So USA really claims outer space now?

[Sistrin]

Germany should find their own outer space and leave ours alone!

When I was in High School I bought one of those "name a Star for yourself" deals, advertised in an issue of Spider-Man. Does this mean the star and everything in the surrounding system isn't mine? And when my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren get there they will have to go to court to defend the claim?

 

[Chesterton]

We're all too late. Moon has already been claimed by its Divine rightful owner:

 

[Tree of Life]

Thats laughable and i honestly don´t know what they are thinking.

So USA just made a new law where evry outer space mission, be it mining, colonies ect must be checked and allowed by NASA.

The outer space treaty (which USA signed) does not allow such things. It is laughable to believe, that NASA as a US government institution has the right to dicide about missions and projects done by other nations.

Germany and Russia plan a base on the moon by 2020 and won´t ask USA for permission.

I highly doubt, that China will ask USA for permission and its highly unlikely that India, Japan or any other sovereign nation will ask as well.

The next mission performed by ESA regarding this is EXOMARS. NASA was already kicked out of the mission and the russian Roskosmos joined in as partner.

The public reaction in german media about this new law are only negative. Many commentators say it looks like satirical or a joke but it seems the US really believe the universe is their property.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...-rights-for-americans-to-exploit-new-frontier

http://www.forschung-und-wissen.de/...-zum-besitzer-des-gesamten-weltraums-13372245

I honestly don´t know why US is doing this. It only creates conflicts. How deluded must someone be to believe the entire world is obliged to ask you for agreement on something you have no say into it.

Is the US trying to overreach its authority or is it trying to regulate private space travel companies like Space-X?

 

[mindlight]

Thats laughable and i honestly don´t know what they are thinking.

So USA just made a new law where evry outer space mission, be it mining, colonies ect must be checked and allowed by NASA.

The outer space treaty (which USA signed) does not allow such things. It is laughable to believe, that NASA as a US government institution has the right to dicide about missions and projects done by other nations.

Germany and Russia plan a base on the moon by 2020 and won´t ask USA for permission.

I highly doubt, that China will ask USA for permission and its highly unlikely that India, Japan or any other sovereign nation will ask as well.

The next mission performed by ESA regarding this is EXOMARS. NASA was already kicked out of the mission and the russian Roskosmos joined in as partner.

The public reaction in german media about this new law are only negative. Many commentators say it looks like satirical or a joke but it seems the US really believe the universe is their property.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...-rights-for-americans-to-exploit-new-frontier

http://www.forschung-und-wissen.de/...-zum-besitzer-des-gesamten-weltraums-13372245

I honestly don´t know why US is doing this. It only creates conflicts. How deluded must someone be to believe the entire world is obliged to ask you for agreement on something you have no say into it.

It is definitely time to review the 1967 act which was phrased at the height of the cold war. If people make investments in space, mining asteroids or water on the moon for moonbases then they should expect their property rights are respected. They should also expect to get a reasonable rate of return for their investments. Space is not just about science anymore or nation states showing off. - there is a lot of potential to make money in mineral mining, the energy sector, tourist facilities and even in manufacturing.

Glad the Americans are showing some initiative here. I think Europe, China, Russia and India need to come to some international agreement on the commercial exploitation of space also.

 

[PatrickT]

It is definitely time to review the 1967 act which was phrased at the height of the cold war. If people make investments in space, mining asteroids or water on the moon for moonbases then they should expect their property rights are respected. They should also expect to get a reasonable rate of return for their investments. Space is not just about science anymore or nation states showing off. - there is a lot of potential to make money in mineral mining, the energy sector, tourist facilities and even in manufacturing.

Glad the Americans are showing some initiative here. I think Europe, China, Russia and India need to come to some international agreement on the commercial exploitation of space also.

the american "law" is null and void for Europe, China, Russia, Japan and India. If you believe a foreign corporation crawls to USA to beg for support in such an investment, then you are mistaken.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh really?

Lets say german Thyssen Krupp starts space mining and gets Asteroid Eros for example. Who says USA doesn´t start attacking TK then for not asking NASA for permission? Thats pretty much what evry single newspaper here said.

USA claims entire space as their property. Thats what article said.

Do you believe everything you read?

 

[bhsmte]

Our story made it pretty clear. USA demands from evryone to get their approval for evry activity. You claim thats not true, so show me.

I think the term; "story" is the key word here.

 

[talitha]

just can't help but think of
Astronaut Farmer

 

[PatrickT]

Do you believe everything you read?

considering the fact, that we deal with a tyrannical regime which considers itself "worldpolice" and is led by corrupt corporations i pretty much believe that USA claim entire space for themself. To not do so would mean they would follow the principle of equality. USA normally acts as brutal hegemon and never does a deal that would bring any benefit to the other nation.

So considering this i pretty much believe the story. The 100% negative conotation in evry german article regarding this gives me right.

 

[bhsmte]

considering the fact, that we deal with a tyrannical regime which considers itself "worldpolice" and is led by corrupt corporations i pretty much believe that USA claim entire space for themself. To not do so would mean they would follow the principle of equality. USA normally acts as brutal hegemon and never does a deal that would bring any benefit to the other nation.

So considering this i pretty much believe the story. The 100% negative conotation in evry german article regarding this gives me right.

Cool, believe it then.

 

[mindlight]

the american "law" is null and void for Europe, China, Russia, Japan and India. If you believe a foreign corporation crawls to USA to beg for support in such an investment, then you are mistaken.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty is about sovereignty and weopanry in space in the main. By its provisions a company that sends a spaceship or builds a space facility has ownership and responsibility for that. They cannot cause unreasonable harm to the common heritage of humanity out there. So if they blow up a satellite whose debris then destroys the property of other nations a liability then ensues. Commercial actors are responsible to their own Nation States for their behaviour , who being signatories to the treaty are responsible under international law. It seems to me that the USA has merely clarified with its legislation how it will deal with the Commercial exploitation of space by its own companies.

But there are significant questions remaining for International law:

1) if you find a solid gold or platinum asteroid and you extract its ore then there is nothing left. So in this case commercial exploitation has destroyed the common heritage of mankind

2) if you build a base next to deposits of water ice on the moon. Is that ice yours to use and convert into fuel or drinking water or must it be shared with other bases. Once it is exhausted and you find a way to capture ice asteroids or whatever must this ice be shared or is it the exclusive property of the company that mines it.

3) how will violations be determined and by whom will penalties be enforced? If a state actor deems its company has done nothing wrong but all other nations disagree how can this be resolved.

 

[Chesterton]

I suggest disputes over space should be settled the same as all previous territorial disputes: war. Oh no wait, war sucks.

I suggest either a game of 1) rock, paper, scissors 2) arm wrestling or 3) beer pong.

 

[eartheart]

Now now guys, give NASA her space...

 

[KarateCowboy]

Oh really?

.

YA RLY

 

[dgiharris]

Apparently the OP lives by the creed: Never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs...

As near as I can tell reading/skimming through the article, the US bill simply tries to address the issue of US space exploration by US entities and companies. It is stating that if a US company goes out, lands on an Asteroid, than by proxy the US owns that Asteroid and said company can mine and exploit the resources of that asteroid as pursuant to US law. Similarly, the US company would enjoy the protections being a subject to the US government that ANY US company would enjoy. For example, if you are a US company and you go out into international waters to do some oil drilling and build an oil platform, you own the immediate "area" of that oil platform (i.e. another entity can't come and kick you off and claim it) and you own the oil that you procure. This seems reasonable.

The article NEVER stated that other nations need to ask the US for permission for Space Missions or Space Exploration. That is just absurd.

Please stop being disingenuous claiming things that the Bill does NOT claim...

 

[PatrickT]

Apparently the OP lives by the creed: Never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs...

As near as I can tell reading/skimming through the article, the US bill simply tries to address the issue of US space exploration by US entities and companies. It is stating that if a US company goes out, lands on an Asteroid, than by proxy the US owns that Asteroid and said company can mine and exploit the resources of that asteroid as pursuant to US law. Similarly, the US company would enjoy the protections being a subject to the US government that ANY US company would enjoy. For example, if you are a US company and you go out into international waters to do some oil drilling and build an oil platform, you own the immediate "area" of that oil platform (i.e. another entity can't come and kick you off and claim it) and you own the oil that you procure. This seems reasonable.

The article NEVER stated that other nations need to ask the US for permission for Space Missions or Space Exploration. That is just absurd.

Please stop being disingenuous claiming things that the Bill does NOT claim...

The space treaty says space belongs nobody. Who are you too think you can claim an entire asteroid so no other nation can claim it? Thats plain and simple absolute arrogance and lays the blocks for future wars.

 

[dgiharris]

The space treaty says space belongs nobody. Who are you too think you can claim an entire asteroid so no other nation can claim it? Thats plain and simple absolute arrogance and lays the blocks for future wars.

No, it's not arrogance, it is precedence. If a nation stumbles onto an island, and no other country has discovered it, said nation plants its flag in that island and claims it. If the island is "too big" i.e. like the continent Antarctica then the nations make a treaty to avoid war.

In the case of Asteroids, there are basically an INFINITE number of asteroids. So it should be first come first served. However, certain special asteroids say like Ceres which is the biggest asteroid should be handled by treaty.

I think that your viewpoint is more on the side of arrogance than mine. You are trying to say that out of all the infinite amount of space and asteroids and resources out there that NO ONE has a right to it? Puh-lease. That is just altruistic nihilism taken to an absurd degree.

One compromise I can easily agree to would be a registry similar to naming stars. You see an asteroid, you can log it in a registry and once logged, you have a time period onto which to physically claim said asteroid (i.e. plant a flag). Conditions would also state minimum activity levels on the asteroid, i.e. you have to actually be using/mining that asteroid. You can't simply go around planting flags claiming real estate. So, I would say, something like:

You register an asteroid and said nation has 5 years to occupy and utilize that asteroid. IN order to maintain ownership, said nation must physically maintain a space station on that asteroid supporting a minimum of 5 people and/or mining a minimum of 100 tons per year from that asteroid and/or producing $250 Million/year of commerce from that asteroid in some fashion and/or produces Academic findings/data that meets criteria of a scientific body for advancing mankinds knowledge. Failure to maintain the above for more than 3 consecutive years constitutes forfeiture of rights to that asteroid and another nation can claim it. Similarly, each nation is ONLY allowed to claim a maximum of 10 asteroids using the registry. Claims would be in addition to what a nation already owns. So, if a nation owns 12 asteroids it can register up to an additional 10 asteroids using the claim system. All asteroids not occupied or meeting the claim criteria after 5 years go into default and that nation loses its claim on that asteroid for 5 years, during this period another nation may claim that asteroid.

see, not so hard.

 

[PatrickT]

No, it's not arrogance, it is precedence. If a nation stumbles onto an island, and no other country has discovered it, said nation plants its flag in that island and claims it. If the island is "too big" i.e. like the continent Antarctica then the nations make a treaty to avoid war.

In the case of Asteroids, there are basically an INFINITE number of asteroids. So it should be first come first served. However, certain special asteroids say like Ceres which is the biggest asteroid should be handled by treaty.

I think that your viewpoint is more on the side of arrogance than mine. You are trying to say that out of all the infinite amount of space and asteroids and resources out there that NO ONE has a right to it? Puh-lease. That is just altruistic nihilism taken to an absurd degree.

One compromise I can easily agree to would be a registry similar to naming stars. You see an asteroid, you can log it in a registry and once logged, you have a time period onto which to physically claim said asteroid (i.e. plant a flag). Conditions would also state minimum activity levels on the asteroid, i.e. you have to actually be using/mining that asteroid. You can't simply go around planting flags claiming real estate. So, I would say, something like:

You register an asteroid and said nation has 5 years to occupy and utilize that asteroid. IN order to maintain ownership, said nation must physically maintain a space station on that asteroid supporting a minimum of 5 people and/or mining a minimum of 100 tons per year from that asteroid and/or producing $250 Million/year of commerce from that asteroid in some fashion and/or produces Academic findings/data that meets criteria of a scientific body for advancing mankinds knowledge. Failure to maintain the above for more than 3 consecutive years constitutes forfeiture of rights to that asteroid and another nation can claim it. Similarly, each nation is ONLY allowed to claim a maximum of 10 asteroids using the registry. Claims would be in addition to what a nation already owns. So, if a nation owns 12 asteroids it can register up to an additional 10 asteroids using the claim system. All asteroids not occupied or meeting the claim criteria after 5 years go into default and that nation loses its claim on that asteroid for 5 years, during this period another nation may claim that asteroid.

see, not so hard.

No, i say this laughable law is the base for future war. Asteroids are all different with different conditions and composition.

Lets say a german corporation want harvest an asteroid. According to your laughable legislation it has to ask NASA for permission. An organisation that has as much legal power in germany as the high priest of Papua Nuewguinea

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you believe everything you read?

The sources for his claims are coming from the same 3-4 sources that he uses for all of these anti-American threads...which appear to be nothing more than some sort of anti-American, German versions of the "National Enquirer" and other gossip mags.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

According to your laughable legislation

You mean the imaginary legislation from your sketchy publications that you linked that can't be backed up by any reputable media outlet?