|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
178851
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
On 15 October 2020, Australia signed the US Artemis Accords. Such a move was heralded as an important step towards promoting the Australian space program and enabling the country to take part in an ambitious space exploration venture. While not denying the importance of such a move, the present commentary analyzes it in a critical manner by assessing its legal and diplomatic implications. Taking into account Australia’s prior membership of the 1979 Moon Agreement and the discrepancies that exists between the Agreement’s provisions and those of the Artemis Accords, the present commentary not only views Australia’s simultaneous membership of both instruments as problematic but also considers it not sustainable in the long term. Based on these considerations, this commentary recommends Australia to either reconsider its membership to the Moon Agreement or, at least, to clarify how the two instruments may co-exists from a legal and political perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
142553
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The 1979 Moon Agreement was conceived as a way to help manage one of the expected outcomes of expanded activities on the Moon: exploitation of its natural resources. However, the fifth of the international space treaties elaborated in the early stages of the Space Age failed to receive widespread acceptance. Persisting polarization about key provisions in the Agreement hampers its success in the near future. This article examines the legacy of the Moon Agreement from a policy perspective by identifying key principles that are poised to resurface in the near future with the advent of new actors in space, especially the private sector. It argues that the development of norms of behavior together with national regulation and legislation represent the most promising way to engage established and emerging space actors in ensuring responsible behavior beyond Earth orbit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
142576
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The 1979 Moon Agreement was conceived as a way to help manage one of the expected outcomes of expanded activities on the Moon: exploitation of its natural resources. However, the fifth of the international space treaties elaborated in the early stages of the Space Age failed to receive widespread acceptance. Persisting polarization about key provisions in the Agreement hampers its success in the near future. This article examines the legacy of the Moon Agreement from a policy perspective by identifying key principles that are poised to resurface in the near future with the advent of new actors in space, especially the private sector. It argues that the development of norms of behavior together with national regulation and legislation represent the most promising way to engage established and emerging space actors in ensuring responsible behavior beyond Earth orbit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
085788
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The path of gradual commercialization of current space applications, such as launch services, satellite communication services, direct broadcasting services, satellite remote sensing and navigation services, and satellite weather monitoring services, will most likely be followed by future activities of use of space resources. Ventures, like mining the natural resources of the Moon and asteroids, are likely to become technologically feasible in the near future. The question is what would be the most appropriate approach to address the future needs of exploitation of space resources: should it remain the exclusive province of state governments; should the private sector take over such space activities; or should a public-private partnership type of venture be encouraged? As state governments are becoming constrained by budget deficits, an increased reliance on private sector involvement in space activities involving the extraction and use of space resources is to be expected. When deciding whether to invest in commercial ventures of resource use exploitation, any potential private investor will be faced with the issues of economic costs, risks, and perceived regulatory barriers. This study argues that the perceived regulatory barriers, i.e., the licensing requirement, the "common heritage of mankind" principle of international space law, and protection of intellectual property rights, are not obstacles to economic development. Governments should provide both policy and regulatory incentives for private sector participation in the area of space natural resource use by funding basic research and development and by sponsoring liability insurance for private ventures among other incentives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
148487
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The resources offered by the family of near Earth asteroids could provide bulk materials to support future space science ventures, both crewed missions and space-based astronomy. Using low-energy transfer trajectories small near Earth asteroids could be captured directly, or their material resources returned to Earth orbit or the Lagrange points. With novel fabrication methods, such as additive layer manufacturing, large-scale space structures including optical and radio telescopes could in principle be assembled from such resources. Indeed, with bulk materials readily available, very large numbers of structures could be fabricated in-situ for interferometry applications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
148489
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The national space programs have an historic opportunity to help solve the global-scale economic and environmental problems of Earth while becoming more effective at science through the use of space resources. Space programs will be more cost-effective when they work to establish a supply chain in space, mining and manufacturing then replicating the assets of the supply chain so it grows to larger capacity. This has become achievable because of advances in robotics and artificial intelligence. It is roughly estimated that developing a lunar outpost that relies upon and also develops the supply chain will cost about 1/3 or less of the existing annual budgets of the national space programs. It will require a sustained commitment of several decades to complete, during which time science and exploration become increasingly effective. At the end, this space industry will capable of addressing global-scale challenges including limited resources, clean energy, economic development, and preservation of the environment. Other potential solutions, including nuclear fusion and terrestrial renewable energy sources, do not address the root problem of our limited globe and there are real questions whether they will be inadequate or too late. While industry in space likewise cannot provide perfect assurance, it is uniquely able to solve the root problem, and it gives us an important chance that we should grasp. What makes this such an historic opportunity is that the space-based solution is obtainable as a side-benefit of doing space science and exploration within their existing budgets. Thinking pragmatically, it may take some time for policymakers to agree that setting up a complete supply chain is an achievable goal, so this paper describes a strategy of incremental progress. The most crucial part of this strategy is establishing a water economy by mining on the Moon and asteroids to manufacture rocket propellant. Technologies that support a water economy will play an important role leading toward space development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
169340
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A critical discussion is reemerging in space policy, economics, and law: on the classification, use and possible ownership of space resources, and the governance of these activities in terms of rules and institutions. The US legislation from 2015, recognizing the right of US citizens to all asteroid resources they obtain, clearly signals that “money time” has come, in every meaning. Planetary Resources, Inc. has declared this new legislation “the single greatest recognition of property rights in history”. Yet, the discourse on space resources, which are widely—but not necessarily duly—regarded as “commons”, is unstructured and crippled by the confusion of the notion and essence of “commons” between the economic and the legal meanings. This article provides a critical analysis of the “commons” feature of outer space and outer space resources, based on economic analysis and legal theory. More importantly, this article seeks to provide the structure for this important discourse. The first critical step is to distinguish between (i) commons as an economic term and (ii) commons as a legal regime. The first refers to a type of goods or resource used by multiple users, and the second refers to a property rights regime, the ownership over the resource. A mistake, often made, is the confusion between the economic notion of “commons” and the legal sense of the same concept. An “economic commons”, such as a lake, may have different property rights regimes as it may be private property, government property, or “legal commons”. The second critical differentiation is between the different parts of space (e.g. orbits, celestial bodies, and void space) because some may be “commons” (economic and/or legal) while others may not. Asking whether “space” is commons wrongly puts numerous things in a single basket is a sweeping generalization and, in the economic sense, utterly meaningless. Another important distinction is between resource systems and resource units. If we get the questions wrong, i.e. by confusing the terms and mixing different subjects of inquiry, we will not, by definition, find the right answers. Furthermore, the article demonstrates that the notion of “global commons”, often applied to outer space, is of limited or unclear meaning, and it does not imply the property rights regimes in the domains and resources it presumably describes, including outer space. The article opens with making the aforementioned three distinctions in section two. Sections three and five present, separately, the economic and legal notions of “commons” and examine whether some parts of space qualify as economic and/or legal commons, whereas section four presents the limitations of the notion of “global commons”, thus leading to section five. The article concludes by connecting the economic and legal discussions to the search for appropriate governance models for each part of space. As the article demonstrates, the real questions in the discourse are much more complex than “is space commons?”. Although this article provides preliminary answers to the questions it raises, its main contribution is the reshaping of the question(s) currently being asked and the structuring of the discourse on space resources and their governance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
157168
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
On 2 December 2014, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted with a vote of 126 in favor, 4 against and 46 abstentions, Resolution 69/32 entitled ‘No first placement of weapons in space. Despite the limited attention received in academic circles, the adoption of Resolution 69/32 represents an important development in the area of space security. First, it indicates the growing recognition of the positive role that transparency and confidence-building measures (TCBMs) play in preventing an arms race in space (PAROS), even from the perspective of those States that has suggested the adoption of a treaty on PAROS, namely China and Russia. Second, it shows the willingness of a crescent number of members of the United Nations General Assembly to engage in initiatives aimed at promoting a more secure space environment. Third, its controversial reception proves that a universal solution to the issue of space security still lays far ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
148488
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The rapid cost growth of flagship space missions has created a crisis for astronomy and planetary science. We have hit the funding wall. For the past 3 decades scientists have not had to think much about how space technology would change within their planning horizon. However, this time around enormous improvements in space infrastructure capabilities and, especially, costs are likely on the 20-year gestation periods for large space telescopes. Commercial space will lower launch and spacecraft costs substantially, enable cost-effective on-orbit servicing, cheap lunar landers and “interplanetary cubesats” by the early 2020s. A doubling of flagship launch rates is not implausible. On a longer timescale it will enable large structures to be assembled and constructed in space. These developments will change how we plan and design missions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|