No, can't claim it, and no government or country can grant them such a claim either. Though they own their own rockets which they send into space, and any habitats they send into space, and if they use space materials to make habitats - they own those habitats also - but not the celestial bodies or any part of them.
It's actually not sure that companies can mine resources in space either and return it to Earth. It's never been tested in courts, and the international law is ambiguous here.
If some company does that solely for its own profit, then they might possibly get legal challenges - as according to the Outer Space Treaty, then
So - if a private company, say, goes into space and it mines platinum from a platinum asteroid, and sells that just for its own profit, is it really doing that
The treaty never goes into any more details. The later Moon Treaty attempted to clarify this, but was only ratified by a few countries including Netherlands incidentally.
Might be that they get challenged and required to have some provision for including benefit to humanity in their operations in space.
One space company, the Shackleton Energy Company, has actually made this as their aim, sadly they don't seem to have been very successful in raising funds, but are the most ethical in this sense of the current batch of space mining companies.
Jim Kervala has said that he hopes to see a world where no child grows up without access to the education and health care they need and his company plans to do benefit sharing by technology exchange and transfer, also things like making the technology available much in the way that mobile phone and satellite technology is now available world wide, also jet airplanes etc, in the same way, his company would have programs of benefit sharing like that to make sure all the world benefits from their work.
Dr. David Livingston's Space Show - Jim Kervala
More about the company's plans here
Mining the Moon's Water: Q & A with Shackleton Energy's Bill Stone
But that's quite rare. I think if a company put forward a plan like that they would be less likely to be challenged, but if someone went into space and just grabbed a platinum satellite and sold the materials for the highest price they can get, etc etc, might well be challenged.
And at some point some legal framework is surely needed as space mining develops, more than we have in the Outer Space Treaty.
Lawyers have suggested several ways this can be done.
Including - functional ownership - that, so long as you continue to mine a resource, you have effective ownership of your mine, others can't come and mine where you are doing it.
And - safety type approach - that you are entitled to a safe zone around your habitat where you control incoming - that has a precedent - the ISS has a safety zone exactly like that, incoming spacecraft transfer control to the ISS when they are close to it, for safety reasons, also like an oil rig - that the owners of the oil rig command what vessels approaching it can and can't do, when they are close enough for there to be a risk of collision - and how they can approach and when etc..
And various other ideas like that.
I didn't know about the new bill for debate in the US Congress which Tristan Laurent just mentioned - a very new development this summer.
Comment on it here by Michael Listner (much of the above I got from listening to talks by him and other lawyers on the Space Show)
What happens if US and the ESA both grant claims to the same asteroid?
Also what I'd like to know is, myself, is how is
Seems to me, but I am not a lawyer, that it would have to have some element of benefit sharing or making sure that this resource extraction in some way benefits all of humanity, not just one company within the US, to comply with the OST?
But - this is what Michael Listner says, so is not so clear as it might seem from reading just the first para of the OST.
The idea that by moving an asteroid, it is no longer a celestial body - well - that seems a legal quibble to me - you "acquire it" for your use when you move it.
It's like saying, that if you remove a diamond from someone's possession and are not caught in the act, it is then yours to cut up into smaller diamonds and sell as you see fit. Just speaking as a non legally trained lay person.
But - it is a bit more subtle than that.
They are claiming that the celestial bodies are "natural objects in outer space ... which cannot be artificially moved from their natural orbits."
In other words, that if you can show you have the capability to move it - in practice, not just in theory - then that shows it is not a celestial body in the sense of the OST - even before you actually move it.
So - is not really like you are "stealing it" - more like, that you prove that it never was a celestial body for the whole of humanity in sense of the OST.
Still - seems like a lawyer's quibble still to me - if technically potentially consistent - not in the spirit of the OST.
My own concerns here are not so much in the near future, if anyone can mine space asteroids - and do it in a way that is not harmful to their science value - good luck to them, maybe they can benefit the Earth by doing that.
But in the more distant future, say a couple of decades after space mining starts for earnest. When - with the more optimistic projections - perhaps space mining might account for as much as the rest of the world economy or more.
If we don't build in some benefit sharing from the outset, I think there is a risk of that leading to severe economic hardship and things like not just large companies, but even the wealthiest countries also going bankrupt.
Imagine a future with the likes of Microsoft and Bill Gates not just wealthy enough to pay off the national debts of small third world countries, but wealthy enough to pay off the national debt of the US and Russia and the whole of the world combined?
Not too likely in near future, can only target the smaller asteroids, about $1 billion of value each for the easiest NEOs to mine.
So in near future probably the new space mining companies will not even be a Microsoft scale company until they mine quite a few asteroids.
But in further distant future...
And - if it happens with someone less inclined towards public works and benevolence than Bill Gates with his Gates Foundation?
And - we have many countries that are still heavily in debt from the brief 1973 oil crisis, and can't build schools, or hospitals or roads etc because they have to service their debt.
That could, potentially, happen to the whole world if we get a financial crisis in space caused similarly by artificial temporary resource shortage. caused by space miners withholding supply - or for whatever reason - with such huge funds flowing into and out of space mining - if it does ever happen like that - seems lots of potential for things to go wrong.
It's my personal view, just voicing an opinion here - and as someone who is neither an economist or a lawyer. But I feel strongly that somehow this has to be built into the legislation from the get go, to make sure that can never happen. That's my own main concern here.
It could be tapered, as obviously their start up costs are huge.
I wondered, e.g. about starting at 0% "Global space mining tax" or whatever you call it, ramping up to 78% (same as Norway uses for off-shore oil development - and Norway finds that - though they said before that it was impossible - once they introduced the law - the companies were willing and keen to do oil development at 78% tax).
Could reach 78% when the space economy reaches parity with the World non space related economy - or when it reaches parity with the economy of the most wealthy country - or whatever seems a level where it is potentially dangerous to the world economy.
Perhaps in some way done so it also depends on how much the company is earning so also, start up small companies earning only a few billion dollars a year don't have to pay much tax (so long as the target is reached overall), but larger companies do, details would need to be worked out.
Plus some provision for help for countries and companies that would be hard hit by space mining. E.g. if prices of platinum plummet because of easy availability from space - is a huge benefit for industry to have easy availability to a metal that is so much better than other metals for many uses so definitely see the value for humanity - but that's going to hit a lot of people very hard who rely on sales and mining of platinum to earn a living.
Coupled with benefit sharing, that they are required to assist other countries and other companies to engage in space mining themselves - e.g. SpaceX can't preferentially only launch US mining missions to space but should provide same facilities for all nations for this purpose (expect it would anyway but good to have that in law)
So - availability of technology use - not necessarily the technology itself, but the ability to use it - like flying in planes or using mobile phones and GPS - world wide.
But - those are just ideas by someone not versed in economy or law. I'd like though to see some suggestion by the experts that is equivalent in the way it protects the world economy in the long term - and gives poorer countries equal or at least shared benefit in the near term.
Because space resources are for everyone.
It's actually not sure that companies can mine resources in space either and return it to Earth. It's never been tested in courts, and the international law is ambiguous here.
If some company does that solely for its own profit, then they might possibly get legal challenges - as according to the Outer Space Treaty, then
"The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind."
So - if a private company, say, goes into space and it mines platinum from a platinum asteroid, and sells that just for its own profit, is it really doing that
" for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development"
The treaty never goes into any more details. The later Moon Treaty attempted to clarify this, but was only ratified by a few countries including Netherlands incidentally.
Might be that they get challenged and required to have some provision for including benefit to humanity in their operations in space.
One space company, the Shackleton Energy Company, has actually made this as their aim, sadly they don't seem to have been very successful in raising funds, but are the most ethical in this sense of the current batch of space mining companies.
Jim Kervala has said that he hopes to see a world where no child grows up without access to the education and health care they need and his company plans to do benefit sharing by technology exchange and transfer, also things like making the technology available much in the way that mobile phone and satellite technology is now available world wide, also jet airplanes etc, in the same way, his company would have programs of benefit sharing like that to make sure all the world benefits from their work.
Dr. David Livingston's Space Show - Jim Kervala
More about the company's plans here
Mining the Moon's Water: Q & A with Shackleton Energy's Bill Stone
But that's quite rare. I think if a company put forward a plan like that they would be less likely to be challenged, but if someone went into space and just grabbed a platinum satellite and sold the materials for the highest price they can get, etc etc, might well be challenged.
And at some point some legal framework is surely needed as space mining develops, more than we have in the Outer Space Treaty.
Lawyers have suggested several ways this can be done.
Including - functional ownership - that, so long as you continue to mine a resource, you have effective ownership of your mine, others can't come and mine where you are doing it.
And - safety type approach - that you are entitled to a safe zone around your habitat where you control incoming - that has a precedent - the ISS has a safety zone exactly like that, incoming spacecraft transfer control to the ISS when they are close to it, for safety reasons, also like an oil rig - that the owners of the oil rig command what vessels approaching it can and can't do, when they are close enough for there to be a risk of collision - and how they can approach and when etc..
And various other ideas like that.
US CONGRESS BILL TO GRANT ASTEROID PROPERTY RIGHTS
I didn't know about the new bill for debate in the US Congress which Tristan Laurent just mentioned - a very new development this summer.
Comment on it here by Michael Listner (much of the above I got from listening to talks by him and other lawyers on the Space Show)
"Michael Listner, founder and principal at Space Law and Policy Solutions in New Hampshire, says that the bill is "crafted with international law in mind," but the underlying caveat that property rights will be granted in accordance with international obligations could be a "showstopper." He also points out that the European Space Agency (ESA) is "planning on granting resource rights as well" and asks how claims under this legislation would be reconciled with competing foreign claims."
Posey, Kilmer Introduce ASTEROIDS Act To Grant Property Rights to Asteroid Resources - UPDATE
What happens if US and the ESA both grant claims to the same asteroid?
Also what I'd like to know is, myself, is how is
"Any resources obtained in outer space from an asteroid are the property of the entity that obtained such resources, which shall be entitled to all property rights thereto, consistent with applicable provisions of Federal law."consistent with
" for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development"The proposed law says
" develop the frameworks necessary to meet the international obligations of the United States."
Seems to me, but I am not a lawyer, that it would have to have some element of benefit sharing or making sure that this resource extraction in some way benefits all of humanity, not just one company within the US, to comply with the OST?
But - this is what Michael Listner says, so is not so clear as it might seem from reading just the first para of the OST.
The term "use" is vague and is not defined by the Outer Space Treaty. Therefore, it is open to many interpretations based on your point of view. When a treaty is interpreted it is done so by the standards set forth in the Vienna Convention and whether the term "use" could apply to mining and property rights would have to be evaluated using those standards. It is important to note that there is no specific prohibition to granting mining rights but neither is there anything specifically allowing it either.
Furthermore, when you look at a treaty you can't just pick and choose how you define a specific term without considering the intent of the treaty [as a] whole. That means while "use" could possibly be interpreted to allow for mining rights it would have to be evaluated in the context of the Outer Space Treaty in general and not just by cherry-picking Article I.
Can Congress Grant Private Companies The Right To Mine Asteroids?
LEGAL QUIBBLE OF MOVING AN ASTEROID
The idea that by moving an asteroid, it is no longer a celestial body - well - that seems a legal quibble to me - you "acquire it" for your use when you move it.
It's like saying, that if you remove a diamond from someone's possession and are not caught in the act, it is then yours to cut up into smaller diamonds and sell as you see fit. Just speaking as a non legally trained lay person.
But - it is a bit more subtle than that.
They are claiming that the celestial bodies are "natural objects in outer space ... which cannot be artificially moved from their natural orbits."
In other words, that if you can show you have the capability to move it - in practice, not just in theory - then that shows it is not a celestial body in the sense of the OST - even before you actually move it.
So - is not really like you are "stealing it" - more like, that you prove that it never was a celestial body for the whole of humanity in sense of the OST.
Still - seems like a lawyer's quibble still to me - if technically potentially consistent - not in the spirit of the OST.
MY CONCERNS - MAINLY ABOUT DISTANT FUTURE AND WORLD ECONOMY DISRUPTION
My own concerns here are not so much in the near future, if anyone can mine space asteroids - and do it in a way that is not harmful to their science value - good luck to them, maybe they can benefit the Earth by doing that.
But in the more distant future, say a couple of decades after space mining starts for earnest. When - with the more optimistic projections - perhaps space mining might account for as much as the rest of the world economy or more.
If we don't build in some benefit sharing from the outset, I think there is a risk of that leading to severe economic hardship and things like not just large companies, but even the wealthiest countries also going bankrupt.
Imagine a future with the likes of Microsoft and Bill Gates not just wealthy enough to pay off the national debts of small third world countries, but wealthy enough to pay off the national debt of the US and Russia and the whole of the world combined?
Not too likely in near future, can only target the smaller asteroids, about $1 billion of value each for the easiest NEOs to mine.
So in near future probably the new space mining companies will not even be a Microsoft scale company until they mine quite a few asteroids.
But in further distant future...
And - if it happens with someone less inclined towards public works and benevolence than Bill Gates with his Gates Foundation?
And - we have many countries that are still heavily in debt from the brief 1973 oil crisis, and can't build schools, or hospitals or roads etc because they have to service their debt.
That could, potentially, happen to the whole world if we get a financial crisis in space caused similarly by artificial temporary resource shortage. caused by space miners withholding supply - or for whatever reason - with such huge funds flowing into and out of space mining - if it does ever happen like that - seems lots of potential for things to go wrong.
It's my personal view, just voicing an opinion here - and as someone who is neither an economist or a lawyer. But I feel strongly that somehow this has to be built into the legislation from the get go, to make sure that can never happen. That's my own main concern here.
SUGGESTION - JUST FOR SAKE OF DISCUSSION
It could be tapered, as obviously their start up costs are huge.
I wondered, e.g. about starting at 0% "Global space mining tax" or whatever you call it, ramping up to 78% (same as Norway uses for off-shore oil development - and Norway finds that - though they said before that it was impossible - once they introduced the law - the companies were willing and keen to do oil development at 78% tax).
Could reach 78% when the space economy reaches parity with the World non space related economy - or when it reaches parity with the economy of the most wealthy country - or whatever seems a level where it is potentially dangerous to the world economy.
Perhaps in some way done so it also depends on how much the company is earning so also, start up small companies earning only a few billion dollars a year don't have to pay much tax (so long as the target is reached overall), but larger companies do, details would need to be worked out.
Plus some provision for help for countries and companies that would be hard hit by space mining. E.g. if prices of platinum plummet because of easy availability from space - is a huge benefit for industry to have easy availability to a metal that is so much better than other metals for many uses so definitely see the value for humanity - but that's going to hit a lot of people very hard who rely on sales and mining of platinum to earn a living.
Coupled with benefit sharing, that they are required to assist other countries and other companies to engage in space mining themselves - e.g. SpaceX can't preferentially only launch US mining missions to space but should provide same facilities for all nations for this purpose (expect it would anyway but good to have that in law)
So - availability of technology use - not necessarily the technology itself, but the ability to use it - like flying in planes or using mobile phones and GPS - world wide.
But - those are just ideas by someone not versed in economy or law. I'd like though to see some suggestion by the experts that is equivalent in the way it protects the world economy in the long term - and gives poorer countries equal or at least shared benefit in the near term.
Because space resources are for everyone.
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0