Making Mining the Asteroids and the Moon Legal 162
MarkWhittington writes: Popular Science reported on a bill called the Space Act of 2015 that has passed the House and may soon pass the Senate that will allow private companies to own the natural resources that they mine in space. The idea would seem to be a no-brainer. However, the bill is causing some heartburn among some space law experts, especially in other countries. Fabio Tronchetti, a lawyer at the Harbin Institute of Technology in China, argues that the law would violate the Outer Space Treaty.
US got bored forcing their laws on other countries (Score:3, Insightful)
It looks like the US got bored forcing their laws on other countries here on Earth so they've moved on to the moon and asteroids. First it was refusing to honour EU data protection laws agreed to by international treaty, now it's ignoring the Outer Space Treaty. This is establishing sovereignty on the moon and asteroids by granting businesses permission to operate there and take resources from them. If it wasn't establishing sovereignty, those laws would have no effect, nor would they be necessary. As a European citizen, I really want the US to fuck off.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So make the EU outlaw asteroid mining... and give it the resources to police space. Good luck.
By the way, this is inevitable in the long run. Either we will die out or we will start to exploit resources in space. Earth is becoming too small for us fast. Space should be big enough for quite a while...
Re: (Score:1)
Why police space? Just wait for anyone to come back down to Earth and refuse to protect their property claim, since it is not recognised.
How much arguing do you want to do with people with friends in space who are destitute and hopeless if you tell them they can't keep their rocks... and by the way, they're in space, and they have rocks?
Re: (Score:2)
As much as any other terrorist.
Oh, you mean you plan to lie to the people about it and milk it for as much money as possible?
Re: (Score:1)
Your example of the US forcing its laws on other countries is the US refusing to follow EU law... uh, isn't that the EU trying to force its law on the US???
Re:US got bored forcing their laws on other countr (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
In reality the US isn't trying to force anything, while the EU is trying to force foreign companies to solely follow EU rules for activities conducted within the EU.
The problem is, EU law does not exempt foreign companies from their domestic jurisdictions, so their home countries can still require them to follow their laws - which can bring them into conflict with the EU.
Unless an agreement is signed between the countries, its up to the companies to resolve the conflict between the two jurisdictions they ar
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, as the parent said: the US are trying to enforce their laws on other countries.
Your argumentation is completely wrong. An EU company is not required to follow any special EU laws for its operations in the US, only US laws apply (except for accounting and other stuff, which are usually fixed via ownership constructions where one company owns another one). However the USA tries to force american companies that operate in the EU to follow not only EU law, which is a no brainer, but also US law, which is i
Re: (Score:2)
Your argumentation is completely wrong. An EU company is not required to follow any special EU laws for its operations in the US, only US laws apply (except for accounting and other stuff, which are usually fixed via ownership constructions where one company owns another one).
Uh, completely and utterly wrong - EU companies are still required to follow EU law when operating in other countries.
Take for example bribery and financial conduct laws - what may be legal in the foreign jurisdiction isn't necessarily legal in their home countries jurisdiction, and there have been examples of EU companies being investigated and prosecuted within the EU for their actions in non-EU countries.
However the USA tries to force american companies that operate in the EU to follow not only EU law, which is a no brainer, but also US law, which is idiotic.
If they dont want to follow the law of the country that they are incorporated in, they can move their
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Then I give you an other example (happened in RL):
a US school class of kids between 16 and 18 visit Paris, France. The teacher allows them to share a bottle of wine (means, less than an ounce per student).
That is completely legal.
However US courts claim that US law is to held up "in Europe!" which makes the teacher lose his job.
We europeans lough our asses off about such stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
That is completely legal.
However US courts claim that US law is to held up "in Europe!" which makes the teacher lose his job.
We europeans lough our asses off about such stupidity.
I would laugh with you, if that's what actually happened. Except it's not (unless you can provide a contrary link). What actually happens (on multiple [dailycaller.com] occassions [nytimes.com], apparently) is that the teacher was fired for violating school rules. Not for violating US law (because in fact a teenager drinking wine in Paris is not a violation of US law.). The teacher was responsible for following the schools rules, the teacher failed to do so, and the teacher was fired/punished for doing so. The only involvement of the cour
Re: (Score:2)
We europeans lough our asses off about such stupidity.
Really? Try going abroad to have sex with underage children in a country where that is legal.
That sort of thing is prosecuted in the EU, regardless of it being legal in the foreign jurisdiction. Its also prosecuted in the US as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because it is explicitly written in the law.
It is a difference if I make a law and say: "my citizens are prohibited to harm children every where on the world" or if I have a law that says: "minors are under protection and may not be harmed" and later try to use that on a 'crime' committed somewhere not under my jurisdiction.
No. Outer space treaty is US law. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether people like it or not, if you can't obtain resources out there, they won't go there. If you've got a profit motive, you won't mine something you can't use or sell. And if you're doing exploration, you
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, if there is no ownership over the celestial body, there is nothing stopping a third party from stepping in once the hard work of prospecting and removing the overburden has been accomplished and doing the easy mining - after all the original mining company doesn't own the land so they can't stop someone else mining it at the same time as them.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like the US got bored forcing their laws on other countries here on Earth so they've moved on to the moon and asteroids. First it was refusing to honour EU data protection laws agreed to by international treaty, now it's ignoring the Outer Space Treaty. This is establishing sovereignty on the moon and asteroids by granting businesses permission to operate there and take resources from them. If it wasn't establishing sovereignty, those laws would have no effect, nor would they be necessary. As a European citizen, I really want the US to fuck off.
Does planting the flag first on a territory not claim that territory?
Re: (Score:3)
It looks like the US got bored
And it looks like the moon will get bored too.
Asteroids fine, but the moon should be left alone (Score:1)
The moon affects everyone on the planet. It influences tides, which are vital to the ecosystem of the entire planet, and shouldn't be messed with.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying that mining on Earth shouldn't be allowed, because we all count on its gravity.
Don't laugh about this, these things are just not funny anymore.
Yes this could be turned into an environmental issue just like global average temperature. Asteroid mining brings mass to Earth and changes mass ratio of Earth to other bodies. Never mind accretion due to meteors or atmosphere lost to the solar wind... this study only concerns anthropogenic effects. A tie to sea level would be found. You'd have NASANOAA jointly announcing that "2025 was the heaviest year on record" by a whopping 1.1 x 10^-35 o
Re:Asteroids fine, but the moon should be left alo (Score:4, Insightful)
The amount that we'd bring back to Earth would be insignificant. The global shipping weight is about 1.4 * 10^6 kg (Source [wikipedia.org]). The weight of the Earth is 5.972 * 10^24 kg. If we assumed that we brought the entire global shipping weight from asteroids to Earth annually, it would take 42 billion years before we brought even one millionth of one percent of the Earth's current mass. I think, at that point, we would have bigger problems than simply "we're making the Earth too heavy."
china is just mad (Score:1)
Re:china is just mad (Score:4, Informative)
China can currently get to the moon, the USA can't ...
Re: (Score:3)
Uhh, yes the USA very much can (as demonstrated by the fact that NASA has sent quite a few impactors/orbiters there [wikipedia.org] over the past ~10 years). Right now, no one can send a manned crew.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't legalize what isn't theres (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't assign rights you don't have. If that mineral isn't owned by USA how can it decide that it transfers ownership to a corporation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no difference. The celestial bodies are not some abstract thing separate from the rock that makes them up!
Nearly universally, the governments of the Earth disagree with you. When mineral rights and land rights are inseparable, then one might be inclined to agree with your wrong statement, but until then, I'll go with reality over your delusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't assign rights you don't have. If that mineral isn't owned by USA how can it decide that it transfers ownership to a corporation?
Sure you can. The US can say "anyone who mines a space mineral can keep it, if you don't like it go suck on a nuke".
As always: stupid laws deserve to be ignored (Score:3, Interesting)
Really, claiming territory that you cannot even get to? Any treaties or laws regarding anything beyond geosynchronous orbit are laughable, because they are unenforceable.
Heck, even here on earth, I wish people would follow a simple principle: deliberately flout stupid laws and regulations. It's the only way to get them off the books. Of course, you have to be willing to fight an enforcement attempt, and most of us would rather not. However, the alternative is for regulations to accumulate. Every time a bureaucrat has a brain fart, they add another one, and the damned things never go away.
Re: (Score:1)
Really, claiming territory that you cannot even get to?
Who's claiming territory? Perhaps you could say that about the companies looking to exploit resources in space. The only "claim" is that a treaty should be upheld.
Any treaties or laws regarding anything beyond geosynchronous orbit are laughable, because they are unenforceable.
They're not at all unenforceable as long as the companies need to have any operations on Earth. Such as selling whatever they manage to harvest. If a company moves its operations completely to space and finds customers there, it might avoid treaties and laws on Earth. Until then, enforcement works just like it works with any other multinational co
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish people would follow a simple principle: deliberately flout stupid laws and regulations. It's the only way to get them off the books.
On the contrary, if they go ignored, they pile up like unused cable overflowing the tray. The best way to remove a law from the books is to enforce it on everyone. Once the 'right' people get nailed, it will be repealed in 7 to 10 working days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Result would be large "omnibus" packages of laws as a single bills which would make them even more difficult to disentangle over time.
It already happens and it's already impossible to legislatively define what counts as a "clean" or single-topic bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Result would be large "omnibus" packages of laws as a single bills
Add a requirement for a 4/5 majority to pass any bill and those "omnibus" bills would be dead in the water. For that matter, a 9/10 minimum would not be unreasonable; the law should be written so as to enjoy widespread support, and not cater to a small majority at the expense of minorities. If 10 to 20 percent of the population objects to a bill, it probably shouldn't be on the books. Leave such provisions to smaller, more homogeneous areas—states, counties, municipalities—where consensus on suc
Re: (Score:2)
The goal should be many many more bills. Small bills. Each targeting a single law subsection. Like a line-item veto for legislators.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think you could scrape up 10 or 20 percent of voters (at least 43 members of the House of Representatives, or 10 senators) willing to commit political suicide by opposing an acknowledged "essential function" for no better reason than to cause trouble?
Even if they did, so what? The bill just gets reintroduced after the next election. There is no government function so essential that losing it for a few years would mean the end of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Like the annual budget?
Re: (Score:1)
Robotics are quite clever at getting to places you can't.
"laws
They are actually quite well enforceable unless you exclusively colonize with full sustainability. They just put you in jail here on Earth and cut the supply chains to whatever infrastructure there is.
This story is brilliant. Corrupt USG passing laws that enable privatization of space and thus triggering a commercial space race
LOL (Score:3)
as if the US has anything to say about mining the moon or an astroid..
If I want to mine the moon/astroid, there is nothing that the US can do about it..
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as you try to sell it on earth they seize your fortune ...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"... there is nothing that the US can do about it!"
Said a large cohort of now-dead and imprisoned people from everywhere.
What treaty? (Score:2)
I think it's perfectly clear that the only treaties that exist anywhere in the world are the ones that say the USA can force its will and laws on every other country. Even when they don't negotiate in secret behind closed doors the sale of other countries laws to corporations they still try and apply local laws in other countries (see Microsoft's court case, the Pirate Bay debacle, etc).
Why should mining the moon be any different?
So totally bogus (Score:1)
The company should only be allowed to own what it extracts, not what exists. Exclusivity over natural resources should not be allowed, on the moon, or on earth. That way you can own all the land you work until you bump into somebody else.
On the moon at least, Outer Space Treaty is clear: (Score:5, Informative)
( Article 11, paragraph 3 ).
On "other celestial bodies" however, e.g. asteroids, the Treaty is silent regarding property and appropriation.
Re:On the moon at least, Outer Space Treaty is cle (Score:4, Insightful)
"Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person."
( Article 11, paragraph 3 ).
On "other celestial bodies" however, e.g. asteroids, the Treaty is silent regarding property and appropriation.
The US'll just 'unsign' it like it did the Kyoto treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
you do realize the Kyoto treaty was never ratified by the US Senate (in fact, the Clinton administration never submitted it), right?
Re: (Score:2)
you do realize the Kyoto treaty was never ratified by the US Senate (in fact, the Clinton administration never submitted it), right?
I know it wasn't ratified - but it was signed by the US administration.
Re: (Score:1)
Hold on a second, I just checked the outer space treaty was signed in 1967. The moon landings where from 1969 - 1972, so according to the treaty the US signed the moon rocks which they brought back from the moon landings which are part of the moon do not belong to anyone not the USA or NASA so when they run around the world chasing missing moon rocks and prosecuting people who sell them they are violating that treaty right? How can they claim ownership and still adhere to this treaty?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Here is an article that was linked on slashdot http://www.collectspace.com/ne... [collectspace.com] and at the bottom it says "Outside of lunar meteorites and a few ounces of the moon returned by Soviet robotic probes, all other moon rocks are considered the property of the United States. As such, according to the NASA Office of the Inspector General, those found in possession of samples can be prosecuted for theft of government property, for which there is no statute of limitations." which is in violation of the Outer space
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Read it more carefully. It says "natural resources in place". In other words, you cannot claim ownership of an iron deposit or gold seam. But you can claim ownership of rocks or natural resources removed (by you) from the surface (or at least it doesn't say you can't).
Re: (Score:1)
Well this is really to stop Oh Boy New World!!!1!!11 idiocy where countries plant a flag and try to claim much or all of the moon.
It really isn't to stop colonies from landing and growing, much less the inevitable declarations of independence, nor people, private or otherwise, from mining.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place
This reads like the USGA's official rules of golf. In golf you are allowed to pick up and move "loose impediments" out of your ball's way, but you are not allowed to move things in place, such as trees or grass.
I think if they had to dig for it, it would fall under the treaty... but if it's a loose rock lying on the surface that anyone can just pick up, it's fair game.
The treaty won't last (Score:2)
The treaty is clear, and I imagine that most of us agree with the spirit of the treaty, but the treaty goes too far. It effectively bans any permanent settlement on the moon. If that ever becomes practical, this treaty will be mincemeat. We should make a better treaty now before the current one gets dumped -- possibly without a replacement.
Re: (Score:1)
It's all good, except for example I don't give a flying fuck who signed what, I didn't sign it and I am certain people who may be able to mine on the moon eventually would see it the same way (correctly). Fuck those who signed it on behalf of everybody else, nobody should care about it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is where another principle comes in: "Possession is 9/10 of the law."
If somebody does get to the moon and starts mining it, who--practically speaking--will stop them? It will be the wild west all over again.
Homesteading Theory (Score:2)
Just use homesteading theory. If you set up a mining operation on a body you have the best claim to those resources that are within your capability. Look how mining claims were staked out during the gold rush. The first person couldn't claim all of California or Alaska but they could stake out what they could realistically process. There was plenty of conflicts but they managed to work it out relatively well. If someone finds a small asteroid a couple meters across one company might be able to process it. B
How long would terrestrial law apply? (Score:2)
The Outer Space Treaty is much misunderstood (Score:3)
It forbids Earthly nations from extending their sovereignty out into space. It does not forbid private entities from exploring and exploiting asteroids and other resources, and it does not prevent them from establishing their own sovereignty by custom of usage as this process develops.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a problem, so long as when space is developed through private efforts, you don't try to establish control over our resource extraction and colonization on behalf of a "nature" you claim doesn't exist up there today.
As long as someone is physically there... (Score:2)
ROFLMAO (Score:2)
Scary thought... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Treaties and laws weren't meant to live forever (Score:2)
Under its constitution, laws and treaties have equal footing, with the Constitution itself standing above both.
Just as one law can supersede another law, or a new treaty can supersede a past one, a law can have the effect of the US withdrawing from a treaty and a treaty can have the effect of rescinding an existing law.
If other countries don't like it, they are free to implement reprisals, up to and including declaring war on us and, if they have the wherewithal, launching every nuke they have at us (note t
WTF? (Score:1)
Low, our Lords are wise and good (Score:1)
Property Law, Real Estate Laws (Score:2)
In the US, the mineral rights (and other natural resources) are often part of the real estate. Some places have legally segregated such rights from the surface estate, but they are still both considered property rights---which implies ownership.
The Outer Space Treaty says no one can own the Moon or other celestial bodies.
Since the way that the US handles natural resources implies ownership, it is a contradiction. And since treaties are second only to the Constitution in the US, it does seem that mining spac
Re:Pointless (Score:4, Insightful)
Any company with the capacity to profitably mine the moon, or asteroids, isn't going to give a shit about the quaint laws of an individual nation state.
Unless said companies are able to base themselves outside the territories of all nations on the planet, they will have to pay attention to the laws of some country. And of course, since a large company requires to trade in many nations to survive, they will have to follow the rules in those nations. And so on.
But there is an interesting twist to this line of thought: if individual companies become, in effect, their own nation states, should we require that they are run more like nations - with all it entails, including citizenship, democracy, social security, infrastructure paid for by themselves etc?
And, if the difference between nations and businesses become ever smaller, why is it actually that nations are not allowed to compete in the market like businesses do? In the past, the argument was that the state would have an unfair advantage over national businesses both because of their size and the fact that they decide the laws etc, but if that national laws are now powerless against transnationals, there is no longer a good reason for states not to compete with business.
Re: (Score:3)
And because these laws are only theoretical, there is no punishment for violating them, so why would someone need to avoid countries where it's theoretically illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I thought it was the US government (through NASA) renouncing their right to the moon that set in motion the current state of affairs. Because we weren't always greedy assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I thought it was the US government (through NASA) renouncing their right to the moon that set in motion the current state of affairs. Because we weren't always greedy assholes.
The Outer Space Treaty [wikipedia.org] was signed by the United States on January 27, 1967 and ratified by the USA on October 10, 1967.
Apollo 11 [wikipedia.org] landed on the moon on July 20, 1969.
The treaty definitely came first.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, did not realize I got chronology (and cause) backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Interesting)
I kinda want to write some amateur sci-fi on this topic... if I actually had any modicum of talent for writing.
If a corporation / country starts mining an asteroid for materials to use in space, what is anyone going to do about it? Tax them? Declare war on them?
There isn't THAT much unobtanium in space that's usable here on Earth which would make it worth deorbiting. The value of mining stuff in space is so you can build things in space. It's pretty expensive to boost water into orbit. So it seems like it could be pretty lucrative to hijack a few tons of ice comet, wrap it in insulation, and gently tow it into a usable orbit somewhere on the lagrangian transport network over the course of a few years or even decades. From there it could become a nice resource of raw materials to have to help supply a good-sized space station, available to the highest bidder.
Once something like that is set in motion, who's going to stop it? Only another corp with the ability to launch another robotic probe to hijack that hijacked comet. If one probe disturbs another probe, is that an act of war? Probably not, even if they're both pretty expensive. Should it be legal for one probe to "steal" another probe's towed cargo? What if they were just two separate microfactories that landed on the same asteroid and were mining it for minerals? Seems like they should be able to "share", and shall the fastest probe harvest most of the asteroid. But at one point does one probe manage to "stake a claim" on an asteroid, and is programmed to take defensive measures against anything else that approaches to interfere? Knowing that if there were a bunch of territorial probes roaming the solar system, they could all trivially wipe each other out with relatively small lasers or projectiles or explosives if they were at all aggressive. So they would likely be programmed to cooperate as much as they possible, since their missions were so expensive. But they'd have a self-destruct that would take out whatever it is they were carrying and any enemy probes in the area, to discourage probes from trying to "steal". At some point, our fleet of mining probes may have spread out far enough to encounter alien probes, which may as well have been programmed with similar rules of engagement, and it will be interesting to see how they manage to autonomously interact and communicate their intentions to each other.
Back to the subject of actually staking claims, it would be interesting if corps / countries would be required to have a human present to actually plant a flag on asteroids they wished to mine. The logic being if a probe attacked a competing probe in space, it's just business. But if a probe attacks a human in space, that's an act of war, and the companies can go to court down here on Earth or the countries can go to arms or whatever it is they'd do back in the days of imperialism. So it will be neat if that manages to be the impetus to put long-term human colonies in space, if just to be homesteaders. Wonder if they even have to be awake for the trip... or even fully alive for that matter. It would likely be pretty depressing, to have countries scrambling to put just one or two people per asteroid to stake claims and squat in space and try to hang on to survival and maybe sanity for decades at a time. Space cowboys.
Re: (Score:2)
I kinda want to write some amateur sci-fi on this topic... if I actually had any modicum of talent for writing.
A total absence of talent for writing is no longer an obstacle to writing. Just look at any fanfic forum for proof.
Re: (Score:2)
Neal Stephenson beat you [amazon.com] to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sweet! I kinda got stuck on Anathem with all of the weird names. Had no idea that Stephenson was working on something like this. I think I know what I'm getting as a birthday present this year, thanks!
I now have more time to dedicate my life to other forms of mediocrity, woo!
Re: (Score:2)
All that a large company has to do is set up layers of shell companies in jurisdictions that don't cooperate with each other and they can do what they want.
Put the bottom most layer in some poor third world country that has zero chance of putting their own claim on space resources and it's a done deal.
With regard to citizenship for companies (etc)...companies are not and should not be 'people'.
The current laws that allow them to behave like people allow them to do what they want, having no fear of prison, j
Re: (Score:2)
But there is an interesting twist to this line of thought: if individual companies become, in effect, their own nation states, should we require that they are run more like nations - with all it entails, including citizenship, democracy, social security, infrastructure paid for by themselves etc?
Interesting concept - reminds me a bit of zaibatsu and keiretsu.
And, if the difference between nations and businesses become ever smaller, why is it actually that nations are not allowed to compete in the market like businesses do? In the past, the argument was that the state would have an unfair advantage over national businesses both because of their size and the fact that they decide the laws etc, but if that national laws are now powerless against transnationals, there is no longer a good reason for states not to compete with business.
I think this would lead to a scenario wherein states and businesses would become more and more indistinguishable until there was no practical difference between them. And that would be a bad thing. A state's first priority, (and really its only priority), should be to look after its citizens. If a state becomes profit driven and is run like a business, bean counters will nix programs like welfare, because spending profits on taking care of the
Re: (Score:2)
all state-owned companies everywhere are significantly less efficient than their private sector competitors
Except when they aren't. Railway systems, health care systems, and prisons [neweconomics.org] all show clear evidence to the opposite.
That is the problem with taking something that may often be true, and then pretend it is an iron law of nature, never broken, and then apply this imagined 'law of nature' indiscriminately. Bad results will obtain on occasion, perhaps many occasions. But the rule purveyor, who insists it is a revealed truth, like Gospel, will never test it for validity, or believe any evidence to the contrary.
Be
Re: (Score:2)
Any company with the capacity to profitably mine the moon, or asteroids, isn't going to give a shit about the quaint laws of an individual nation state.
Unless its directors don't fancy living in a tiny habitube on an airless rock somewhere...
I'm not saying that taking advantage of this would be a good thing; as long as you keep idiots and/or the malicious from 'accidentally' re-entering giant ferrous payloads into population centers space mining seems like a win; but what your robots are able to do in the Kuiper belt won't mean jack if you are sitting in your mansion somewhere on earth and the local authorities send in the jackboots.
Now, if you can m
Re: (Score:2)
Unless its directors don't fancy living in a tiny habitube on an airless rock somewhere...
Don't be silly, directors get the big habitube.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but wouldn't Moon Patrol issue them a ticket?
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me again how the USA currently gets humans into space...
Re: (Score:2)
Without the Russians, the US is also incapable of getting to space
To be fair, they could always go and nick one of China or India's rockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Why indeed? But it would give the go-ahead for a US based company to mine space resources without the worry that the government would seize their assets for doing something illegal.