This bill is controversial. If it is passed in the US, and they actually do claim ownership of asteroids, I'm sure that they will be challenged by other nations who don't recognize the claims.
For those reasons - I'd be surprised if it passes scrutiny at the later stages and goes into law, even in the US. This is just not the right way to attempt to do what the proposers are trying to achieve.
It does say that it will be limited by international law. So they are not overturning the Outer Space Treaty. But the OST treaty itself says that the resources in space are for the benefit of all of humanity.
If the first to get to an asteroid is able to claim the resources of that asteroid for its own use, it's hard to see how that fits in with the requirement that it should be "free for use by all States without any discrimination of any kind".
For instance, by the time that, say, India has set up its own space mining companies, all the easy to access NEOs would already be claimed by US companies.
That's because, though there are many NEOs, some are far easier to get to and mine than others.
So by the time newcomers get into the business, the few NEOs that are easy to mine will be already taken, making it impossible for them to get started and be financially competitive with the established mining companies in space.
So - if it does get passed, then I think there is likely - at some stage down the line - to be controversy. And nobody outside the US would be bound by its provisions of course.
So - if passed - it amounts to the US unilaterally laying down new legislation regarding Outer Space utilization - rather than doing it internationally which surely is what they should do.
Of course there is a place for legislation about the behaviour of your own nationals in space. But I think this steps beyond the bounds of reasonable legislation of that type myself.
And if they want to add to international law, I don't think this is the right way to do it myself, to pass it first as legislation in your own country and then wait for other countries to challenge your claims - which they can't do in your own courts obviously.
What are other countries supposed to do if they object - pass new laws in China, Russia, India, Europe etc with conflicting requirements for space mining? Or challenge what is set up as an internal law within the US? Or put forward a competing resolution in the UN? I don't understand the concept behind this approach myself.
Also apart from that - I think there are issues for the US itself if they pass a law like this - not immediately but some time in the future it could cause major problems for them.
Not speaking as a lawyer here, just someone interested in the subject. As usual, this is not to be taken as legal advice.
Also - seems to me that there is a need for the US itself to protect itself against consequences of space mining. Those arguing for these kinds of rights - it's even controversial to say that if you mine a body - that you own the materials you bring back to Earth from it.
Because - if you are mining asteroids for the benefit of all humanity - as the OST says - then shouldn't there be some built in provisions for directly benefiting humanity into regulations about what you do with the materials you return?
It is okay to start with. If they spend a billion dollars setting up their operations and return two or three billion dollars worth of platinum - hardly going to shake the boat much.
The platinum industry mines about 150 tons a year, and at about 41,800 dollars per ton, that's a little over 6 billion dollars of platinum a year.
But if they then expand - say a couple of decades later - find ways to return tens of billions of dollars worth of platinum - and eventually - trillions of dollars worth of platinum - to completely overturn the platinum industry on Earth so you can only buy platinum at a reasonable price from the one or two US space mining companies - you are talking about a possible monopoly in space far greater than say Microsoft in computing.
That is because platinum is a very useful metal. It is the least reactive metal, inert up to 1000 degrees. Platinum . We'd surely use it for many things if it wasn't so rare on the Earth.
So if we have thousands of tons of platinum mined in space - it would soon become essential to entire industries here.
So, potentially if it really takes off - space mining could first destroy an entire industy on the Earth as it undermines terrestrial platinum mining so that it is no longer profitable.
Then after that it would make other industries increasingly dependent on resources from space as platinum gets built into more and more products as time goes on. It could even become as common and as widely used as say copper or iron.
Here are some of the ways platinum group metals are used in industry today: Applications - PMM - Industrial - PMM
And there are many other resources available in space, not just platinum.
So - I think myself that any legislation needs to recognize these things and plan ahead. Because if we establish the principle by precedent that any company can go into space, mine what they want, lay claim to small celestial bodies like NEOs, and then return it and sell it at whatever price they like with no requirement to share the profits - I think in the near term that will help boost the space mining industry.
But long term - I think it has a potential for an economic disaster dwarfing the 1973 oil crisis - which caused debts in third world countries that still hamper their development.
If the space mining enthusiasts are right in their projections about the future potential of their industry - then in this disaster then just about all countries on the Earth will become "third world" - if they don't have access to space mining.
Also even in space mining nations - if space mining really does take off and becomes an industry that generates much of the world's economy - as some think is possible as costs of going into space go down - then it would also impact on all the non space industries in the US, and other nations with space mining industries.
It has a potential to be calamitous for everyone - including the space mining industries themselves - as it is no benefit to them to destroy the economy of the Earth obviously. But they might not be able to stop themselves in a financially competitive environment in space.
Of course none of this might happen. Maybe space mining will never really take off in a big way. But if it does take off, then there is almost no limit to how much it can expand given that the resources in space of platinum and other precious metals especially, compared with those on Earth are pretty much inexhaustible once you have reasonably cheap transport in space.
So - I think two things need to be built in here.
But - if this doesn't work - what is your solution? You can't always rely on market forces to solve everything - as the recent financial crisis showed, as also the 1973 oil crisis.
I'd like to suggest a tax just for discussion. If this is not a good solution - then what is?
Perhaps the space mining companies are optimists and their industry will never be as big as this.
If so we don't need to worry about provisions, can set it to a token amount - maybe it is just 1% if the companies are earning a billion dollars in profit - and space mining company never earn enough to pay more than 1% of its income in tax in this way.
But if they do ever earn trillions that we have some provision and don't just run blindly into that possible future economic crisis.
Here is my suggestion, just for discussion, and based on the Norwegian model.
Though it's a different situation - still - seems to me that there is potential fora a similar situation to work in space. The difference is, that I suggest in space you do it in a graded way recognizing that start up mining companies in their first few years - until they return enough to break even - need to have a far lower level of tax or none at all.
I'd suggest - for discussion - also that
It is just one idea. I'm no economist either, not a lawyer or an economist.
A proper proposal would need to be worked out by working groups of many experts in both those areas and many other areas as well.
I can't see the US supporting a proposal like this actually - at least quite hard to get it through.
Though I can imagine something like this passing quite easily here in Europe where we already have many other things similar - especially in the UK.
But if this is no good in the US - they need to come up with something else that does work for them and for us.
Please note - this is just a "for instance". I'm not for a moment suggesting this seriously as future legislation. Rather - it is just as a talking point.
There must be many problems with this idea, as I'm not an expert in any of the areas I would need to be expert in
But then - what is the solution?
Something needs to be done - and I haven't yet read anything that directly addresses and solves this issue and until I do, then I'll continue to raise this point!
On the positive side - at present the space mining companies are asking for permission to mine whatever they want in space - but are giving nothing back to the rest of the world. Is a very one sided thing.
If they can work out some way to build in some return, like this, even if it is just 1% to start with - and some technology assistance as well so they are doing it in the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty - then surely they will have a much smoother ride ahead of them. If not a tax - call it something else - but something in return - and also some way of helping to ensure world financial stability if the space mining industry takes off in a big way.
Instead of constantly fighting other countries in the courts, if they show willingness, even a keen attitude, to work within the spirit of the OST, they could have all of us behind them.
So far only the Shackleton Energy Company has taken this approach. They actually want to return benefits - and the director foresees a future where no child ever has to grow up without the benefit of health and a proper education, world wide. He thinks that space industries can help make this future happen. And part of that is through some form of benefit and capability sharing.
Sadly Shackleton Energy Company hasn't really taken off yet.
If the other space mining companies had a similar attitude I think things would go much more smoothly. Still needs legislation of course, still have the problem of what form that legislation would take, but would be much less of an "us and them" type situation and easier to get a good solution probably.
So - no idea what the solution is and it will need careful detailed thought by both economists and lawyers to sort it out. But I'm sure that a simple claim by the US saying that the space mining companies will own whatever they bring back from space and be able to lay some claim to the asteroids themselves, especially smaller ones - this is never going to work as international law, surely!
There's also the moral argument - if you find a lump of platinum in space - is it yours?
So - that's a fundamental thing. If it belongs to all of humanity - then it is for all of us to work out how to use it in a fair and just way.
Which might well involve giving rights to companies to mine it. But as it doesn't belong to anyone already - you need some framework to give them those rights.
And the US can't give them those rights because they don't own the Moon or anything in space except their own vehicles, and possibly any habitats they build there. That is universally agreed by the Outer Space Treaty.
And being first to land on a celestial body doesn't give you any prior claims to it either. And passing a law within the US granting those rights has no international validity at all if the US doesn't have those rights already in the first place.
So - that's why it needs international law to sort out what to do.
So - then I'm saying here that this international law needs great care because it is an unprecedented situation.,
Is it indeed possible that space mining might generate profits so large that just one or two companies earn as much as the rest of the world put together? Not immediately but within two or three decades?
If so, well the world has never encountered a situation like that at all. Seems to me from past things we have encountered that there is at least some risk of major financial upheaval.
So, we need care and foresight. Workshops of experts looking at it carefully. Wide ranging discussion. Try to foresee and forestall things that are likely to go wrong. Not just build it up one law at a time with legislation passed individually by member nations without consultation with each other beforehand and with those laws not recognized by any other nation.
ATTEMPT TO PASS INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION AS LOCAL LEGISLATION WITHIN A SINGLE MEMBER STATE
For those reasons - I'd be surprised if it passes scrutiny at the later stages and goes into law, even in the US. This is just not the right way to attempt to do what the proposers are trying to achieve.
It does say that it will be limited by international law. So they are not overturning the Outer Space Treaty. But the OST treaty itself says that the resources in space are for the benefit of all of humanity.
"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.
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.
There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such investigation.
If the first to get to an asteroid is able to claim the resources of that asteroid for its own use, it's hard to see how that fits in with the requirement that it should be "free for use by all States without any discrimination of any kind".
For instance, by the time that, say, India has set up its own space mining companies, all the easy to access NEOs would already be claimed by US companies.
That's because, though there are many NEOs, some are far easier to get to and mine than others.
So by the time newcomers get into the business, the few NEOs that are easy to mine will be already taken, making it impossible for them to get started and be financially competitive with the established mining companies in space.
So - if it does get passed, then I think there is likely - at some stage down the line - to be controversy. And nobody outside the US would be bound by its provisions of course.
So - if passed - it amounts to the US unilaterally laying down new legislation regarding Outer Space utilization - rather than doing it internationally which surely is what they should do.
Of course there is a place for legislation about the behaviour of your own nationals in space. But I think this steps beyond the bounds of reasonable legislation of that type myself.
And if they want to add to international law, I don't think this is the right way to do it myself, to pass it first as legislation in your own country and then wait for other countries to challenge your claims - which they can't do in your own courts obviously.
What are other countries supposed to do if they object - pass new laws in China, Russia, India, Europe etc with conflicting requirements for space mining? Or challenge what is set up as an internal law within the US? Or put forward a competing resolution in the UN? I don't understand the concept behind this approach myself.
Also apart from that - I think there are issues for the US itself if they pass a law like this - not immediately but some time in the future it could cause major problems for them.
Not speaking as a lawyer here, just someone interested in the subject. As usual, this is not to be taken as legal advice.
NEED FOR BUILT IN PROTECTION OF WORLD ECONOMY FOR AN INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION OF THIS TYPE
Also - seems to me that there is a need for the US itself to protect itself against consequences of space mining. Those arguing for these kinds of rights - it's even controversial to say that if you mine a body - that you own the materials you bring back to Earth from it.
Because - if you are mining asteroids for the benefit of all humanity - as the OST says - then shouldn't there be some built in provisions for directly benefiting humanity into regulations about what you do with the materials you return?
It is okay to start with. If they spend a billion dollars setting up their operations and return two or three billion dollars worth of platinum - hardly going to shake the boat much.
The platinum industry mines about 150 tons a year, and at about 41,800 dollars per ton, that's a little over 6 billion dollars of platinum a year.
But if they then expand - say a couple of decades later - find ways to return tens of billions of dollars worth of platinum - and eventually - trillions of dollars worth of platinum - to completely overturn the platinum industry on Earth so you can only buy platinum at a reasonable price from the one or two US space mining companies - you are talking about a possible monopoly in space far greater than say Microsoft in computing.
That is because platinum is a very useful metal. It is the least reactive metal, inert up to 1000 degrees. Platinum . We'd surely use it for many things if it wasn't so rare on the Earth.
So if we have thousands of tons of platinum mined in space - it would soon become essential to entire industries here.
So, potentially if it really takes off - space mining could first destroy an entire industy on the Earth as it undermines terrestrial platinum mining so that it is no longer profitable.
Then after that it would make other industries increasingly dependent on resources from space as platinum gets built into more and more products as time goes on. It could even become as common and as widely used as say copper or iron.
Here are some of the ways platinum group metals are used in industry today: Applications - PMM - Industrial - PMM
And there are many other resources available in space, not just platinum.
So - I think myself that any legislation needs to recognize these things and plan ahead. Because if we establish the principle by precedent that any company can go into space, mine what they want, lay claim to small celestial bodies like NEOs, and then return it and sell it at whatever price they like with no requirement to share the profits - I think in the near term that will help boost the space mining industry.
But long term - I think it has a potential for an economic disaster dwarfing the 1973 oil crisis - which caused debts in third world countries that still hamper their development.
If the space mining enthusiasts are right in their projections about the future potential of their industry - then in this disaster then just about all countries on the Earth will become "third world" - if they don't have access to space mining.
Also even in space mining nations - if space mining really does take off and becomes an industry that generates much of the world's economy - as some think is possible as costs of going into space go down - then it would also impact on all the non space industries in the US, and other nations with space mining industries.
It has a potential to be calamitous for everyone - including the space mining industries themselves - as it is no benefit to them to destroy the economy of the Earth obviously. But they might not be able to stop themselves in a financially competitive environment in space.
Of course none of this might happen. Maybe space mining will never really take off in a big way. But if it does take off, then there is almost no limit to how much it can expand given that the resources in space of platinum and other precious metals especially, compared with those on Earth are pretty much inexhaustible once you have reasonably cheap transport in space.
WHAT MAY BE NEEDED
So - I think two things need to be built in here.
- That the space mining companies have to share their technology - not necessarily that they give their technology itself - but rather - like mobile phones technology - and jet planes technology - that they share access to the technology with other countries so that it is feasible for them to also launch space mining missions and not, e.g. give preferential treatment to US businesses.
- That there is some built in financial return to the rest of the world, not just the space mining host nation, as well as built in financial return to the space mining host nation itself.
This can be zero to start with. Or a token amount, say 1%.
But if ever in the future it becomes a multi trillion dollar industry, dwarfing any company we have on the Earth - has to be some provision built in that will prevent a few space companies from financially dominating the entire Earth.
But - if this doesn't work - what is your solution? You can't always rely on market forces to solve everything - as the recent financial crisis showed, as also the 1973 oil crisis.
I'd like to suggest a tax just for discussion. If this is not a good solution - then what is?
SUGGESTION FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Perhaps the space mining companies are optimists and their industry will never be as big as this.
If so we don't need to worry about provisions, can set it to a token amount - maybe it is just 1% if the companies are earning a billion dollars in profit - and space mining company never earn enough to pay more than 1% of its income in tax in this way.
But if they do ever earn trillions that we have some provision and don't just run blindly into that possible future economic crisis.
Here is my suggestion, just for discussion, and based on the Norwegian model.
- Tax starts at some token level, based on profit, at a level of 0% for no profit ramping up to say 1% for an income of $1 billion dollars a year, and ramps up further as the space economy increases - if that happens.
- If there is a risk of undermining an entire industry - such as for instance producing more platinum from space than the entire world production - some relief measures need to be built in to protect the ground based industries - for instance, perhaps they get platinum from space at a reduced price which they can resell - or finance to help restructure and convert their businesses or to help the people affected find new livelihoods and the countries affected to find new sources of income to fill the gap created by the collapse of their income from platinum.
Whatever - must give this some thought. Can't just start space mining for platinum, and a few years later when you start to return hundreds of tons of platinum - the Earth platinum industry just collapses without any provisions to help those affected. - If it ever gets to the point where say 50% of the world's economy is from a few mining companies in space - so they are earning many trillions of dollars a year, and instead of billionaires as we have now - you begin to get multi-trillionaires - then I think it is reasonable to require that they return say 75% of their profits to non space mining nations and companies.
If you are skeptical that this will ever happen - well fine - then it is just a regulation that got added by cautious people - that never gets applied. Shouldn't be a problem if this future never happens. - If we ever get to the point where say 90% of the world economy is dominated by space mining - then maybe 90 or 95% or even more of the space mining profits returned as tax to be used for large scale projects that benefit the whole of humanity - and as a safety net for hardship - and for welfare and health and education - and to help support competing Earth based industries - and to also help with the peaceful exploration and utilization of space by the whole of humanity.
And following the Norwegian model - rather than just spend it right away - it gets put into a "space mining" fund which gradually builds up and then is used to support projects on the Earth and in space as it builds up, as well as used to invest in ethical industries, in addition to funding various projects - all based on similar model to Norway - as that seems likely to work far better than just spending the money right away - tempting though it would be to do that.
Though it's a different situation - still - seems to me that there is potential fora a similar situation to work in space. The difference is, that I suggest in space you do it in a graded way recognizing that start up mining companies in their first few years - until they return enough to break even - need to have a far lower level of tax or none at all.
I'd suggest - for discussion - also that
- the tax is based on the total income from space mining rather than income on a per company level - to avoid evading it by setting up lots of smaller companies - and of course great care to make sure it can't be evaded by "Hollywood accounting" type methods.
- a new on the scene space company is free from tax until they break even
- Space mining companies have tax breaks with lower tax for the first few years of their operation after that.
It is just one idea. I'm no economist either, not a lawyer or an economist.
A proper proposal would need to be worked out by working groups of many experts in both those areas and many other areas as well.
I can't see the US supporting a proposal like this actually - at least quite hard to get it through.
Though I can imagine something like this passing quite easily here in Europe where we already have many other things similar - especially in the UK.
But if this is no good in the US - they need to come up with something else that does work for them and for us.
Please note - this is just a "for instance". I'm not for a moment suggesting this seriously as future legislation. Rather - it is just as a talking point.
There must be many problems with this idea, as I'm not an expert in any of the areas I would need to be expert in
But then - what is the solution?
Something needs to be done - and I haven't yet read anything that directly addresses and solves this issue and until I do, then I'll continue to raise this point!
POSITIVE SIDE TO THIS SUGGESTION
On the positive side - at present the space mining companies are asking for permission to mine whatever they want in space - but are giving nothing back to the rest of the world. Is a very one sided thing.
If they can work out some way to build in some return, like this, even if it is just 1% to start with - and some technology assistance as well so they are doing it in the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty - then surely they will have a much smoother ride ahead of them. If not a tax - call it something else - but something in return - and also some way of helping to ensure world financial stability if the space mining industry takes off in a big way.
Instead of constantly fighting other countries in the courts, if they show willingness, even a keen attitude, to work within the spirit of the OST, they could have all of us behind them.
So far only the Shackleton Energy Company has taken this approach. They actually want to return benefits - and the director foresees a future where no child ever has to grow up without the benefit of health and a proper education, world wide. He thinks that space industries can help make this future happen. And part of that is through some form of benefit and capability sharing.
Sadly Shackleton Energy Company hasn't really taken off yet.
If the other space mining companies had a similar attitude I think things would go much more smoothly. Still needs legislation of course, still have the problem of what form that legislation would take, but would be much less of an "us and them" type situation and easier to get a good solution probably.
AT ANY RATE CAN'T SEE A SIMPLE CLAIM LIKE THIS BY THE US GOVERNMENT WORKING FOR FAR INTO THE FUTURE
So - no idea what the solution is and it will need careful detailed thought by both economists and lawyers to sort it out. But I'm sure that a simple claim by the US saying that the space mining companies will own whatever they bring back from space and be able to lay some claim to the asteroids themselves, especially smaller ones - this is never going to work as international law, surely!
MORAL ARGUMENT
There's also the moral argument - if you find a lump of platinum in space - is it yours?
So - that's a fundamental thing. If it belongs to all of humanity - then it is for all of us to work out how to use it in a fair and just way.
Which might well involve giving rights to companies to mine it. But as it doesn't belong to anyone already - you need some framework to give them those rights.
And the US can't give them those rights because they don't own the Moon or anything in space except their own vehicles, and possibly any habitats they build there. That is universally agreed by the Outer Space Treaty.
And being first to land on a celestial body doesn't give you any prior claims to it either. And passing a law within the US granting those rights has no international validity at all if the US doesn't have those rights already in the first place.
So - that's why it needs international law to sort out what to do.
So - then I'm saying here that this international law needs great care because it is an unprecedented situation.,
Is it indeed possible that space mining might generate profits so large that just one or two companies earn as much as the rest of the world put together? Not immediately but within two or three decades?
If so, well the world has never encountered a situation like that at all. Seems to me from past things we have encountered that there is at least some risk of major financial upheaval.
So, we need care and foresight. Workshops of experts looking at it carefully. Wide ranging discussion. Try to foresee and forestall things that are likely to go wrong. Not just build it up one law at a time with legislation passed individually by member nations without consultation with each other beforehand and with those laws not recognized by any other nation.
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