Outer Space Treaty | Hacker News Reader

Outer Space Treaty

en.wikipedia.org

33 pointsshaaaaawn15 comments

> The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet, claiming that they are the common heritage of mankind.

Interesting that this applies in outer space, but not on Earth...

Until somebody manages to set up a long term camp on the Moon. It's the nature of humanity.

I doubt the Moon-Colony Lobby will have much pull with local governments.

The real question is if the local governments will have any reach...

The reverse trajectory though is significantly simpler.[0]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver#Mass_drivers_as_we...

> Interesting that this applies in outer space, but not on Earth...

To be fair, this also applies to Antarctica. And of course, the rest of the world was already claimed by the time we truly had a 'globalized' world.

It is unlikely this would ever be enforceable once there are permanent settlements on the moon or elsewhere as they could always secede from the UN and any country they were once involved with. Once they claimed independence, weaponizing orbital equipment would be the only real way to displace them (which would also violate the treaty).

It is more likely to end up like The Expanse series where Mars and then the other planets claim independence from Earth.

It would be foolish to declare independence before being self-supporting, which is a very long way in the future.

Like fully half-generation away?

It's really hard to make predictions of that sort, I think.

Also interesting that this really only prevents governments from claiming resources. What about companies or people?

I would imagine that companies and people would also be prohibited from making these claims.

But I do believe that is going to be ineffective for the future. Progress would be very slow if there is nothing to claim on Mars, or another celestial body for that manner.

A very interesting discussion, as I do see this treaty changing in the future, but whether it will be country oriented or market oriented will be the big question that defines humanity's voyage outside earth

The Moon Treaty explicitly forbade private property on the moon, but by implication it means that private property is still possible under the Outer Space Treaty.

Also, the United States did not ratify the Moon Treaty. It is in force for the 13 signatory nations, but none are space powers.

More: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a3358/426432...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1025529

Undoubtedly this will lead to Space Pirates of the Mark Watney (The Martian) kind:

“I’ve been thinking about laws on Mars. There’s an international treaty saying that no country can lay claim to anything that’s not on Earth. By another treaty if you’re not in any country’s territory, maritime law aplies. So Mars is international waters. Now, NASA is an American non-military organization, it owns the Hab. But the second I walk outside I’m in international waters. So Here’s the cool part. I’m about to leave for the Schiaparelli Crater where I’m going to commandeer the Ares IV lander. Nobody explicitly gave me permission to do this, and they can’t until on board the Ares IV. So I’m going to be taking a craft over in international waters without permission, which by definition… makes me a pirate. Mark Watney: Space Pirate.”

I'm the author of a book about a space pirate so I got a particular thrill about that moment in the book/movie. (The Dread Space Pirate Richard.)

Given that no one has real "people based" access to anything beyond earth, I find it incredibly egotistical to have a space treaty. I think perhaps it is driven more from "If anyone gets there before me I still want a piece of it if they get there before me"

I have no doubt that once a nation, Company, top 1% elite get somewhere out there in space, their language will change and they will say it belongs to them.

Look at Antartica ... it has already been divided up into regions more or less belonging to different nations despite the retoric.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com