This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Important Space Competitiveness Bill Passed

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
November 10, 2015
Filed under
Important Space Competitiveness Bill Passed

Joint Commerce Committee Statement on Senate Passage of Bill to Boost Competitiveness of U.S. Space Industry
“U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.), Ranking Member Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), and Space, Science, and Competitiveness Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Space, Science, and Competitiveness Subcommittee Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-Mich.) issued the following statements on the passage of H.R. 2262, the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, a bicameral, bipartisan bill that encourages competitiveness, reflects the needs of a modern-day U.S. commercial space industry, and guarantees operation of the International Space Station until at least 2024. The bill builds on key elements in S. 1297 that the Commerce Committee approved earlier this year and passed the Senate on August 4, 2015.”
Planetary Resources Applauds U.S. Congress in Recognizing Asteroid Resource Property Rights, Planetary Resources
McCarthy, Smith Praise Passage of Commercial Space Legislation
CSF Applauds Senate Passage of Bipartisan Commercial Space Legislation, Commercial Spaceflight Federation
New Law Enables Commercial Exploration and Use of Space Resources, Deep Space Industries

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

11 responses to “Important Space Competitiveness Bill Passed”

  1. Jeff Smith says:
    0
    0

    Whoa, that’s kinda a big deal.

    Jim, do you want to weigh in on this, or would you rather save your war stories for Space Access?

    • jamesmuncy says:
      0
      0

      (Snore.) Whaa…

      (Opens eyes a crack to see who woke him up)

      Actually, I would prefer to forget most of the sordid details of how we got this across the finish line. And now, back to my nap.

  2. richard_schumacher says:
    0
    0

    Feh. If they were serious they’d kill SLS and fund more commercial space.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      Instead they added language directing NASA to use SLS for missions beyond LEO. Not even just manned flights, but support missions for those flights, and for science payloads.

      [Aside: It shouldn’t be too restrictive. It merely replaces similar language that related to requiring NASA to use the shuttle, but is worded slightly more softly. However, it gives the SLS-defenders in Congress another plank to hit NASA with.]

  3. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    I saw elsewhere that the bill also includes language relating to who ones ore taken from an asteroid– the mining company. No idea if this is new policy, but it has been discussed here before.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      SFAIK no claim can be made on an asteroid itself, only on materials removed from it. Whether even this is consistent with existing treaties is unclear. Also there is the matter of transportation cost and profitability; until there is an actual space-based manufacturing industry the only customers would be back on Earth.

      • majormajor42 says:
        0
        0

        How about… I get to an Asteroid (or the Moon). I spend a lot of money to dig a hole to get to the good $tuff I want to mine. I get about 20% of what is there and take it back home and sell on Earth. Great. But then someone else goes up before I can get back and goes straight to my hole and grabs some $tuff for themselves.

        So I can’t make claim to my hole on the asteroid that I invested in?

        Do I have to stay there and squat to prevent anyone else from taking advantage of my own sweat?

        Do I have to have a human there or can robots maintain my presence?

        What is stopping someone else from swooping in and just operating alongside me without my permission even if I am there, since I cannot make claim to the “land”?

        I think there needs to be some sort of way to claim the “land” perhaps temporarily.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          First, the number of entities with the deep pockets for asteroid mining will be limited, basically startups like Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries or the large mining firms. So its not going to be like the old western movies where crooks driven west by law enforcement are hiding behind every rock to rob lone prospectors of the mine.

          The major mining firms are already used to working out deals between themselves when it comes to mining issues like this, and I expect firms like Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries will just join the fold and work out professional agreements on issues like this.

          Quite honestly it is just not in the interest of a firm investing billions of dollars in space mining to steal from another firm’s mining site. If would be far easier just to work out a royalty deal or simply identify a new site.

          But in terms of the space treaties (other than the Moon Treaty the U.S. did not sign) this is where the very strong Chattel protections are important. Basically as long as you leave equipment behind the non-inference provisions of Article IX of the OST apply which means they must keep a respectful distance from your equipment. This is what protects the lunar rovers, Surveyor and Apollo Landing sites from other nations destroying them.

          So if anyone did violate your working area the State Department would file a claim on your behalf if they are a foreign entity. If its another domestic one you could just sue them under the OST which is part of the U.S. Code. However in practice the FAA AST already indicated in the case of Bigelow Aerospace it would not issue launch licenses to firms that have the intention of visiting locations that other entities, U.S. and foreign, are operating in, so they would also be in violation of their launch license.

          The only real danger is that one of the Moon Treaty nations try to grab it under
          the belief the Moon Treaty gives them absolute ownership of the resources on
          Celestial Bodies. This of course only applies to the 16 Moon Treaty nations, not to the vast majority of nations like the U.S. Russia
          and China that rejected the Moon Treaty. But if they did so they would be in violation of both the Vienna Convention and the provisions of the other space treaties that prohibit interference with the locations of Celestial Bodies where other space entities are working or have worked.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Exactly so and an important clarification.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        It is consistent with the both the space treaties the U.S. has signed along with how NASA (and Russia) have treated lunar samples. It simply clarifies that the rights the U.S. government has to space resources also applies to its nationals.