The International Space Station, juxtaposed against the Moon in this NASA photo . <\/p>\n
\"According to documents obtained by Reuters, U.S. companies can stake claims to lunar territory through an existing licensing process for space launches.\" <\/p>\n
With these words, Reuters this week led off a story of interplanetary proportions . In essence, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration appears to have appointed itself the arbiter of who owns what on the moon. <\/p>\n
The documents in question refer to an application from start-up \"expandable module\" maker Bigelow Aerospace, which is lining up customers to develop the world's first privately owned commercial space station, among other projects. <\/p>\n
One such project, as revealed in the FAA documents, appears aimed at installing the company's inflatable habitats on the moon itself, as part of a privately operated lunar colony. The FAA seems to be saying that such a project would not only be legal, but would grant Bigelow (or anyone else doing similar work) \"exclusive rights to that territory\" upon which the colony is built. <\/p>\n
\"To the moon, Alice!\" As you can imagine, this is causing quite a stir internationally, where the only governing law in place is the 1967 United Nations \" Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies .\" ( Emphasis added. ) <\/p>\n
Now, the FAA expressly denied it has given Bigelow \"a license to land on the moon,\" saying it only conducted a \"payload review that would potentially be part of a future launch license request.\" But the one does seem likely to lead to the other. And, according to Reuters, the U.S. Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce -- along with NASA and \"other agencies\" -- were all involved in the FAA's decision. So when you get right down to it, the U.S. government does appear to be laying the groundwork for privately operated (and owned) commercial exploitation of the moon. <\/p>\n
Such a move will certainly please companies planning to involve themselves in moon mining, exploration or colonization. But the FAA's move also raises some questions. Most importantly: <\/p>\n
Is it legal? It depends on whom you ask. At last report, 102 of the globe's 196 countries had become official parties to the U.N. treaty -- which is a majority, and probably enough to give the treaty binding authority under international law. More so, given that all the major players that could conceivably reach the moon in the near future, including the U.S. itself, France, Germany, Italy, and the U.K., and farther abroad, Japan, South Korea, China, and Russia , have all signed on. <\/p>\n
As for what the treaty says, here are few of the more telling clauses: <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See the article here: The International Space Station, juxtaposed against the Moon in this NASA photo . \"According to documents obtained by Reuters, U.S. Continue reading
\nLand for Sale on the Moon; You Only Need to Get There First<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"