Space law needs to catch up with plans for private lunar exploration
THE space movement鈥檚 centre of gravity has shifted. NASA no longer rules the heavens; instead it must defer to Silicon Valley, where rich entrepreneurs are turning their vision of privately funded space exploration into reality. Leading the way is Google and its $20 million Lunar X Prize, the GLXP, which is designed to open space to all comers (see 鈥淢oon millions: Space firms chase Google鈥檚 lunar lucre鈥�).
Appropriately, the technology driving this new space race was invented in the Valley itself. It is no longer necessary to have the resources of a government to go to the moon. Commercially available technologies have become sophisticated enough to run a space programme. One team is considering controlling a lunar rover from an iPhone.
Advertisement
But once this technological wizardry and entrepreneurial zeal delivers, we will come face to face with a question that is already nagging: is space law up to the job? Though the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the foundation of existing space law, has worked well till now, lawyers increasingly worry that some of its provisions are in need of a rethink.
For example, the treaty states that nobody can own any part of the moon. A company that lands a rover cannot plant a flag and claim ownership. Confusingly, the treaty also permits the exploitation of the resources of outer space 鈥� which includes the moon 鈥� 鈥渨ithout interference鈥�, and defines any piece of equipment sent there as private property in perpetuity.
What that means in practice is that once equipment is on the moon, no one is permitted to damage it. That would prohibit anyone from landing near enough to endanger it with thrusters. We have ended up with what looks an awful lot like ad hoc property rights: once your rover is there, you effectively own the land it is sitting on. With 29 companies competing for the $20 million prize, the potential for conflict is clear.
鈥淥nce your rover has arrived on the moon, you effectively own the land it is sitting on鈥�
Perhaps the most important question concerns sterilisation. The 1967 treaty states that space exploration should avoid 鈥渉armful contamination鈥� of celestial bodies, but it contains no directive requiring craft to be sterilised. This was not a problem when governments were the gatekeepers of space. Now, with all kinds of entities in the running, it鈥檚 not clear what the rules are, or who is in charge.
For the GLXP, contamination is not an issue; the moon is as dead as a doornail. But that鈥檚 not necessarily true of Mars or Europa or any of the future twinkles in Google鈥檚 eye. If the prize proves anything, it is that we will go as far as our technology can take us. It鈥檚 time for the law to catch up.