Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 556

Thread: Gold Mining on The Moon

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    None of this " academic discussion "adresses the severely poisonous nature of gold refining and the repercussions of doing this on the moon.
    Imagine contaminating the habitat for crews with cyanide ?
    But why would you need to let the crew anywhere near cyanide? The mining equipment is going to be teleoperated anyway, and the processing installation needs to be air-tight to recover water and Hg for reuse (#60). If the crew needs to fix something, residuals can be trivially vented into space.

    And there's no ecosystem to worry about!

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    Annual production on Planet Earth is in the neighborhood of 2,000 tons per year. So producing 50 to 100 tons per year cvould easily be absorbed by the market without depressing prices due to over
    -supply.
    Fine, fine, now about that Bush quote?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Dude, for the 3RD TIME:

    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    POST #50


    BTW, here's the link where I saw where the Bush adminstration was considering withdrawing from the OST, but I can't find any confirmation of Sietzen's statement as of yet.

    http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/102504bd1.htm

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    Dude, for the 3RD TIME:
    Sorry missed that. Well if he is correct I'm guessing the review concluded it was a bad plan, and certainly not worth it for 50 tonnes of gold a year is it?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,605
    Hernalt mentioned a theory that gold and some other heavy elements are prevalent in the Earth's crust by delivery from comets in this post:

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....23#post1826523

    Just saw this article related to this theory:

    Lucky strike gave Earth its gold.
    19:00 09 December 2010 by Michael Marshall
    "Prospectors who lost out in the gold rush probably wouldn't agree but Earth has more gold than it should. The shiny stuff is one of several metals that are puzzlingly common. Now it seems a last-minute bombardment, after Earth formed, may have supplied these extra elements."
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-its-gold.html

    However, the puzzling aspect of the theory was that the Moon should also contain these elements due to such impacts but the Apollo lunar rocks were more than a thousand times depleted in them compared to what was on Earth. The research discussed in the article is on an attempt to explain why these elements such as gold weren't present on the Moon. But perhaps these heavy elements are in fact present as suggested by LCROSS, just concentrated in shadowed craters on the Moon. It's a still a mystery though why the heavy elements such as gold should be concentrated in this fashion. The idea is that for volatiles such as water they gradually get concentrated by vaporizing in the portions of the Moon exposed to sunlight. Over time the water molecules can wind up at the poles, but then don't get moved back because of no or insufficient insolation there. But gold would not be vaporized by sunlight so this mechanism should not apply to it.



    Bob Clark

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,464
    Most investors would not regard gold on the Moon as currency until there were places where the gold could be shipped at reasonable cost, and those places need to have buyers of gold. In 40 years, maybe, but the past 40 years are not encouraging for the value of Moon assets. Investors would also be suspicious that the gold did not exist, since they could not go and check for themselves. Sort of like; if you pay your tithing you will go to heaven = faith. Gold stockpiled on the Moon would have some present value, but likely not enough value to justify the present high cost of extracting it from the possibly rare locations on the moon where it is several percent of the soil. Neil

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    So; it is quite vague, but it's enough to convince me that anybody doing any kind of resource mining better be using it for research, spreading the wealth or using it for further exploration.
    Yes, but if they do this for profit, then what? It's not like the treaty prohibits mining. There's a long way between breaking spirit of the law and letter of the law. (*) The former is legal, the latter is not. I'd posit that a commercial mining operation does not technically violate the treaty, subject to minor caveats (i.e. allowing outside inspections). The actual problem posed by the treaty is somewhere else:

    Suppose that party A develops a deposit located in the crater X. Because of the treaty, A cannot claim ownership of X, hence, it cannot stop B landing on the opposite side of the crater and digging from the other side. Now, that may upset A's business plan, because the available reserves have just shrunk by whatever amount B may extract. The upside is that they can't start shooting at each other. On the other hand, a tragic accident involving A's spent rocket stage and B's habitat is not impossible (**) -- but it would be an unlikely last recourse.

    But, if I was investor in A, I wouldn't worry about it too much. The first mining operator will have enough technological advantage, that it will run business for years unchallenged. When the second actor (B) appears, a backroom deal along the lines of "you stay off my stuff, I stay off your stuff" would likely be reached. The Moon, fortunately, is quite large and has several coldtraps. Only when more parties came to the table would the problem actually manifest. By that time however, politicians would see a new, unprecedented opportunity to regulate something, and negotiate some new treaty governing lunar mining.

    (*) I am not really sure the spirit of the treaty precludes mining. It precludes laying exclusive claim to resources.
    (**) I got that idea from someone in another thread.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
    Yes, but if they do this for profit, then what? It's not like the treaty prohibits mining. There's a long way between breaking spirit of the law and letter of the law. The former is legal, the latter is not. I'd posit that a commercial mining operation does not technically violate the treaty, subject to minor caveats (i.e. allowing outside inspections). The actual problem posed by the treaty is somewhere else:

    Suppose that party A develops a deposit located in the crater X. Because of the treaty, A cannot claim ownership of X, hence, it cannot stop B landing on the opposite side of the crater and digging from the other side. Now, that may upset A's business plan, because the available reserves have just shrunk by whatever amount B may extract. The upside is that they can't start shooting at each other. On the other side, a tragic accident involving A's spent rocket stage and B's habitat is not impossible -- but it would be an unlikely last recourse.

    On the other hand, if I was investor in A, I wouldn't worry about it too much. The first mining operator will have enough technological advantage, that it will run business for years unchallenged. When the second actor (B) appears, a backroom deal along the lines of "you stay off my stuff, I stay off your stuff" would likely be reached. The Moon, fortunately, is quite large and has several coldtraps. Only when more parties came to the table would the problem actually manifest. By that time however, politicians would see an opportunity to regulate something, and negotiate some new treaty governing lunar mining.
    That's all very logical and rational; now if you could just point me to any time when international politics has been either of those things...? More likely this would be a disaster waiting to happen. All parties would be seeking monopolize control of the available resources to guarantee future profits, everybody would be hiring 'security consultants' and with a little creativity I'm sure they would have an arsenal of weapons waiting 'just in case'. And all of this so someone can move Lunar gold into nice useless little piles and people on Earth can trade bits of paper that say they own the piles.
    Even if there isn't violence it's a dead end plan; the gold will become to expensive to mine eventually as stocks dwindle and your bases will become 21st century ghost towns.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by neilzero View Post
    Most investors would not regard gold on the Moon as currency until there were places where the gold could be shipped at reasonable cost, and those places need to have buyers of gold.
    Those places do not need to have buyers. If I want to buy gold, all I need as proof that I own the gold is some sort of certificate--just like the old fashioned dollar bills: they were literally certificates redeemable for gold. But hardly anybody would redeem them for gold, because why would they want the risk and costs associated with taking delivery of the gold? France in 1932 was an exception, but even though they redeemed who-knows-how-many-millions, they did not require delivery of the gold, and were content to keep earmarked gold bars stored in Fort Knox, or wherever.

    So that's the way it would be on the Moon. Each gold bar would be assayed, certified, and then stamped with a unique identification code. So when someone wanted to by some Lunar gold, a particular gold bar would be earmarked in their name, and it would belong to them. When they decided to sell, the earmark would be transferred to the new buyer. No need to move the bars around. Just like on the Island of Stone Money.

    Investors would also be suspicious that the gold did not exist, since they could not go and check for themselves. Sort of like; if you pay your tithing you will go to heaven = faith.
    No, it's more like presuming that you can just waltz into Fort Knox in order to county their inventory. Doesn't happen on Earth; no need for it to happen on the Moon.

    Gold stockpiled on the Moon would have some present value, but likely not enough value to justify the present high cost of extracting it from the possibly rare locations on the moon where it is several percent of the soil. Neil
    One could argue just the opposite--that Lunar gold would command a premium and be worth more than gold bullion on Earth. Especially if 1 troy ounce "Lunes" were minted.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    SALESPERSON: Care to buy a lunar gold cetificate, sir?

    CUSTOMER: What's the difference between this and a normal gold certificate?

    SALESPERSON: It's just like a normal gold certificate, except that if you want the gold, you have to go to the moon to get it.

    CUSTOMER: Err...I think I'll pass on that.

    SALESPERSON: But it's just as good as a normal gold certificate!

    CUSTOMER: Except for the whole moon thing.

    SALESPERSON: But it doesn't matter! Hardly anyone ever hands in their certificate for real gold.

    CUSTOMER: But the fact is I could if I wanted to, which is sort of the point. No one is going to buy lunar gold certificates when they can get a normal earth one for the same price.

    SALESPERSON: How about I give you a discount?

    CUSTOMER: By giving a discount you are making it obvious that it is not as good as a normal gold certificate. And how much of a discount do you think you would have to give for it to become worthwhile for people to buy them? Let me give you an earthly example. Would you want to buy a gold certificate that represents the gold in a billion litres of sea water? After all, the gold is definitely there, it's just really hard to get to, just like your moon gold. Currently, just like with sea water, the cost of collecting your gold is more than the gold is worth, this means your lunar gold is worth nothing.

    SALESPERSON: Well then, can I interest you in some helium 3 futures, or perhaps some Czarist bonds, or possibly a time share on a nice bridge in Brooklyn?

    CUSTOMER: No thanks.

    SALESPERSON: If you cut me in, I could shift some of those sea water gold certificates for you...

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    10,014
    LOL !!!! Reminds me of a skit on Sesame street. Lefty Capaldi to Kermit the Frog : " ..... Hey ...... Bud , How'd ys like to buy .....
    a lunar gold certificate ! "
    " A lunar Gold Certificate? "
    " Uh.... yeah..... right...right ! "

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,344
    Ronald, sounds like a good joke with wits!

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,686
    After thinking about it, if you don't want to bring the gold back, how do you convince the buyer that the gold even exists? In fact, it would be less work to set up Moon Gold Hoax, complete with live HDTV feed from a "lunar" foundry. If someone wants actual delivery, just buy gold on LME, recast, and send to them. The net result would be the same.

    On the other hand, if you do bring the gold back, the buyer does not care where it comes from.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
    After thinking about it, if you don't want to bring the gold back, how do you convince the buyer that the gold even exists? In fact, it would be less work to set up Moon Gold Hoax, complete with live HDTV feed from a "lunar" foundry. If someone wants actual delivery, just buy gold on LME, recast, and send to them. The net result would be the same.

    On the other hand, if you do bring the gold back, the buyer does not care where it comes from.
    But that's going to expensive and complex to do, and if you've torn up the OST to do it the other nations might treat Lunar gold like conflict diamonds so selling it legitimately could become an issue wherever it is. And yes there are ways around that, if the US wanted to behave like some third world dictatorship.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak View Post
    SALESPERSON: Care to buy a lunar gold cetificate, sir?

    CUSTOMER: What's the difference between this and a normal gold certificate?

    SALESPERSON: It's just like a normal gold certificate, except that if you want the gold, you have to go to the moon to get it.

    CUSTOMER: Err...I think I'll pass on that.

    SALESPERSON: But it's just as good as a normal gold certificate!

    CUSTOMER: Except for the whole moon thing.

    SALESPERSON: But it doesn't matter! Hardly anyone ever hands in their certificate for real gold.

    CUSTOMER: But the fact is I could if I wanted to, which is sort of the point. No one is going to buy lunar gold certificates when they can get a normal earth one for the same price.

    SALESPERSON: How about I give you a discount?

    CUSTOMER: By giving a discount you are making it obvious that it is not as good as a normal gold certificate. And how much of a discount do you think you would have to give for it to become worthwhile for people to buy them? Let me give you an earthly example. Would you want to buy a gold certificate that represents the gold in a billion litres of sea water? After all, the gold is definitely there, it's just really hard to get to, just like your moon gold. Currently, just like with sea water, the cost of collecting your gold is more than the gold is worth, this means your lunar gold is worth nothing.

    SALESPERSON: Well then, can I interest you in some helium 3 futures, or perhaps some Czarist bonds, or possibly a time share on a nice bridge in Brooklyn?

    CUSTOMER: No thanks.

    SALESPERSON: If you cut me in, I could shift some of those sea water gold certificates for you...
    Haha. Very funny Ronald. There are a couple of disanalogies in your little skit, however. I can buy gold certificates from the Perth mint even though Perth might as well be on another planet as far as I'm concerned--it's that far away. That's not quite the same as buying the gold in a bunch of dirt in the Austrailian Outback, is it? I could buy a share of some ore by buying stock in the gold mining company. You are seriously mistaken if you thing that buying shares in Newmont Mining is identical to buying a gold certificate from the Perth Mint....

    Nowadays, the whole point of a gold certificate is to avoid the risks and costs of having to pay for armed guards, your own personal vault, alarm systems, insurance, non-trivial shipping costs from a place like Perth Australia, a rapacious bid-ask spread, etc.

    In any case, if I was stupid enough to want to exchange my Perth gold certificate for real gold, I wouldn't want to magnify that stupidity by having the gold shipped all the way from Australia--I would simply exchange the Perth gold certificate for real gold from an American dealer.

    The fact that you think that delivery is necessary for something to count as money demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of money itself. Do you have a bank account, or do you keep all of your money in cash in a coffee can buried in the back yard? The whole point of a bank account is NOT that you can cash in your entire account for $100 bills in case you get dementia and think that would be a good idea.

    If you aren't just out to yank my chain, then you need to read the Milton Friedman paper that I linked to earlier.

    In any case, if there's a Lunar infrastructure developed enough to enable Lunar gold mining, the shipping costs will run roughly 10% of the value of the gold. If the bullion was shipped in the form of 1 ounce gold coins, these coins would command a premium that would more than pay for the shipping costs.

    Furthermore, there might be other reasons for wanting to invest in Lunar gold stored in a vault on the Moon: it would be the Mother of all off-shore bank accounts. . . .

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
    But that's going to expensive and complex to do, and if you've torn up the OST to do it the other nations might treat Lunar gold like conflict diamonds so selling it legitimately could become an issue wherever it is. And yes there are ways around that, if the US wanted to behave like some third world dictatorship.
    There's a big difference. No one would be harmed if the US of A withdrew from the OST.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
    After thinking about it, if you don't want to bring the gold back, how do you convince the buyer that the gold even exists? In fact, it would be less work to set up Moon Gold Hoax, complete with live HDTV feed from a "lunar" foundry.
    Not quite. You're arguing that it would be easier to fake going to the Moon at all, rather than to really go there. Give me a break!

    How do you know that there are 8,000+ tonnes of gold in Fort Knox? Have you been there? Have you even seen an HDTV feed from "Fort" Knox??? The fact that 8 billion people aren't allowed to waltz through the vaults at Fort Knox to verify for themselves doesn't prevent the US of A from listing that gold on its balance sheet. Why do you suppose that is?

    If someone wants actual delivery, just buy gold on LME, recast, and send to them. The net result would be the same.
    Bingo: why exchange a Perth Gold Certificate for Australian gold when you can exchange the same cedrtificate for local gold.... So you really do understand how money works.

    On the other hand, if you do bring the gold back, the buyer does not care where it comes from.
    Nobody cares where the gold comes from--nor does anybody care where it's stored.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    There's a big difference. No one would be harmed if the US of A withdrew from the OST.
    I was referring to the problems of trying to sell the gold if the rest of the UN decided to put it under sanctions along the lines of conflict diamonds actually. As for withdrawing from the OST I suspect in the narrow sense you might be right, in broader diplomatic terms probably completely wrong.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Please expand. What is the harm? It can't be that the US might decide to go ahead and weaponize space: that horse left the barn a long time ago. When the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty, nothing happened.

    You've got to think about how and why the OST was drawn up in the first place. It has a little of everything to make everybody happy--at that time.

    Back then, socialism was a popular political philosophy among some nations, so the "common heritage of mankind" language implying that space resources are to be shared among the world's poor and technologically deprived nations pleased them and was a feather in the Soviet cap therefore.

    Meanwhile, the non-appropriation clause made the US happy because it allowed a graceful exit strategy from the space race: the main concern in the late 1950's and very early 1960's is that the Soviets were going to the Moon first, and then claim the Moon as sovereign Soviet territory. At the time, the fear seemed realistic since the USSR was scoring a number of space "firsts" (Sputnik, Gagarin), and the first probe to crash into the Moon contained a bunch of Soviet coins--and burying coins is the symbolic Russian equivalent of "planting the flag" when claiming new territory. Thus by getting to the Moon first, the US would be able to head off the prospect of a "Red" Moon in the night sky every night.

    But NASA was breaking the budget at the time with Apollo, and LBJ needed a lot of cash for Vietnam and the so-called War on Poverty. Of course by 1967, Apollo had taken on a life of its own, and so the Moon landings happened anyway; but the OST allowed the Americans to curtail Apollo after a half dozen sorties, and drastically reduce the NASA budget to fund other priorities. The anti-capitalistic provisions weren't a deal-breaker because at the time, there was nothing of obvious value on the Moon, and this perception was only strengthened by Apollo.

    But the conditions that existed back in 1967 don't exist anymore. Socialism is out of fashion just about everywhere now; meanwhile, the remote sensing data show that the Moon has resources that are potentially worth billions.

    So I ask again, who would be harmed if the US of A unilaterally withdrew from the OST?

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    Bingo: why exchange a Perth Gold Certificate for Australian gold when you can exchange the same cedrtificate for local gold....
    Perth Gold Certificate is as good as a real thing, because it is, in effect, undersigned by the Australian government (who owns Perth Mint). Both the buyer and seller trust the Australian government that the gold bar listed on the certificate actually exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    How do you know that there are 8,000+ tonnes of gold in Fort Knox?
    That's easy. The U.S. treasury should have paperwork confirming that they have obtained the gold, including buying gold abroad. So in principle, existence of this gold is verifiable. Also, it's not outside the realm of possibility that high-level outsiders, such as representatives of central banks, could be allowed inside to see for themselves.

    The problem is: how do you verify that the Lunar Mint really has gold backing the certificate? Existence of lunar gold is unverifiable, because it is both produced and stored in an inaccessible location. No paperwork follows it.

    However, in my opinion it could work, if:

    (1) The operation was backed by a national government

    (2) Outside inspections (on a reasonable basis) were allowed, including verification by satellite optics

    (3) Limited deliveries of actual lunar gold could be made.

    (2) and (3) are not necessarily very cumbersome, because some kind of back-and-forth transport would have to exist anyway for sending equipment, parts, supplies and crews. Verification of lunar origin of gold bars would be pretty trivial; just put them outside for a while, so the surface gets implanted by solar wind particles.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    So I ask again, who would be harmed if the US of A unilaterally withdrew from the OST?
    1. Some countries could get nervous that the U.S. is now going to put weapons in space.

    2. If a U.S. spacecraft reentered over foreign territory, it would not have legal protection is has now.

    3. Even if the U.S. laid territorial claim to the Moon (or parts thereof), there's no guarantee anyone would recognize these claims. In fact, withdrawing from OST would give other countries a convenient excuse NOT to recognize these claims.

    Much better idea would be to either amend OST or make a new treaty regulating use of off-world resources. E.g. put in a clause that whoever builds a permanent installation on the Moon is granted exclusive use of resources within the radius of, say, 30km for, say, 30 years.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak View Post
    SALESPERSON: It's just like a normal gold certificate, except that if you want the gold, you have to go to the moon to get it.
    My bank was once trying to sell me a structured product based on the price of gold. It was "just like gold", except that I would be unable to sell it, and they were unable to explain why go into this trouble if one can buy a physical gold bar in the first place. Sadly, it seems that a lot of people were falling for it.

    Compared to this, lunar gold certificate looks like a safe investment: you can at least find someone to sell it to. Or put it on your wall. Or give it to your grandchild at birth, so they can give it to their grandchildren, to pick up on a tourist trip to the Moon.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Okay before we disappear down a political rabbit hole maybe it's time for a reality check.

    What we have is a single set of data points from one mission. Even Warren's favourite lunar advocate Dr. Paul Spudis thinks we need more information:

    With such bizarre associations, scientists will be looking over this new data with keen interest. To determine the composition, physical nature and distribution of these deposits, a robotic surface rover needs to be sent into the polar cold traps to take detailed measurements.
    Quote from this blog

    Also I can't find anything from those scientists who've actually analysed the data to support the idea its a mineabe resource even if the numbers are right, if there is such a reference I'd genuinely like to see it.
    Let's also not forget that we have samples from other areas of the moon which most definitely do not show these concentrations of gold, so even if this resource exists it may only be one small concentration that would be rapidly exhausted, and might not even pay the overheads of finding extracting and refining it.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
    1. Some countries could get nervous that the U.S. is now going to put weapons in space.

    2. If a U.S. spacecraft reentered over foreign territory, it would not have legal protection is has now.

    3. Even if the U.S. laid territorial claim to the Moon (or parts thereof), there's no guarantee anyone would recognize these claims. In fact, withdrawing from OST would give other countries a convenient excuse NOT to recognize these claims.

    Much better idea would be to either amend OST or make a new treaty regulating use of off-world resources. E.g. put in a clause that whoever builds a permanent installation on the Moon is granted exclusive use of resources within the radius of, say, 30km for, say, 30 years.
    That make sense but it might be better to say exclusive rights to extract resources; exclusive use sounds like an invitation for them to behave like 5 year olds, 'it's mine and you can't have any!'

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
    However, in my opinion it could work, if:

    (1) The operation was backed by a national government

    (2) Outside inspections (on a reasonable basis) were allowed, including verification by satellite optics

    (3) Limited deliveries of actual lunar gold could be made.

    (2) and (3) are not necessarily very cumbersome, because some kind of back-and-forth transport would have to exist anyway for sending equipment, parts, supplies and crews. Verification of lunar origin of gold bars would be pretty trivial; just put them outside for a while, so the surface gets implanted by solar wind particles.
    Imagine if a bank and a mining company formed a consortium and launched from a place like Suriname or Costa Rica--two equatorial countries with no downrange issues who are not party to the OST. They wouldn't be bound by any government at all...........................

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    Imagine if a bank and a mining company formed a consortium and launched from a place like Suriname or Costa Rica--two equatorial countries with no downrange issues who are not party to the OST. They wouldn't be bound by any government at all...........................
    Which is precisely the problem: they would not be trustworthy, so their certificates would be worth nada, even if they had gold to back them up!

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
    That make sense but it might be better to say exclusive rights to extract resources; exclusive use sounds like an invitation for them to behave like 5 year olds, 'it's mine and you can't have any!'
    Well yes, but I meant to convey a general idea. A real treaty would have to be more detailed to regulate other things as well. For example: if A builds a launchpad, is it required to grant its use to B? Can A charge B for this? If B's personnel stays at A's facility, can A charge them for oxygen etc.?

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
    Which is precisely the problem: they would not be trustworthy, so their certificates would be worth nada, even if they had gold to back them up!
    And as I pointed out in #43 the US has pretty strict export controls for hi-tech hardware, you really think they would let sophisticated launchers be shipped off to some dodgy mining consortium? Maybe some other nation would but I don't think Warren would like any of the choices...

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
    Well yes, but I meant to convey a general idea. A real treaty would have to be more detailed to regulate other things as well. For example: if A builds a launchpad, is it required to grant its use to B? Can A charge B for this? If B's personnel stays at A's facility, can A charge them for oxygen etc.?
    Yeah that's the thing, Gordian Knot type solutions may sound good but in the real world they usually don't work very well.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
    1. Some countries could get nervous that the U.S. is now going to put weapons in space.

    2. If a U.S. spacecraft reentered over foreign territory, it would not have legal protection is has now.

    3. Even if the U.S. laid territorial claim to the Moon (or parts thereof), there's no guarantee anyone would recognize these claims. In fact, withdrawing from OST would give other countries a convenient excuse NOT to recognize these claims.

    4. Much better idea would be to either amend OST or make a new treaty regulating use of off-world resources. E.g. put in a clause that whoever builds a permanent installation on the Moon is granted exclusive use of resources within the radius of, say, 30km for, say, 30 years.
    1. Russian and Chinese missiles designed to carry nuclear weapons over Antarctica are already in violation of the OST.

    2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that there's a separate treaty requiring states parties to render assistance to marooned astronauts.

    3. You're right about that, no doubt, but it wouldn't matter. Taiwan isn't recognized by hardly anybody--they're not even allowed a seat at the UN. But for practical purposes, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the Taiwanese are fully prepared to defend their unrecognized territory.

    4. I agree, but an EEZ of only 30 km is way too small. I wouldn't even consider that big enough to count as a safety zone. At least a million square kilometers!

    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison
    That make sense but it might be better to say exclusive rights to extract resources; exclusive use sounds like an invitation for them to behave like 5 year olds, 'it's mine and you can't have any!'
    Like Las Malvinas?

Similar Threads

  1. Mining an asteroid?
    By EDG in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2010-Sep-21, 09:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •