This week we are reviewing the paper Public–Private Models for Lunar Development and Commerce. I am using a new format based on the Lifehacker article Back to School: Keep an Academic Reading Journal.
Article Information
Title: Public–Private Models for Lunar Development and Commerce
Author(s): Eligar Sadeha, David Livingston, Thomas Matulac and Haym Benaroyad
Date: November 2005
Journal: Space Policy
Volume: 21
Issue: 4
Pages: 267-275
Article Overview
This paper is an overview of the different types of Public-Private partnerships. It also covers the politics behind different degrees of ownership of space resources (Complete ownership verses free use). It also covers a historical analysis of previous types of public/private relationships.Key/Interesting Quotes
"Public–private partnerships (PPPs) depend on how the government reduces risks for the private sector". Page 267
"...lunar development advocates focus on scientific and technological benefits of lunar development,while providing weak links to economic competitiveness and national security issues that are of interest to political decision makers. Arguments for lunar development based on unspecified technological spin-offs are ineffective". Page 267
"...plausible business plans for lunar settlement, catering to scientific, mining and tourism projects, remain elusive and...lack realistic return on investment (ROI) calculations". Page 268
"One major barrier to commercial lunar missions is the inability of firms to raise the venture capital needed for implementation of business plans". Page 268
"To date only a seeking to conduct lunar operations would similarly single firm, Transorbital, succeeded in getting the necessary clearances and licenses for a commercial lunar flight". Page 269
"To date, no spacefaring powers have ratified the Moon Agreement". Page 269
"The approach to ‘collectivizing’ space lacks any definition of real property rights, however, and it fails to address the political and legal risks inherent in any lunar development scenario". Page 270
"In regard to space resource utilization, the private appropriation of extracted resources Convention on the Law of Sea due in part to the establishment therein of is permissible under the terms of the Outer Space Treaty". Page 270
"Free access in this case is evident with the guaranteed use of these resources through international and national laws, but use is distributed with market considerations in mind and with no property rights. When applied to lunar development, this possibility would allow for a market to develop, while maintaining the non-appropriation legal principle of space codified by the OST [Outer Space Treaty] regime". Page 271
"A second scenario is based on the creation of an independent US corporate entity that owns and manages the space development infrastructure". Page 271
"This involves the possibility of the government acting as an ‘anchor tenant’ by commercial services from the private firms at a specified price after the infrastructure is operational". Page 271
"These businesses will be such that the whole is larger than the sum of its units. The whole will get us to the Moon, and private sector investors can support any or all of the units". Page 272
"In order for the proposed technology model to be successful, a significant percentage of the technologies must be dual-use, meaning that they not only have a role in lunar development, but also have a more immediate civilian or other Earth-based application". Page 272
"So far the private sector has been conditioned to believe that the space program is the responsibility of government and a few of its large-scale contractors...This perception needs to change before the private sector will be able to act as partner to the public sector in developing commercial lunar ventures". Page 273
Consequently, because of this attitude, many states, especially developing ones, could mount costly legal challenges to lunar development projects as the development of space resources gradually evolves". Page 274
Personal Response to the Article
This article has a section that blasts the current business sense of the space community. Very few of the business plans of space ventures seem to make sense. The article surprised me with the vast array of unclear legal issues that remain undiscussed. None of the plans I've read of the use of space resources cover these legal issues, mainly, no one knows what rights a private venture would have to materials in space.Something I found really cool is that the Moon Treaty, despite not being ratified by spacefaring nations, can protect and hold resources for non-spacefaring nations that have ratified the treaty. Thus, this reduces the need for a space race, which could lead to a more international use of space.
I also really liked the idea of breaking the commercialisation of the moon, a very risky and huge project, into smaller units that are small and extremely profitable; the risk and the difficulty would be moved to a larger organisation that would oversee the commercialisation of space.
Questions Raised by the Paper
Why does the space community gravitate more towards a wild-west model in business plans?Are public-private partnerships viable in a recession or if the government is largely supporting the initiative?
Can we make the partnership redundant enough to survive if the government needs to pull out?
Transorbital had to go between many different government agencies to get clearance to preform a moon mission, would it be better to centralise these regulations?
Image by jurvetson
