|
 According to documents obtained by Reuters, U.S. companies can
stake claims to lunar territory through an existing licensing
process for space launches.
The Federal Aviation Administration, in a previously undisclosed
late-December letter to Bigelow Aerospace, said the agency intends
to “leverage the FAA’s existing launch licensing authority to
encourage private sector investments in space systems by ensuring
that commercial activities can be conducted on a non-interference
basis.”
In other words, experts said, Bigelow could set up one of its
proposed inflatable habitats on the moon, and expect to have
exclusive rights to that territory - as well as related areas that
might be tapped for mining, exploration and other activities.
However, the FAA letter noted a concern flagged by the U.S. State
Department that “the national regulatory framework, in its present
form, is ill-equipped to enable the U.S. government to fulfill its
obligations” under a 1967 United Nations treaty, which, in part,
governs activities on the moon.
 The United Nations Outer Space treaty, in part, requires countries
to authorize and supervise activities of non-government entities
that are operating in space, including the moon. It also bans
nuclear weapons in space, prohibits national claims to celestial
bodies and stipulates that space exploration and development should
benefit all countries.
“We didn’t give (Bigelow Aerospace) a license to land on the moon.
We’re talking about a payload review that would potentially be part
of a future launch license request. But it served a purpose of
documenting a serious proposal for a U.S. company to engage in this
activity that has high-level policy implications,” said the FAA
letter’s author, George Nield, associate administrator for the FAA’s
Office of Commercial Transportation.
“We recognize the private sector’s need to protect its assets and
personnel on the moon or on other celestial bodies," the FAA wrote
in the December letter to Bigelow Aerospace. The company, based in
Nevada, is developing the inflatable space habitats. Bigelow
requested the policy statement from the FAA, which oversees
commercial space transportation in the U.S.
The letter was coordinated with U.S. departments of State, Defense,
Commerce, as well as NASA and other agencies involved in space
operations. It expands the FAA’s scope from launch licensing to U.S.
companies’ planned activities on the moon, a region currently
governed only by the nearly 50-year old UN space treaty.
But the letter also points to more legal and diplomatic work that
will have to be done to govern potential commercial development of
the moon or other extraterrestrial bodies.
“It’s very much a wild west kind of mentality and approach right
now,” said John Thornton, chief executive of private owned
Astrobotic, a startup lunar transportation and services firm
competing in a $30 million Google-backed moon exploration XPrize
contest.
[to top of second column] |
Among the pending issues is lunar property and mineral rights, a
topic that was discussed and tabled in the 1970s in a sister UN
proposal called the Moon Treaty. It was signed by just nine
countries, including France, but not the United States.
"It is important to remember that many space-faring nations have
national companies that engage in commercial space activities. They
will definitely want to be part of the rule making process," said
Joanne Gabrynowicz, a professor of space law at University of
Mississippi .
Bigelow Aerospace is expected to begin testing a space habitat
aboard the International Space Station this year. The company
intends to then operate free-flying orbital outposts for paying
customers, including government agencies, research organizations,
businesses and even tourists. That would be followed by a series of
bases on the moon beginning around 2025, a project estimated to cost
about $12 billion.
Company founder Robert Bigelow said he intends to invest $300
million of his own funds, about $2.5 billion in hardware and
services from Bigelow Aerospace and raise the rest from private
investors.
The FAA’s decision “doesn’t mean that there’s ownership of the
moon," Bigelow told Reuters. "It just means that somebody else isn’t
licensed to land on top of you or land on top of where exploration
and prospecting activities are going on, which may be quite a
distance from the lunar station.”
Other companies could soon be testing rights to own what they bring
back from the moon. Moon Express, another aspiring lunar
transportation company, and also an XPrize contender, intends to
return moon dust or rocks on its third mission.
“The company does not see anything, including the Outer Space
Treaty, as being a barrier to our initial operations on the moon,"
said Moon Express co-founder and president Bob Richards. That
includes "the right to bring stuff off the moon and call it ours.”
(Reporting Irene Klotz; Editing by Joe White, Hank Gilman and Andrew
Hay)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
