virgin Atlantic on how to divvy up the spoils. I imagine that Virgin Atlantic would be treated rather like the British East India company. It would be given monopoly access for decades, and Virgin Atlantic would be given vast swaths of land as their own private property, like the railroad companies in the American and Canadian old west. Virgin Atlantic could then sell chunks to Disney or Paul Allen or whoever. Richard Branson himself might have an option on several thousand acres where he might build a space mansion just for himself and his friends.

Eventually, I imagine that Village Grey Preservation Societies will pop up who will complain about lunar sprawl and evermore MoonMansions wrecking the view. So then the Nature Conservancy will buy up tracts just in order to keep them undeveloped, and to preserve the view of those who built their mansions first.

Of course, the surface and subsurface would still be owned ultimately by all of humanity collectively, and administered by the U.K. government. But hey, do we ever really own the square feet of "private property" that we supposedly have title to? Sure, just so long as you pay your property taxes. Stop paying your taxes, and you're outta there buddy!

[Sporally]

I won't say my idea will be the perfect way to set up a new OST, but set up a UN suborganisation of scientists from all over the world. I feel scientists generally are more interested in science than their national progress. They will vote on what sites of the moon (and anything else in the universe) that must be keep for science (when all the science in a particular area has been made and the last scientific results you can get from that area are too few for much interest). So if the moon has a lot of scientific interest, then only a little part of the moon will be used for mining and stuff, while some other things (like astroids that we already have too many of ) are not protected the same way.

Hope you get me, or else plz ask for further questions - and commentaries are of course welcome

So everytime a nation wants to set up a mining site on a celestial body, they will have to present their idea for that particular area, and the UN suborganisation of scientists will approve or reject the idea based on things like scientific loss and mining gain and other things. They may even find spots on the moon where cities are allowed to arise - and everyone can buy (or lease if you want to keep the law of 'property of humanity') a site in that city and build on it.

In my eyes, this is like Winston Churchill said it "This idea is the worst idea of a OST replacement, with the exception of any other OST replacement ideas we've seen", referring to his view on democracy (though he didn't invent the quote).

As for the requirement that lunar development benefit all nations of the Earth, I say what's good for the U.S. and China is good for the world. If lunar exploitation can spur economic growth and technological innovation within space-faring nations this growth will "trickle down" to developing nations without space programs, raising the boat for all. The proof of this is that when the U.S. hits a major economic recession, it's bad for the rest of the world--there's less wealth floating around to buy imports with.

Well, yes, to a certain degree. Like the butterfly effect, but not much more than that. A recession does change quite a bit in the developing countries, but considering the change in economics from space exploration i guess it won't help them that much.

[Warren Platts]

I won't say my idea will be the perfect way to set up a new OST, but set up a UN suborganisation of scientists from all over the world. I feel scientists generally are more interested in science than their national progress. They will vote on what sites of the moon (and anything else in the universe) that must be keep for science (when all the science in a particular area has been made and the last scientific results you can get from that area are too few for much interest). So if the moon has a lot of scientific interest, then only a little part of the moon will be used for mining and stuff, while some other things (like astroids that we already have too many of ) are not protected the same way.

Hope you get me, or else plz ask for further questions - and commentaries are of course welcome

That's a good point. The OST treats all other celestial bodies as if they were the same as the Moon. But the Moon is special. (And technically, the OST claims the entire universe as the common heritage of mankind, since all extraterrestrial bodies are in the same legal category as the Moon. ) Asteroids need a seperate treatment, as does Mars.

And I agree with setting up a subcommittee of scientists that will advise on what areas are to be set aside and kept in a pristine condition. But the committee should also include philosophical environmental ethicists and other ordinary citizens because scientists can often be . . . well, no need to go there in this thread.

As to the economic butterfly effect, I still don't think direct transfers from lunar colonies to the poorest countries is going to solve their most important problem(s). The best direct benefits will come from serendipitous applications of new technologies developed for the lunar project.

[Doodler]

As to the economic butterfly effect, I still don't think direct transfers from lunar colonies to the poorest countries is going to solve their most important problem(s). The best direct benefits will come from serendipitous applications of new technologies developed for the lunar project.

I don't see any particular reason lunar colonies should do anything for any nation other than the nation that put them there.

[Warren Platts]

Well, frankly, neither do I. But that's what the OST calls for. And the argument is that the Moon (and the entire cosmos--too bad for any aliens out there) is part of the common heritage of mankind. That is, if the Moon belongs to anyone, then it belongs to all of us (all humans). So a citizen of Tuvalu might legitimately question what the Chinese or the Americans are up to up there, even though Tuvalu hasn't a major space program itself.

So, I'm basically taking a Rawlsian approach here. John Rawls argued that justice is fairness, and when it comes to the question of what is a fair way of distributing resources, the default assumption is that they should be distributed evenly. But if someone can come up with a radically new way to raise everybody up, he can legitimately claim a relatively bigger cut for himself, because everybody is going to better off than they were before. So, if lunar exploration ever really took off, it would lead to major economic activity on Earth. But if lunar exploitation enhances terrestrial economic growth, this will be a benefit to all terrestrial economies, including those developing economies that don't have major space programs.

So, bottom line: we can basically do what we want and still stay within the letter of the OST.

[Sporally]

Wow, thought it was time for me to get some hard feedbacks on what i've said, but... Yeah, of course we will need more than sciencetists, of course i should have come up with that myself. But i can only totally agree.

What do you think of an idea that any nation should be allowed to plant their flag on any soil (without spoiling scientific area of course ), but any mining industry or city build anywhere in case will be govern by the UN or the subcommitee we talked about? Hope you won't feel discriminated, might just be my lack of knowledge about the US, but i guess this 'common nation for the entire human exploration of space' is hard to get americans to agree on... or...? But let the nations plant their flag as they want like on the north pole and let them harvest the ressources that the subcommitee allows you to harvest, but pay your tax to the subcommitee that first of will spend the money on charity work in developing countries and later they will spend their taxes on their newly set up country in outer space - this way we all feel that we own space as almost everyone is a part of the UN. It is actually a bit like the EU - we pay taxes to the EU, which are distributed in the ways the EU politicians want them distributed.

But the question is if this spinoff is enough for the developing countries. Yes, they can get some benefits, but what this enough in the eyes of those who originally wrote the OST? Of course it is hard to say how much spinoff we will get as it is almost impossible to guess about future technologies

[Doodler]

Well, frankly, neither do I. But that's what the OST calls for. And the argument is that the Moon (and the entire cosmos--too bad for any aliens out there) is part of the common heritage of mankind. That is, if the Moon belongs to anyone, then it belongs to all of us (all humans). So a citizen of Tuvalu might legitimately question what the Chinese or the Americans are up to up there, even though Tuvalu hasn't a major space program itself.

So, I'm basically taking a Rawlsian approach here. John Rawls argued that justice is fairness, and when it comes to the question of what is a fair way of distributing resources, the default assumption is that they should be distributed evenly. But if someone can come up with a radically new way to raise everybody up, he can legitimately claim a relatively bigger cut for himself, because everybody is going to better off than they were before. So, if lunar exploration ever really took off, it would lead to major economic activity on Earth. But if lunar exploitation enhances terrestrial economic growth, this will be a benefit to all terrestrial economies, including those developing economies that don't have major space programs.

The OST is a shellgame. Its basically little piece of feelgood trash that amounts to the nations who can go to the Moon, all none of us at the moment, assuring those who can't that we'll be sure to save them a place at the table.

Unfortunately, not the place it should be, which is sitting in front of a TV green with envy because their nation can't cut it. Those nations with the ability to make the trip owe nations that can't NOTHING. Nada, zip, zilch. Here's your token rock, gaze upon it with awe. They didn't pay for it, they didn't support it, they deserve nothing but the air pollution left in the rocket's wake. That's the reality, and these smarmy idealists that come up with and support crap like the OST can't handle it because its not all ooey gooey touchie feelie nice-nice.

[springa]

It sounds to me like the first priority of the OST was to try and prevent the moon from becoming dotted with military bases that were an extension of the Cold War, with regulations for any future economic activity left vague.

I suspect that the benefits to people who live in countries without space programs (and to the majority of people who live in countries WITH space programs) will be indirect. There will be new technologies or discoveries with applicability on earth, indirect economic benefit from the growth of new companies that make money from space exploration, and new employment opportunities (on or even off earth) to a small minority of people.

As a general rule, though, I doubt that the moon, much less solar system bodies in general, will become the exclusive preserve of one or even a small number of organizations. Suppose the first group to set up a fully operational base on the moon tries to claim the entire moon, or even a large percentage of its surface, as its own exclusive property. How is it going to enforce this claim? Other nations and/or corporations will set up bases on various other parts of the surface regardless of what the first arrivals want. The only way to try and prevent this from happening would be to actually fight, and an airless vacuum where a single bullet hole could render an entire base unusable is a terrible place to pick a fight - there's a good chance that any fighting would be fatal to both sides.

[Romanus]

1. What percentage, if any, of the Moon should be left in pristine condition as international scienfic wilderness areas?

That's difficult to say. Of course, I think famous lunar landing sites should be kept pristine. However, as for the other places...I think we should keep a few things in mind:

1.) In the U.S., setting aside preserves has served two purposes: saving exotic locations for the public enjoyment of future generations, and conserving resources for sustainable use. The National Park Service does the former, and the Forest Service the latter.

However, one can only save land that's *both* in danger of being exploited, and for which such exploitation might be deleterious. If Yellowstone was privately owned and in danger of being razed for profit, well, that might be bad. However, it's way, way too early to even consider which places would fall under that rubric for the Moon. Would it be deleterious if the Alpine Valley were mined for profit? Would anyone care?

2.) I think it's safe to say that not a single preserved area on Earth was set aside on the basis of satellite or airborne data. Only people on the ground telling us the Grand Canyon was worth preserving had it made so; same deal with the Everglades, Yosemite, or (for some commercial use) Pinchot National Forest. We literally may not know which areas are worth preserving until we see them in person, and given the area of the Moon and the limits imposed by its environment, that could be a very long time.


2. How are people to be rewarded for the trouble it takes to get to the Moon?

I don't think there should be a reward; these aren't the homesteading days, where settlers could just stake out and plow any square of land. Anyone who goes to the Moon to stay, IMO, *must* already have a justification and the means to do so. The days of Joe Blow going to stake out his square of Piton are--again--a long ways off; the people going to the Moon in the near future will probably be tourists, wealthy entrepreneurs, or government astronauts.

3. How are the interests of developing countries that take no direct part in lunar exploration to be taken into account?

This is the question, isn't it? To be fair, the interests of developing countries aren't taken into account even with current space exploration. If the colonizing days ever come--to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, wherever--this will become an ever-more pertinent issue. I have my opinions about this, but won't air them here.

[Sporally]

Is this something you found on the internet or did you ask an expert, or...?

[Warren Platts]

As a general rule, though, I doubt that the moon, much less solar system bodies in general, will become the exclusive preserve of one or even a small number of organizations. Suppose the first group to set up a fully operational base on the moon tries to claim the entire moon, or even a large percentage of its surface, as its own exclusive property. How is it going to enforce this claim? Other nations and/or corporations will set up bases on various other parts of the surface regardless of what the first arrivals want. The only way to try and prevent this from happening would be to actually fight, and an airless vacuum where a single bullet hole could render an entire base unusable is a terrible place to pick a fight - there's a good chance that any fighting would be fatal to both sides.

Is this something you found on the internet or did you ask an expert, or...?

Actually, it's part of the last chapter of my M.A. thesis that I need to turn in soon, or else I'll have to retake all my classes. Really, what I wanted was some feedback on the EEZ concept itself, and whether a formal EEZ map should be drawn up in advance and authorized by the signatories to the OST.

By formalizing how the colonization process will unfold now, rather than by the seat of our pants as colonization is actually happening, most disagreements and misunderstandings could be forestalled before they occur, thus reducing the likelihood of lethal fights in the future. It would also reduce the uncertainty of the political environment that likely entrepreneurs would have to face.

Now that both China and the U.S. have both announced concrete plans to set up Moon bases within the next couple of decades, there isn't much more time to waste. The process of negotiating a revamped OST, and getting everyone to sign off on it could itself take years.

I picked out 60 EEZ's mainly because 60 is divisible by lots of numbers, and an Afghanistan-sized chunk would seem to make a nice fiefdom. But why not carve up the Moon soccerball-style into 32 hexagons and pentagons averaging about 1.2 million km² South Africa sized chunks? (The area difference between hexagons and pentagons could be reduced somewhat by increasing the length of the pentagonal boundaries.) But maybe 60 EEZ's is too few--why not 380 100,000 km² Iceland-sized zones?

Alternatively, lunar EEZ boundaries could be based on latitude and longitude like so many Colorado's and Wyoming's for any arbitrary size.

But maybe the whole concept of EEZ's should be abandoned in favor of wild west anarchy. Then again, part of the reason for using EEZ's is also to ensure that large swaths should remain in mostly pristine condition as international scientific wilderness areas. But Earth-based biocentric arguments for wilderness preservation do not apply to the lifeless Moon, at least not in a straightforward manner. So maybe there's nothing wrong with strip-mining the entire surface for He³, or covering every sqare inch with off-road vehicle tracks.

The OST is a shellgame. Its basically little piece of feelgood trash that amounts to the nations who can go to the Moon, all none of us at the moment, assuring those who can't that we'll be sure to save them a place at the table.

Unfortunately, not the place it should be, which is sitting in front of a TV green with envy because their nation can't cut it. Those nations with the ability to make the trip owe nations that can't NOTHING. Nada, zip, zilch. Here's your token rock, gaze upon it with awe. They didn't pay for it, they didn't support it, they deserve nothing but the air pollution left in the rocket's wake. That's the reality, and these smarmy idealists that come up with and support crap like the OST can't handle it because its not all ooey gooey touchie feelie nice-nice.

The thing is the vast majority of the signatories to the OST do not have manned space programs, and yet it requires a majority of the signatories to agree to modify the treaty. So if we can get off the hook for a bit of ooey gooey rhetoric, we're getting off cheap.

[Sporally]

The reply was actually meant for Romanus, but good luck with it

I'm positive towards the OST and redoing it sometime soon - however, i will not get too much into that discussion as i consider it too close to the kind of politics that is too much based or your nation's ideology and your childhood

No matter how the americans or the chinees build a moon base i guess they can't or won't make it entirely alone - ISS is an example of this. However, i am not so concerned about what we (the europeans) will get, but i doubt developing countries far away from having a space program will get any benefits or at least they only harvest extremely little benefits on spinoff, but unnoticeable compared to what industrial nations will get from harvesting the moon for ressources - again, sorry, but i ain't that interesting in discussing if this is fair or not. You are welcome to consider this fair, won't opset me

I haven't heard anything on the chinees moon plans actually. Only future plans i've heard about the chinees space program was their space station dreams, Shenzhou 8-10. Good luck to you

[Skyfire]

Interestingly there was a program on the BBC last night (10th April) about possible development of the Moon, mainly to do with possible large amounts of Helium3 that are believed to be there. This (currently) the best known substance for stable nuclear fusion, with very little side effects. The link to the Beeb's site about the Horizon show is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/whatso..._4224_15978_50

It also started off with a piece on "entrepreneur Dennis Hope, who has spawned a multi-million dollar property business selling lunar real estate. It sounds far-fetched, but according to Hope, nearly 4,000,000 people have already signed up - including George Lucas, John Travolta, Tom Hanks and even George W Bush. Hope allocates land by simply closing his eyes and pointing to a map of the moon 'It's not very scientific, but it's kinda fun' he says. It's fun that has already made him $9 million."

What would his chances of a claim to any property on the Moon be? I would estimate it to be a round number less than one .... but that's just my opinion.

[Warren Platts]

1. What percentage, if any, of the Moon should be left in pristine condition as international scienfic wilderness areas?

That's difficult to say. Of course, I think famous lunar landing sites should be kept pristine. However, as for the other places...I think we should keep a few things in mind:

1.) In the U.S., setting aside preserves has served two purposes: saving exotic locations for the public enjoyment of future generations, and conserving resources for sustainable use. The National Park Service does the former, and the Forest Service the latter.

However, one can only save land that's *both* in danger of being exploited, and for which such exploitation might be deleterious. If Yellowstone was privately owned and in danger of being razed for profit, well, that might be bad. However, it's way, way too early to even consider which places would fall under that rubric for the Moon. Would it be deleterious if the Alpine Valley were mined for profit? Would anyone care?

Well, we also preserve land as habitat for charismatic megafauna that need large ranges in order to flourish, viz., the large National Wildlife Refuge system in Alaska administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. But since there is no native life on the Moon, you couldn't use that argument. But there might be an analogous argument that even non-living natural systems have a nonhuman, intrinsic value that should be respected by us humans. (cf. Lupisella and Logsdon, 1997).
I don't think it's way too early to consider these problems now because by the time it becomes a practical issue, it might be too late. We don't want to get into a situation like we have in the lower 48 where there is virtually no old growth forest east of the Mississippi, 98% of the tall grass prarie has been plowed up, and 90% of the old growth redwood forests have been cut. There is lot's of public land in some states, but it's mostly arid land unsuitable for farming, or mountainous regions that are difficult to access.

2. How are people to be rewarded for the trouble it takes to get to the Moon?

I don't think there should be a reward; these aren't the homesteading days, where settlers could just stake out and plow any square of land. Anyone who goes to the Moon to stay, IMO, *must* already have a justification and the means to do so. The days of Joe Blow going to stake out his square of Piton are--again--a long ways off; the people going to the Moon in the near future will probably be tourists, wealthy entrepreneurs, or government astronauts.

Well, the idea of granting "rewards" is not just for the sake of the reward itself, but also grant some sort of control over future uses on the Moon, thus reducing uncertainty--and uncertainty is always a cost of doing business. So, a government-run astronomical observatory might not want a new Disneyland built next door to its expensive telescopes, or a new Disneyland might not want an He³ stripmine right next door, or vice versa.

3. How are the interests of developing countries that take no direct part in lunar exploration to be taken into account?

This is the question, isn't it? To be fair, the interests of developing countries aren't taken into account even with current space exploration. If the colonizing days ever come--to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, wherever--this will become an ever-more pertinent issue. I have my opinions about this, but won't air them here.

Not true. All countries benefit from things like weather satellites, space imagery, and GPS navigation even if they don't have active space programs themselves.

[Sporally]

Though the americans and the japanese are working together on lunar missions like SELENE, i'm afraid that it won't end up with a race between both the americans and the japanese (in the case that the japanese announces they want to go to the moon) and China. The three space powers are working together today or may want to in the case of China, but will it be the same when we have several trillion dollars up there in He_3? I unfortunately doubt that. Yes, if the americans come first they will make the electricity power prices plum for the good of all other nations, both the chinese, the japanese, the europeans, the russians and even the developing countries. But they will just eliminate all other competition in all other countries and run away with all the money. The same could happen if Japan or China was first up there, or even the EU or Russia, but i doubt anyone can beat the US in case we don't work together. So no matter who gets up there first i believe a new OST will be of a great importance.