International Perspectives on Space Resource Rights, op Ed, Space News
“If the U.S. space resources law were about claiming territory, or an assertion of sovereignty or appropriation of “celestial land,” there would be a case for opponents to invoke Article II that prohibits such actions. But it isn’t; the U.S. law is simply about confirming and codifying the rights for U.S. private citizens/companies to peacefully explore, extract and own resources extracted, just like the U.S. and Soviet governments did back in the 1960s and 1970s, and just like China, India and other countries intend to do in the coming years through government and private missions.”
New Law Unlikely To Settle Debate on Space Resource Rights, Space News
“Even some people within the U.S. government have raised questions about the law. “I’m not sure that the U.S. Congress can pass a law that authorizes American citizens to go do something” like claim rights to space resources, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said at a Dec. 1 meeting of the NASA Advisory Council at the Johnson Space Center, when asked by a council member about the new law.”
Keith’s note: NASA is trying to un-spin Bolden’s comments – but this is not a gaff. He has said this to others before. He does not understand/and or agree with the concepts involved, what Congress supported, and what his boss signed into law.
– Bolden Says ARM Is About Planetary Defense But Not Protecting Earth, earlier post
– Asteroid Retrieval Is Not The Prime Intent of NASA’s Asteroid Retrieval Mission, earlier post
– Bolden’s Confusing Asteroid Mission Rationale, earlier post
– Earlier posts on Bolden and asteroids

Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member...

16 replies on “Bolden's Confusing Stance On Asteroids”

  1. People can claim meteorites if they land on their property, right? It seems like if you brought something back as a result of asteroid mining, and landed it on your property, you could then claim the resources as your property.

    1. Interesting point. Indeed, you can use your roof to capture them from rain water – capture the water in a barrel and use a strong magnet to attract the metallic ones.

      1. Check your local state, county, and city ordinances for rainwater collection regulations, though I suppose you could drain out the rainwater and keep the dirt.

        3. we have a local ordinance about letting rain water stand until evaporation .. in the summer it is a breeding ground for mosquitoes so you are suppose to use it as quick as possible.

          1. My home built rain barrel has mosquito netting over the top to prevent this problem. I never thought to check any of the debris that collects on top of the netting to see if it was metallic.

    2. Meteorites do belong to the land owner and that is consistent with the legal view of Celestial Bodies in the OST. Basically when a meteorite impacts Earth it, by definition, ceases to be a Celestial Body and belongs to the owner of the land on the Earth it lands on. If it is federal land, it is considered Federal Property under the Antiquities Act of 1906. The Barstow Meteorite settled that in the 1970’s.

      http://www.desertdiscoveryc…

      “Since the meteorite was on public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the prospectors filed a mining claim on the site. To their disappointment they learned that meteorites were not a locatable mineral as defined by the mining law. Instead, under the provisions of the Antiquities Act, meteorites found on public land were considered objects of scientific interest and therefore should go to the Smithsonian Institution.”

      If private land than it belongs to the private land owner.

  2. Despite all the claims about how the OST is clear cut and allows extraction and selling of asteroid resources, there still seems to be some confusion (or outright difference of opinion) about what is allowed and what is not. If that is happening now, I can only imagine what will emerge from the woodwork once some entity actually is successful in extracting extraterrestrial resources and (heaven forbid) starts making a profit from it.

    1. there still seems to be some confusion (or outright difference of opinion) about what is allowed and what is not.

      No really. There’s a couple of DC lawyers who have taken a particularly restrictive stand on OST which has convinced certain journalists that “there’s debate”, which lazy journalists love. In part, these lawyers have just used their opinion on OST as a way of marketing their services as “space lawyers” in more mundane areas (like negotiating rights to GEO slots.)

      The general consensus is that laws like the recent Act are fine, and indeed are required to regulate NGO activity that the US has jurisdiction over. But sometimes being right doesn’t make up for those who are wrong but have the right access.

      1. Exactly. They have revised Article 2 into meaning something the writers of the OST never intended. They have no foundation for their arguments in the original legal literature.

        The U.S. and Russia has treated space materials as property since Apollo. No nation has complained. Indeed 135 nations gladly accept the good will rocks the U.S. gave them and consider them their national property.

  3. Actually the legal literature of the 1960’s, written by those involved in the OST did discuss the meaning of Article 2 in regards to mining space resources and both the U.S. and Russia have handled their lunar samples in ways that are in agreement with that legal view, and no nation have in the last 46 years have objected. It is only in recent decades when some folks, hung up on a view of space based on the Wild West of myth, have decided there needs to be Real Property rights in space for mining to take place that the confusion has emerged.

    So the confusion is not because the legal community at the time wasn’t thinking about space resources, it is because many folks today haven’t clue about what was written about the OST, or discussed in OST Senate Hearings, at the time it was written and ratified.

    As for sending troops to the Moon or dropping rocks… If they had that capability they would be mining space resources on their own 🙂

    1. the legal literature of the 1960’s, written by those involved in the OST did discuss the meaning of Article 2 in regards to mining space resources

      Any on-line sources for this?

      1. Probably not. The ones I found when I was doing my research in the 1990’s were in proceedings and journals in law libraries at major law schools with programs in international law. The type of stuff modern librarians don’t consider important enough to digitize because it is so “old”.

  4. It is not clear to me that the recently passed law has any practical effect except to get some publicity for the sponsors. The only point I can see at which a dispute over space resources would arise would be if companies from two different countries attempted to mine the same asteroid. This might result in an international legal dispute. Such a case might be resolved much as disputes over marine resources (fish, oil, etc) are resolved, which is to say, slowly if at all. Bolden’s comments reflect the uncertainty, but legally it has little or nothing to do with NASA so he is under no obligation to formulate a policy.

    1. You didn’t mention (but I’m sure had in mind) the fact that two companies wanting the same rock is- well, silly, there being untold millions of asteroids for the taking. I suppose a particular rock in a particular orbit could be particularly desirable, but still.

      I look forward to the day when the asteroid belt is mind out. In maybe 10,000+ AD. At that point humanity will be indescribably wealthy.

Comments are closed.