
Mining in Space Could Lead to Conflicts on Earth - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/blog/mining-in-space-could-lead-to-conflicts-on-earth
======
madaxe_again
Mining on Earth leads to conflicts on Earth, so what's the difference?

Additionally, the '67 Outer Space Treaty was specifically written with open-
ended provisions to allow for the commercial exploitation of space - at the
time, they quite honestly thought that Hilton and Pan Am (yes, 2001 did it)
would be operating in space within decades. They even thought so as far back
as '58, before man had even been to space.
[http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120712-where-is-hiltons-
lu...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120712-where-is-hiltons-lunar-hotel)

~~~
xyzzy123
What I find interesting about it is new questions of sovereignty versus co-
operation among the nations on earth.

None of the space treaties were written with the anticipation of actual
profits in mind.

You could make the same argument about Antarctica, but [actually I don't have
a good argument why we haven't exploited the resources there and would be
interested to hear one. Just political suicide? Too expensive?]

When it's feasible to make money space mining absolutely all of these things
will be rewritten, probably with a heavy dose of realpolitik.

~~~
madaxe_again
Antarctia is protected because it's the one area of earth that hasn't been
irrevocably fucked up by human activity - yet. It's quite likely that when the
Antarctic treaty completely expires in '48 we'll see a free-for-all - just as
we are right now with UNCLOS (which the US never signed) and deep sea mining -
although that's all being kept so quiet and out of the public eye it's not
funny.

~~~
dogma1138
Antarctica isn't exactly "protected" the treaty is the outcome of countries
that didn't want to give up their claims to Antarctica but also weren't in a
position or had the slightest will to actually develop their claims.

The treaty doesn't really protect Antarctica from anything other than nuclear
tests, in the future if countries want to actually develop claims it can and
will be revisited. That said there isn't much interest in this atm mostly
because we do not have the technology and we aren't that desperate heck even
if the largest oil field in the would would've been found there no one atm
would try to develop it as it would most likely be financially non-viable but
nothing would really stop anyone from doing so.

Outerspace on the other hand defines the universe as the heritage of all
mankind where no one can claim any stake, which will shortly be changed
probably to something along the side of what was used to be used in the US
during expansion, where claims would be made by private individuals and
corporations rather than countries.

------
rdtsc
As a side note, Syfy channel's Expanse show takes place in that kind of an
environment. There are "belters" whole generations who have worked mining
asteroids. There is the "Mars" faction, descendants of Mars colonizers, and of
course Earth. They end up conflict + some added human interpersonal drama
mixed in etc, etc.

As a show not top notch, but not bad either. It was interesting that it was
exploring the Solar system as opposed the traditional space sci fi plot with
aliens invading or having to go through wormholes to outer rims of the
universe.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
I saw the free pilot and it was pretty good. Does the quality hold up and is
worth buying the whole season?

~~~
Shorel
To me it is one of the shows where each episode is slightly better than the
previous one. Great finale, now I need the second season.

It is also a complex history that rewards repeated views.

------
adrianN
Unless there is a profit to be made in space, I don't think we'll see
significant development of space technology. NASA and the other space agencies
are chronically underfunded. It's true that science probably will have a low
priority if we allow private ventures to do in space whatever they like. But
right now, science isn't doing too well either, so it's not obvious to me that
commercial space development will be a net negative for science. At least in
the early phase of space mining, it seems to me as a layperson that the
challenges are very similar to what NASA is researching.

Given our poor track record at establishing transnational bodies with actual
powers, I wouldn't want to wait until the UN Space Mining Commission has
worked out rules and can actually enforce them.

~~~
wrong_variable
Imagine we go to space and get access to infinite energy and infinite natural
resources.

Does it solve world hunger ? Don't we already have more than enough food ?

Does it solve cancer ? ..

Does it solve the economical crisis we are in ? Its mostly due to lack of
political organization and lack of education.

I think the argument that Neil Degrasse Tyson makes - about inspiring the
young - it can be done by trying to solve world hunger, cancer, etc. We do not
need to burn more fossil fuels to try to figure out how to mine the moon.

The biggest argument would be that we already have infinite resources here on
earth. Space mining doesn't make much sense when you can much more cheaply
extract resources from earth.

I think the biggest issues in society is education and healthcare. And the
free market seems to direct us towards that anyway.

Healthy and educated people are inspiring - space mining seems to be trying to
solve the wrong problem for the right reasons.

~~~
ajuc
It doesn't solve any of these problems.

But it solves the problem of "ups, something destroyed humankind".

~~~
bovermyer
This.

Something that gnaws at the back of my mind is that the survival of our
species is contingent on absolutely nothing catastrophic happening to the
single planet we inhabit. All of our eggs are in one basket, so to speak.

Until we have a viable network of colonies offworld, we will continue to have
this problem.

------
blisterpeanuts
The author's thesis is that we shouldn't allow uncontrolled development of
asteroid minerals, because it would lead to conflicts on Earth. He proposes an
international body to regulate space development.

I would disagree with the author's thesis for one simple reason: space is
dangerous. Those nations and groups of nations that establish footholds in
space are sacrificing much blood and treasure to get there. The U.S. alone has
lost 24 people to accidents in space and space-related test flights and
catastrophes like Apollo 1 and the USSR lost several cosmonauts as well. The
grim likelihood is that there will be more deaths, an inherent risk of such
dangerous exploration.

In addition, the US, USSR, EU, Japan, China, and India have collectively
invested trillions of dollars in space exploration and development since the
1950s. It's hardly likely that these great nations will submit to the
authority of an international regulatory body and curtail their exploration;
there's simply too much at stake. At most, they'll agree to some standards and
shared values, based on the Law of the Sea, e.g. agreed-upon mayday signals,
standardized airlock connectors, etc.

I believe that those nations and groups of nations that establish footholds in
space and exploit the vast potential mineral wealth in the Belt, on the Moon
and on Mars, will be the superpowers of the late 21st Century and the 22nd
Century. Far from a cause of conflict, this vast new wealth will usher in a
new era of peace and prosperity and technology far advanced beyond even what
we can imagine.

------
marktangotango
Everyone assumes (from the comments I've read so far) that mined materials
would be used on Earth. My challenge is to imagine how the material could be
used in space; o'neil colonies, moon cities, etc. Did you know that nuclear
pulse propulsion can theoretically reach .1c and that's fast enough to reach
the nearest star in a human lifetime? Think big people!

~~~
swalsh
I'm not sure everyone believes that. I seem to remember one of the biggest
things they talked about when Planetary Resources was first announced was the
mining of water for use in space.

------
jakozaur
Anything can provoke war.

Abundance of rare resources would rather make wars less likely than lack of
resources and fighting over them.

~~~
bcook
Which country/organization has this so-called abundance? Do they freely share
it out of the goodness of their heart?

~~~
jakozaur
To your point, there were many wars with gold/oil being the main motive.

However, I hardly can remember any wars where coal resources was the main
motive.

Both are fossil fuels, but one is more precious than the other.

~~~
throwaway049
I think the threat to coal supplies from Poland was a significant factor (but
not main motive) in Britain declaring war with Germany in 1939, but I can't
find a reference to back this up.

~~~
arethuza
I've never heard that mentioned as a factor in the events leading up to WW2
and this graph suggests that the UK didn't even start importing coal in any
quantities until the 1970s:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_King...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:UK_Coal_Production.png)

------
jernfrost
Loads of rubbish. It should be free far all to spur innovation and get
companies involved. This is what will get the dormant space industry going.
There has to be great profit prospects to drive it.

The sheer amount of resources in the asteroid belt makes an obsession about
possible conflicts an overreaction.

We fight for resources on the earth because we are billions of people with
limited resources. That is not the situation in space. It is the opposite.
Vast amounts of resources but with nobody to argue over it.

"Space as humanities common heritage", that just makes me wince, what
arrogance. We are a tiny insignificant spec in the universe. Space is not our
heritage. That is a nonsensical statement. I wonder what the aliens on Alpha
Centuri thinks about being labeled the heritage of some bipedals down on
Telus.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _Loads of rubbish. It should be free far all to spur innovation and get
> companies involved._

You need _some_ sort of legal framework, still, because there will be
conflicting claims and other problems.

Plus, when it comes to planets, it's still worth trying to keep them as
isolated from Earth life as possible - otherwise, you may ruin the chance to
discover new types of life and advance science.

------
Matt3o12_
What fair solution could be reached? I think it is extremely important to let
the private sector mine as long as it fullfills certain safety and
environmental standards. We have seen that the private sector is capable of so
much more (just look at spaceX).

But I also see the need for regulations so that one company can't claim all
plantes to mine while still having an advantage because they were the first to
start mining. How could territories be distributed fairly so that innovation
is possible (and encourage by financial gains) and that there are no
monopolies (so that only one country or only one space agency from one
country, which would be pretty counterproductive).

~~~
jerf
"one company can't claim all plantes to mine while still having an advantage
because they were the first to start mining"

That is physically impossible.

While the international laws and conventions have lapsed, they can easily be
brought back, and one of the principles of settling is that you can't claim
something you can't defend. The principles will need to be tweaked a bit since
the way in which "defense" is used here isn't 100% applicable, but you could
easily say that you have to be occupying it, for instance. There is no way to
squat on the million best asteroids.

By the time that's not true, our great-grandchildren will have worked out the
principles of solving that problem. It may be fun to speculate on their
answers, but it's nothing more.

~~~
ajmurmann
What qualifies as "occupying"? Does a person need to live there (not viable
for small asteroids) or is it enough if I attach I iPhone sized tagging device
to it?

~~~
jerf
"I'll know it when I see it" really will get you through at least a decade or
two. It's not like the doors are going to open and twenty million people are
going to emigrate to the asteroid belt overnight.

------
wmccullough
No offense meant but, duh!

We still can't decide who's allowed to use which bathroom. Of course we'd
fight over space resources.

------
jfig
Anything can lead to conflicts on earth.

------
deepnet
NASA estimates that Cometary Resources could support a population if 10
quadrillion people and a single 2km Near Earth Object would be the equivalent
of 30,000 total Earth GDPs to launch*

It is a new frontier, vast on a scale that dwarfs everything we are now.

What is the population density required for a cometary level civilisation to
develop interstellar technology ?

* [http://nix.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20050092385&qs=N%3D42949668...](http://nix.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20050092385&qs=N%3D4294966819%2B4294583411)

------
nxzero
War in space is already happening; weapon systems, attacks, etc.

Raw materials are a national security to all countries.

China in many respects is the leader in raw matters and they are leveraging
this anywhere possible; China stopped providing raw materials to Japan, US
complained to the national community, and were told they breaking trade laws
by the community.

~~~
marak830
China stopped providing materials to Japan? When did that happen? Do you have
a link?(a quick Google on my phone only bought up ww2 references)

~~~
ximeng
Google "rare earth china japan". 2010

~~~
frgewut
Just some context on how this developed ('rare' is not so rare anymore).

[http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-chinas-rare-earth-weapon-went-
fro...](http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-chinas-rare-earth-weapon-went-from-boom-to-
bust-1653638596)

~~~
nxzero
It's a "mining economy" so, yes, they're rare relative to other resources.

US Government Accounting Office recently said it was still an issue:
[http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/pentagon-fails-to-act-
on-...](http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/pentagon-fails-to-act-on-crucial-
rare-earth-minerals/)

It's an issue, but complex, and hard to predict what will happen. Also, given
it is a national security issue, it's possible, if not likely that you'll
never get a full picture of the issue.

------
chris_wot
I've got a weird question: if it became feasible to do lots of mining on other
planets and bring it back to Earth, at what point will it be a problem where
the mass of material on Earth starts to become a problem?

Odd question I know, but I've often wondered this.

~~~
rtkwe
Earth is massive. Pretty much nothing we can do on a human scale is going to
impact that. To put it in perspective taking the entire raw iron ore mining
output is only 5.3916492×10^-13 of the Earth's mass. (used a 2014 estimate)

Honestly I'd worry about heating up the atmosphere too much from the resources
being delivered before mass even vaguely comes into the picture unless we
figure out space elevators.

------
ginko
I wonder is something similar to the Norwegian oil fund, but on a global scale
could work for space resources.

------
tom_wilde
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

------
amelius
Wouldn't it be easier to start mining Earth's core?

~~~
0xffff2
The Earth's core (and mantle, which is the only inner part of the Earth that
is even remotely reachable) does not contain the rare metals that are the
primary focus of asteroid mining. Even if it was easier it would be orthogonal
to this discussion.

