04/22/23 1
QuickTime™ and aPhoto CD Decompressor
are needed to use this picture
Return to the Moon - Expanding Earth’s Economic Sphere
Harrison H. SchmittRutgers Symposium on Lunar Settlements
New Brunswick, NJJune 4, 2007
04/22/23 2
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Why Return to the Moon?• Satisfy basic human instincts for exploration
– Freedom, betterment, curiosity– New lands, trade, and knowledge
• Continue at least 40,000 years of exploration’s benefits to modern humans– New homes, livelihoods, know-how, resources– Supported by both “government” and private initiatives
• Perpetuate exploration and eventual settlement of space– Comparable to past migrations into our global habitat– Opportunity for the expansion of free institutions
04/22/23 3
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Conditions for True Space Settlement• Economic Self-sufficiency• Initial Capitalization
•Affordable Access• Compatible Space Law
04/22/23 4
Economic Self-sufficiency• Settlers from the Start
– Cost and Commitment• Exports
– Helium-3 and/or Beamed Energy– Space Consumables
• Lunar Production– Construction Materials (Immediate)– Water, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Food and other
Consumables (Early to Mid-term)– Indigenous Manufacturing (Long-term)
• Need Initially Covered by Imports – Paid for by Energy and Consumables Revenues
04/22/23 5
Initial Capitalization
• U.S. Government– ~$150 Billion Dollars (15 years)
• International Partnership– >> $150 billion Dollars (>>15 years)– Intelsat / Inmarsat Model Only Potentially Feasible
International Management Approach• Private Investors
– ~$15 Billion Dollars (~15 years)
04/22/23 6
Affordable Access• <$3000/kg to TLI for >50T in 2007 dollars
(fully burdened) – Constellation System (54MT) Estimate:
~$6000 marginal cost• Griffin: 2007 (Congress/OMB Driven)
– Saturn VI / “Orion” System (100MT) Estimate: ~$3000/kg
• Schmitt: 2006 (Private Investor Driven)• Ancillary Consequences
– Lunar Tourism– Moon-based Science and Technology
Applications
04/22/23 7
Technical And Financial Envelope For Technical And Financial Envelope For Private Lunar InitiativePrivate Lunar Initiative
• Demonstration of Commercial Viability of Helium-3 Fusion (“Fly-off” Between 4-5 Approaches)– ~US$5 Billion Investment for Demonstration Plant
• Re-creation of a Saturn V Class of Heavy Lift Boosters with payload costs <US$3000/kg to the Moon– ~US$5 Billion Investment [? Ares 1-5 Development]
• Lunar Settlement’s Capability to Produce 100kg/yr Helium-3 (Miner-Processors, Infrastructure, and “The Company Town”.)– ~US$2.5 Billion Investment (? Lunar Outpost Devel.)
• Financially Viable at >US$2.50/million Btu for Steam Coal ($140 Million/100kg Helium-3) [$2.5-5 Billion Reserve - 17-33%]
NASA PHOTOUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison Photo
04/22/23 8
CHRONOLOGY OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS RELEVANT TO SPACE
ANTARCTIC TREATY
LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION
ANTARCTIC MINERAL RESOURCES CONVENTION
ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENT PROTOCOL
RIO ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS
LAW OF THE SEA RE-NEGOTIATED “AGREEMENT”
KYOTO AGREEMENT
INTELSAT AGREEMENT
OUTER SPACE TREATY
RESCUE/RETURN OF ASTRONAUTS, ETC.
LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE IN SPACE
REGISTRATION OF OBJECTS LAUNCHED
IMMARSAT AGREEMENT
MOON AGREEMENT
SPACE STATION AGREEMENT
1997
1994
1991
1988 1988
19821979
1976
1967
19641959
ITALICS - NOT RATIFIED BY U.S.
RED - ONLY SPACE TREATY DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO RESOURCES TO WHICH THE U.S. IS A PARTY
EARTH SPACE
1992
1968
1972
1975
SENATE RATIFICATION “LAW OF THE SEA” ?200?
COMMERCIAL SPACE ACT OF 1997COMMERCIAL SPACE ACT OF 1998 COMMERCIAL SPACE ACT OF 2003
1997
2003
04/22/23 9
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
• 1967 Space Treaty– Compatible with Signatory
Nation Oversight• 1979 Moon Agreement
– Not Compatible– Requires International
Regulatory and Management Structure to be in Place
SPACE LAW SPACE LAW AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENTAND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
04/22/23 10
QuickTime™ and aPhoto CD Decompressor
are needed to use this picture
•Outer Space Treaty of 1967–Only Truly Operative Space Treaty Relative to Resources–Implementation of Moon Agreement would be Self-defeating
•1967 Treaty Permissive Relative to Access to Space Resources
–Private, Government, Multilateral or International Initiative Equally Permissible–Private Entity Must Be Sponsored (Licensed) by Party to Treaty
•Multilateral Private Property Regime Desirable
SPACE LAWSPACE LAW
04/22/23 11
Law Of The Sea Convention:1994 Revised Agreement
• President Bush, on the 15th of May, Asked the Senate to Ratify the 1994 Revised Convention Previously Signed and Submitted to the Senate by President Clinton
• Major Improvements In Language Were Made Over What The Senate Studied and Refused to Consider in 1982, But……..
• "Common Heritage Of Mankind" Reference Remains Undefined, However, The President Clinton’s Message To The Senate Indicated That It Means: – The Oceans And Its Floor Are Not Subject To National
Appropriation – Private Economic Activity Is Consistent With This Concept
• Only Mining Activity Is Subject To Regulation By The Convention's International Seabed Authority
• Similar Language And Regulatory Intent Relative to Resources Implied In The 1979 Moon Agreement
04/22/23 12
Law Of The Sea Convention1994 Revised Agreement
• Existence Of The International Seabed Authority Is A Problem– The Existence Of The Convention's Own Operating Arm, “The
Enterprise,” Creates Internationally Supported Competition To Any Private Initiatives.
• Clinton’s Transmittal Statement Contends That They Have Made This Harmless But Provision Still Exists
– Special Status Also Conferred On Developing Nations At The Expense Of Others
• Compulsory Dispute Settlement Provisions Gives Up National Sovereignty
• Potential For Inhibiting Litigation Against Any Development• Supposedly, The U.S. Has Veto Power Over Implementation, But
How Can Anyone Be Certain That Power Will Be Exercised?
04/22/23 13
Law Of The Sea Convention• Status (02/18/01): Convention And Agreement Are “In Force”
– 135 Nations (Including The EC) Ratified The 1982 Convention– 100 Nations Have Ratified The 1994 Revised Agreement– Absence Of U.S. Inhibits Implementation
• Existing United States Deep Seabed Mining Law (DSHMRA) – Stated By Clinton Administration To Be Similar To
Provisions In “The Agreement [Revised]”• Mining, However, Remains Subject To Both International
Regulation, Fees And Potentially Unfair Competition From “The Enterprise”
04/22/23 14
Law Of The Sea Convention1994 Agreement
• Questions Relative To The Wisdom Of Senate Ratification– Did 1994 Agreement Really Fix U.S. Objections To The 1982 Convention?
• Complexity Of International Seabed Authority • Special Status Of Developing Nations At Expense Of U.S.• Compulsory Dispute Settlement Provisions• Conflicts With Existing U.S. Laws• Implications Of “Common Heritage Of Mankind” Language• Commitments Implied• Commitment To Funding Of International Seabed Authority• Potential For The Authority To Create Its Own Mining Arm• Reach and Reliability of U.S. Veto
• At The Very Least, The Senate Should Be Forced to Fully Analyze The National and Space Related Implications of Ratification
04/22/23 15
Primary Problem That Many Have With International
Treaties Such As The Law Of The Sea Convention (And
Kyoto):Incremental Loss Of U.S.
Sovereignty To An International Majority With
Fundamentally Different Interests and Values
04/22/23 16Amazon link:
ShamelessPlug