Commercial Asteroid Return to Station

Commercial Asteroid Return to Station

Sepatuads.com   Juni 22, 2011   Comment  

Back in 2010, Michael Mealing began to consider a spacecraft mission to capture and return a very small Near Earth Object (NEO) to the ISS or Bigelow module for study. He writes about business concept here. Michael’s point, humanity will only travel into the solar system if they can make money at each step. NEOs may be the next step after LEO.

Then in January, 2011, the topic of a NEO capture and return to LEO comes up again in the comment discussions on the Space Business Blog here. So Michael and I have teamed up to continue refining this business concept.

Here’s a Pencast describing the basic concept for a mission to return a small asteroid sample to a space station in LEO.  I also include a few markets that might make such a mission profitable.

NEO Return to Station

brought to you by Livescribe

Moon dust legally for sale - $50K for a few small specs. 

Next, I will walk you through the spreadsheet model built to analyze what would be required for a mission like the one described in the Pencast above.

Assumptions:

1. Spacecraft launched to LEO Space station to standby until target asteroid has been identified.
2. Spacecraft launched from LEO space station and returning to LEO space station.
3. Haul all propellant for round trip (no refueling).
4. A duplicate amount of Delta-V will be required for both the trip out to the asteroid and the trip from the asteroid back to a LEO space station (assuming NO aerobraking to avoid damaging asteroid). Note: The mission’s costs could be greatly reduced if one could determine a smart engineering method to reduce the needed delta-v for the return trip to a LEO space station.
5. Mass of dry spacecraft: 200Kg (Similar to NEAP but swap out all of NEAP's science gear for some type of grappling mechanism).
6. Engine efficiency Isp = 342 seconds.
7. Although spacecraft is docked to LEO space station before mission start, this model assumes no propellant boil-off or LOX top-off prior to mission start. 
8. Since the target NEO is still undetermined, multiple Delta-V’s were modeled to reach NEO targets. Delta-V’s between 5500, 4500, 3500, and 2500 m/s were considered.
9. Asteroid 2010 RF12 has a radius of 3.5m and a mass of 500,000kg according to NASA. Prorating these values to a radius of 0.5m gives you a sphere slightly smaller than the desired “refrigerator” in Michael Mealing’s earlier posts with a mass of 71,429Kg. This mass is larger than what I wanted to consider for a proof of concept mission, so although I include the 71K Kg mass in the analysis, I focus on target asteroid masses of 500, 300, 100, 50, 25, and 10Kg.

Conclusions:
The table below is the summary of my analysis. The columns in the table below represent the multiple delta-v’s modeled for our 200Kg spacecraft to travel from a LEO space station and AR&D with the target NEO. The rows are the various NEO masses that were considered (or – how big of a rock the mission can go out and get). The data populated (the cells with numbers) are the total mission masses for each combination of delta-v and NEO mass. The total mission mass includes all propellant needed not only to reach the NEO but to return it to LEO as well. The color coding correlates to the launch vehicle table below – Dnepr in green, Falcon 9 in orange, and Falcon Heavy in purple.

A few Observations:

• Finding low delta-v targets will dramatically increase the size of the asteroid one could successfully return. For example, instead of a 10Kg target at 5,000m/s of delta-v, the same spacecraft could return a 500Kg target if only 2500m/s of delta-v were needed to reach it (and at almost half the total mission mass!) – that is a lot more rock for scientists to analyze – 500kg instead of 10kg.
• Are there ways to decrease the delta-v required to reach these targets or return from them (currently avoiding aerobraking, but maybe a small asteroid could be shielded during aerobraking)?
• Because such small NEO objects will be difficult to spot a head of time (there are many more NEOs than we have on record - especially small ones), such a mission has to be very patient waiting on station many months/years for the “perfect” NEO to approach with the right blend of low delta-v and a mass that is “just right”. And to respond to new targets, the mission must be ready to depart the station on very short notice in pursuit of any newly identified targets.
• Growing humanity’s knowledge of very small NEOs increases the chances of mission success.

Here is an example of the tables I built to analyze propellant needs. Here are the tables feeding the 5500 m/s of delta-v column. The colored cell in each table varies the asteroid masses. Here is the interactive spreadsheet for those that want to modify my assumptions and want to view the tables for the delta-V's modeled as well.

Delta-V 5500m/s:

Next steps:
Michael and I plan to refine this concept over the coming months. Look for follow-up posts here on SBB and over on Michael’s blog.

Interview: Alan Wasser & Space Property Rights Textbook

Interview: Alan Wasser & Space Property Rights Textbook

Sepatuads.com   Mei 22, 2011   Comment  

The National Space Society posted last week about a new Law School text book that includes a chapter on space property rights written by Alan Wasser and the Space Settlement Institute.

I first interviewed Alan Wasser a year ago and later built a business case on a lunar facility operating under Alan’s proposed land claims legislation.

With the release of the new textbook, I wanted to catch up with Alan so he could give you an update:



Q. For those that don’t know, what is "Land Claims Recognition" and how does it relate to space property rights?

Alan Wasser: There is one very high value, zero volume product that already exists in space, just lying around waiting for us to exploit it: Real Estate.

Land Claims Recognition would allow private Lunar settlements to claim some Lunar real estate and sell portions to people back on Earth, serving as a revenue source to fund private enterprise space settlement. No need to set up a factory in space, No need to mine it. No need to haul it back. Just land, set up a permanent settlement, claim it, and start selling the surrounding land to investors and speculators back on Earth to pay back the cost of developing affordable transport.

The US government has now officially decided not to go back to the moon, philanthropists cannot afford it, and there is nothing else on the moon or Mars that could be profitable enough to justify the cost of private enterprise developing safe, reliable and affordable human transport.

Therefore, Land Claims Recognition is now clearly the only way we are ever going to see a significant return to the moon, but this time to stay.


Q. You provide a legal defense of these land claims. Talk to me about your efforts.

Alan Wasser: Land Claims Recognition would allow individuals or companies to appropriate and sell lunar land, - but ONLY after they have already established a true permanent human settlement on the land they are claiming.

It is the settlement, itself, (and only the settlement) that can make a claim under the Outer Space Treaty. No Earth government can claim the land or give it to them. The only thing governments can do (or not do) is pass laws about how their courts should treat sales of Lunar (or Martian) property to their citizens - "recognizing" the legitimacy of the settlement's claim and therefore, the validity of the sale.

When I started this debate, some argued that I was wrong about the legality of land claims recognition under the Outer Space Treaty, etc. So Doug Jobes and I took the time to establish an airtight legal case for it. In its winter 2008 edition, SMU Law School's "Journal of Air Law and Commerce" published our article describing land claims recognition in detail and establishing the legal basis for it, complete with 182 footnotes. The Journal is the oldest scholarly periodical in the English language devoted to the legal and economic problems of aviation and space, and is the most prestigious law journal in its field.

You can read the article here. For a less legalistic version of how Land Claims Recognition work (and the answers to 25 frequently asked questions) see here.


Q. And now Land Claims Recognition has been included in a new law text book?

Alan Wasser: Yes! The fact that lunar land claims will now be taught in law schools is an even more convincing demonstration that, though there may always be some dissent, the general legal community seems to have accepted Land Claims Recognition as being fully in accord with existing international law.

The textbook is from Westview Press: "International Law", Silverburg, ed., (ISBN 978-0-8133-4471-3). "Space Settlements, Property Rights and International Law: Could a Lunar Settlement Claim the Lunar Real Estate It Needs To Survive?" is Chapter 13, pages 275 to 299.


Q. When we last spoke, you were marshalling an effort to approach Congress with legislation consistent with your articles. What is the status of your legislation?

Alan Wasser: The AIAA Space Colonization Technical Committee (SCTC) recently sent two teams to Congress to lobby for a Land Claims recognition law. They got a good reception but no comittments. It will need much more support from the Space community to actually get introduced and passed, setting off the next space race.



Space Business Blog Footnote and full disclosure: Over the last year I have become more and more convinced by the mission of the Space Settlement Institute, so earlier this month I joined their volunteer staff as a policy analyst.

Interview with Michael Heartsong: Asteroid Miner

Interview with Michael Heartsong: Asteroid Miner

Sepatuads.com   Januari 25, 2011   Comment  

In a previous post I explored how difficult it was to close the asteroid mining business case.  I mentioned the following platinum mining options in the comments section: 

OPTION 1: only bring back the useful ore by mining the asteroid "onsight" for the valuable elements. But that is silly, the critic says, why deal with all of the complexity of a remote compact mining device, instead…

OPTION 2: bring back all asteroidal material. Mine the ore for useful metals on earth’s surface. But that is silly, the critic says, now you have to deorbit massive amounts of asteroidal material (remember baseline platinum levels are 0.3%) just to get a little platinum.  How is this cost effective? Instead…

OPTION 3: keep the asteroid in orbit, mine the asteroid there and sell its contents for space purposes, like metal trusses for space stations & spacecraft, solar panel components, mass for shielding, etc. This way you avoid ever having to reenter all of that asteroidal material. But that is silly, the critic says, there is no market for the on-orbit products this solution hopes to produce. You have made the solution so complex, it will be prohibitively hard to raise the investment money for such an endeavor, plus the complexity will delay liquidity events to allow for a time-consuming development cycle (space manufacturing center, etc.). Why not develop a compact mining device that can be sent to surface of an asteroid, dig through a bunch of asteroidal material, find REMs, and just return that few hundred/thousand kilograms of valuable material to earth? And now we are back to Option 1.

Did I mention asteroid mining is hard (and the life of a critic is substantially easier).

Well, I wanted to talk to an entrepreneur who was working on closing this challenging business case of Asteroid Mining. Which of the three options would he pick (or would he pick a fourth option unmentioned)?

Michael Heartsong is cofounder of Promethean Enterprises, Inc. Michael is a finance and management consultant by day. This serial entrepreneur has been involved in six startups, two of which, have now been in operation for over twenty years. Last year, Michael was on the Space Show to talk about his new space mining company, Promethean Enterprises, Inc.

Promethean’s angle for closing the asteroid mining business case is the realization that large US aerospace companies are willing to mine asteroids today...but only if their risk was somehow mitigated.  Through contracting instead of partnership, Promethean intends to leverage the skillsets of the nations brightest engineers without having to pilfer them from Boeing.

With the right plan, the engineering skills can be bought. It’s an intriguing strategy (if perhaps unproven), a space firm whose competitive advantage is NOT engineering. You will hear in his answers below, Promethean is leaning towards Option 3 (see above for "Option 3" definition).




Q: For those not familiar with your asteroid mining white paper, can you give us a brief overview of your Asteroid Mining business concept?

Michael Heartsong: We intend to build and send robotic mining devices to asteroids; process the ore in space and turn it into propellant (water broken down into hydrogen and oxygen) and structural material. The structural material could be used to repair the International Space Station (or build a new one; or build other structures in space). And we intend to use the structural material to build a vast, many square kilometer solar-energy gathering array; turn the electricity generated thereby into microwaves; beam the microwaves down to earth, where they will be captured by a receiving antenna ("rectenna"), reconverted into electricity, and fed into the grid. In this way, we hope to be a major part of solving Earth's looming energy crisis (the Earth uses about 14 terawatts of electricity each year.

It is predicted that by 2050, we will need 40 terawatts. 75% or more of all electricity today is generated by burning fossil fuels. It is simply impossible to generate 40 terawatts (or even 25) with current technology: the stores of fossil fuels will be depleted. More importantly, we would destroy ourselves with the resulting pollution. (Remember the film, CHILDREN OF MEN in which almost all adults had become infertile). That is the Big Picture. AT the moment, it is just an idea, a vision. The next step is to turn the vision into an executable plan.

Q: That is a BIG effort – how are you proceeding?

Michael Heartsong: Our plans call for proceeding in essentially two Phases.

1. Phase One is a Research Phase, that will last at least 1 1/2 years, probably 2. During this Phase, every aspect of the vision will be researched, contemplated, examined. We intend to prove and validate that what we are proposing can be accomplished with exiting technology (as as technology advances, what we are proposing becomes ever more achievable. We will identify providers--companies and people who can participate in the venture. This Phase will drill down to specifics: how best to move forward, at what cost; who can undertake it; how long will it take to design, build and launch one or more robots; which asteroids are the most promising and why, etc. etc . One of the products from this Phase will be a document that will demonstrate conclusively that what we are proposing is an economically viable business venture. 
2. We would then leverage this analysis to raise the hundreds of millions (possibly billions of $$) that will be required to succeed in the venture. And execute the venture.

Q: So Phase I is “Build a Plan” and Phase II is “Execute the Plan”. How much capital do you need for this first exploratory Phase I?

Michael Heartsong: We are seeking $12.5 million of seed capital with which to finance Phase One.

Q: What industry partners are you working with on this venture?

Michael Heartsong: We have already had conversations with several people at Boeing, who are excited by our plans. We have a written invitation from Boeing to submit to them an RFP, so they can tell us how much of Phase One they would like to participate in, and at what cost. We have also had conversations with L'Garde, the premier deployer of inflatable space structures. Additional partners would be added throughout the phase as needed.

Q: Will you be incorporating a NEO surveying mission (NEAP 2.0) prior to your mining efforts?

Michael Heartsong: There is actually a great deal of information already collected about Near Earth Objects (NEO), and more being collected every day. One aspect of Phase One will be to identify the criteria on the basis of which an asteroid would be selected as a target for our mission. Phase One will also include actual spectrographic analyses of potential asteroids. We hope by the end of Phase One we will know precisely which asteroids are the best potential targets.

Q: To accomplish your plans, how much of your plans utilize existing technologies and how much requires you develop new technologies?

Michael Heartsong: What we are proposing can be accomplished with existing technology. That said, it will still require a great deal of ingenuity, imagination, and intelligence. What we are proposing is simpler than other complex projects. We have already sent vehicles to comets and asteroids, and even landed on asteroids twice. And we are NOT talking about sending a human being to an asteroid, just a faith robot. Although what we are proposing has never been done, all of the various components are achievable with existing technology. We just have to figure out how best.

We think once we are at the end of Phase One, having proven the economic viability of what we are proposing, people will be eager to invest. The challenge is raising that first $12.5 million in order to complete Phase One. Normally, when one is raising seed capital, investors are naturally concerned about the safety of their capital, and the likelihood of seeing a return. The major risk, normally, is loss of capital. We think our situation is very different – the risk is in not investing.

Q: Recent topics on this blog have included discussions about the late Jim Benson’s plan to own an asteroid. What are your thoughts on such an acquisition?

Michael Heartsong: The entire area of Space Law is something that is simply not yet developed. I know of two or three attorneys who have begun thinking and writing about it, Presumably, the development of the Western United States will provide a model. Also, the settling of the New World (the Western hemisphere) will probably provide a model. The moon is complicated. I personally don’t see anyone owning the moon. Regarding asteroids, I suspect whoever lands first can certainly lay claim to all of the mineral rights, if not the asteroid itself. (Remember that guy who tried to claim ownership of the Human Genome? Ridiculous!)

Q: What should I have asked that I didn’t?

Michael Heartsong: I will just leave you with this encouragement. I believe we are on the very cusp of an explosion in private space exploration. By analogy, where we are today with regard to space, is where society was 20 years before oil was discovered; or 10 years before Carnegie figured out how to mass produce steel; or 5 years before the computer revolution really got underway. Fifteen years from now (or 2 years from now) people will look back and wonder why everyone couldn't see what was "right before their eyes". And we think there will be a LOT of people who will kick themselves for not getting involved when they had the chance (just like a lot of people missed Google, eBay, Microsoft, etc.)

Q: If my readers want to reach you, would you leave an email address?

Michael Heartsong: Thank you again for this opportunity. I welcome any and all comments from your readers, who are welcome to contact me at michaelheartsong8 [at] gmail.com.



Colin Doughan: Thank you, Michael. 2011 is the year of raising $12.5M. When you are successful, I would like to do a follow-up interview. I feel this was a “strategy” interview. I can’t wait for the “tactics” interview where I can ask all of the questions that are “plan specific”. Thank you for your willingness to share your vision so early in your entrepreneurial process. I hope your openness is rewarded. And I wish you nothing but the best.

Lunar Property Rights - A Moon Base Business Case

Lunar Property Rights - A Moon Base Business Case

Sepatuads.com   Mei 16, 2010   Comment  

My interview with Alan Wasser on Lunar property rights definitely generated discussion (including recommendations for changes to the draft bill - thanks everyone). For those not familiar with the space land claims recognition bill, here are the three main points:

• Establish a Lunar/Martian/Asteroid base and US courts will recognize your claim for up to 4% of its surface (600,000 contiguous sq. miles, 384M acres).
• Sell the land claims to people on earth (defended by US courts) to immediately recoup investments in the base.
• Maintain your claim to this real estate by sustaining the base indefinitely with “regular” missions to and from the base.

Again, if you want more details, read the draft bill here. Or comment on the draft bill here. Since this blog focuses on the business side of the space frontier, what would a successful business case for a moon base need to look like (assuming Alan’s draft bill were passed by Congress)?

On the surface this seems like an odd question – can't one build a profitable lunar base for $40B, (assuming $100 per acre)?  Surely $40B is more than adequate not only to recoup investment costs, but to generate an enormous return to investors. But, remember one would have to maintain the base by providing regular transport to and from the moon indefinitely. How long could such a base operate on that one-time cash infusion of $40B before the base would have to start generating enough revenue to offset expenses? Since such regular transport to and from the moon will no doubt be expensive (even using innovative commercial solutions), I believe the revenue portion of the equation will have to be pretty high to offset both base and transport recurring costs.

Don’t hold me to the numbers below, they are for example purposes. You are welcome to build your Moon Base Spreadsheet here, but lets take a look what the numbers say.
 
First the Assumptions:
 

 

And now an initial set of detailed costs:

Now we bring these together in the Pro Formas:

Here are a few humble Observations:

• Revenue from land recognitions provides incentive to START a base
• Significant Revenues are needed to SUSTAIN a base. The land grants provide a base about a decade of operations to develop multiple $$ billions in annual revenue. As you saw from the pro formas, even a relatively inexpensive annual operating budget will be $5B per year (assuming six resupply missions per year). That is a lot of revenue to maintain a viable base. 
• Adding a significant mid-term payout to investors could provide the liquidity the investors desire while still leaving enough capital for the long-term lunar export research and development. The pro formas assume a 200 multiple payout to lunar base investors after three years of operations. Assuming $7B in base startup costs, this would allow for a $14B payment to investors in the start of year four of base operations. Seven years of start-up plus three years of base operations means the investors' big (double your money) payout would come after year 10. 
• Unless Government, Corporate, and Tourist Customers contribute significantly to base revenue, the base will need to develop significant exportable revenue sources (usual suspects like water mining, solar power farms, etc.) to become self-sustaining. 
• Increasing the price per Acre paid for lunar real estate (above $100 per acre) is the greatest near-term strategy for increasing base profitability. $200 per acre instead of $100 means the land grants would be worth $80B. Signifcant time should be spent by consortiums on ways to maximize price per acre.
• Launch pace will be a challenge - can the US handle a launch to a moon base every other Month (six resupply missions per year is my current assumption)?
• Although not considered here, cis-lunar cyclers may make sense to assist in bi-monthly resupply missions.
• I asked Alan Wasser what would happen to the land grants if a lunar base successfully opened, successfully sold land grants, and then some years later was to close. Using the railroad land grants of the 1800's as a model, Wasser expects the land grants to be revoked with the closure/abandonment of a lunar base. But to save their investment, he would expect others (potentially including current lunar land grant holders) to buy the struggling base for pennies on the dollar and keep the base operating.
• The liability of operating the base "forever" is not reasonable nor will a corporation take on that risk without some way to mitigate the risk.
• I envision a modification to the bill to include language such as “operate the base continually for XX years” as a way to bound corporate liability.
• Similar to railroad land grants of the 1800’s, corruption and greed are powerful adversaries to good ideas (like transcontinental railroads). I believe this bill will need some language to prevent a lunar base consortium from engaging in the following trickery: Consortium builds a low cost base on the moon’s surface.  US courts recognize the land claims (on the assumption the base would be maintained).  Consortium sells land claims for $40B and distributes ALL the profits to its investors.  Consortium operates resupply missions for the amount of time it takes to sell the land claims (~1-3yrs).  Consortium immediately closes the base with the final sale of the land grants.  Consortium closes the legal entities they used to establish the base shielding its investors from liability.  Note: At this point, if the US courts wanted to revoke the consortium's land grants as a punitive action they could, but they would not be hurting the consortium since the consortium already sold their land claims for $40B. Only those who purchased the land grants would be hurt (disclosure: I am no lawyer, just surmising).

This exercise was very helpful to me. I often need to experiment with a spreadsheet to consider the implications of an idea. Feel free to modify these estimates – again the full spreadsheet is located here.  Can you operate a base for $5B per year? Won’t NASA pay close to $5B per year for access to a lunar base? Do you really need six resupply missions per year?  What if four resupply missions per year were adequate? How do lunar cyclers reduce base operations costs? What would revenue sources like television and marketing rights be worth? What "exportable" revenue sources offer the greatest potential of near-term profits?  All fun elements to go consider.

The big takeaways for me are:

1. We all need to look for innovative ways to open the space frontier. Lunar land claim recognition is a huge innovative idea!
2. Leveraging lessons learned from the US land grants used in the cross-continental railroad, we need to anticipate greed and abuse and write legislation that anticipates and penalizes such behavior.
3. I would be delighted to support such legislation if it were to make it Congress. My congressmen love getting phone calls from me already!

Space Property Rights: an Interview with Alan Wasser

Space Property Rights: an Interview with Alan Wasser

Sepatuads.com   Mei 09, 2010   Comment  

Below is my interview with Alan Wasser, one of the premier legal authorities on Space Property Rights. Alan has always explained complicated legal concepts in a way my business mind could understand.  Alan believes the scale of current space investment is too small. Alan's plan for "land claims recognition" legislation holds the potential to dramatically increase the size and scale of investment in space, but is such a concept politically possible?  Read on for the details…


Question: How do you think space activists should react to the Obama administration's new space policy?

Alan: I'm just hoping that, now that the President has made it official, the space activist community will finally face up to the truth. On April 15th, at the Kennedy Space Center, The President said:

"Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We've been there before. Buzz has been there."

That makes it official that, as some of us predicted long ago, the Government is NOT going to pay for a Lunar Settlement. In fact, the Government isn't even going to pay for another flags and footsteps mission to the Moon.

Maybe, someday, a flags and footsteps mission to Mars, - maybe - someday, - but the taxpayers are certainly not going to let the government pay for a settlement there either.  So, if you believe, as I do, that the settlement of space is vital for the human species, you've got an unpleasant choice to make:

Option 1: You can stay in a state of denial - insisting that, someday, somehow, Apollo will return, or a pure philanthropist godmother will magically give space to you -

or

Option 2: You can face the fact that the only way to make the settlement of space happen is to get the for-profit entrepreneurs interested.  Profit. The profit motivation. Capitalism. The love of money is the root of all evil. Racing to open the frontier so the winner can get even more filthy rich.

Ugh!  Disgusting. What will people think of us for suggesting such a thing?  We could only consider that as the absolute last resort.

Yup! That's what we're down to. A lot of space activists will cling to Option 1 at first, but eventually many will accept that "for profit" really is the only way the human habitat can be expanded out beyond the Earth. We're down to our absolute last choice - or nothing.  If Obama could have funded Constellation, he would have. The President's choice to speak on April 15th, income tax day, tells you why he couldn't.

National prestige once required the US to have the world's tallest building. But, eventually the public stopped measuring national prestige the old way. Government space programs, like the world's tallest buildings, have become prestige items for second and third rate powers. Apollo turns out to have been a one-shot event, specific to its era, not the template for space development. Ever since, space supporters have been trying - and failing - over and over again, to convince US taxpayers they need a robust national government space program for spin-offs, incentives for engineering education, jobs, NEO warnings, etc. etc. etc.

Instead, the voters chose more tax cuts!

So it is up to free enterprise to open the space frontier, but that can happen only when there's a potential profit from it large enough to justify the huge risks and long lead time the project requires.



Question: Are there near-term profit motives large enough to incentivize such a push into space?

Alan: The best possibility is the idea of "land claims recognition", harnessing the huge potential value of Lunar and Martian land. It’s the only thing on the Moon that is valuable enough, and the hunt for new lands has always been the driver for human exploration and settlement.

Land claims recognition legislation would commit the Earth’s nations, in advance, to allowing a true private Lunar settlement to claim and sell (to people back on Earth) a reasonable amount of Lunar real estate in the area around the base, thus giving the founders of the Moon colony a way to earn back the investment they made to establish it.

For the details of such a proposal, and its legal basis under international law, see "Space Settlements, Property Rights, and International Law: Could a Lunar Settlement Claim The Lunar Real Estate It Needs To Survive?" which was published in SMU Law School's Journal of Air Law & Commerce, the leading law journal in its field.  Or, for a less legalistic description, with the answers to frequently asked questions, try this one.

As it enacts the new approach to space development, Congress should give private entrepreneurs the hope of profit they need by passing Land Claims Recognition legislation to facilitate the transition to entrepreneurial space development (Colin's Note: see a link to draft Land Claims Recognition legislation at the end of this interview).  If enacted, such legislation would spark a new, privately-funded commercial space race to settle the Moon and Mars, making the new order of space development even more beneficial for mankind than the last one.



Question: But the Obama plan is already supporting commercial space development. Isn't that enough?

Alan: Yes, but no. The problem is that their source of funds is still, ultimately, the US taxpayer.

In effect, we're just changing the kind of government contracts from "cost plus" to "fixed price". Probably a good thing, but nowhere near enough, because ultimately the same anti-tax forces will make sure that pool of money - "their" money - stays too small to fund a government space settlement.  We need a space industry that pays taxes, instead of one that depends on them.

Sending astronauts to the Space Station will be the first revenue stream for private space development. The second revenue stream will be space tourists, starting with the very rich, of course, but expanding as soon as possible to an ever widening segment of the public.

Unfortunately, however, those and all other currently identified revenue streams added together aren't enough to attract real venture capitalists, only enough to attract rich philanthropists. So it's important to look for new, novel profit potentials, like Land Claims Recognition.

Speaking of rich philanthropists, they can unfortunately provide some space activists a way to pretend they support "commercial space" without the unpleasant necessity of dealing with real commerce's need for true profit. They see Elon Musk's motives in SpaceX as "pure", so those squeamish space activists can ignore the fact that Elon made the tons of money he's spending on space from real commerce - selling an intangible service for a gigantic profit.

A true commercial business can raise vastly more investment capital than a charity. SpaceX has hundreds of millions, space settlement will take billions or tens of billions. We can't keep ducking the need for a real big PayPal-style profit potential, commercially generated, not taxpayer financed.


Question: Is the idea of celestial land claim recognition gaining momentum?

Alan: Definitely! One of the best examples is Eric Rice, CEO of Orbitec, a true commercial space company, who realized how logical this idea was several years ago and has done a great job of promoting it ever since. Earlier this year, he got a generous NASA Steckler grant to study the idea. Rice also served as a past President of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Space Colonization Technical Committee, and he led six AIAA SCTC members on a Congressional lobbying effort in March 2010 that's led to a web discussion forum on the subject that includes a dozen key legislative space aides already.

He’s even posted a very slightly different version of my proposed draft law here.
He’s asking for feedback, and you can leave comments on the draft bill here.



Question: With Congressional staffers already reviewing and commenting on this draft bill, what are the next steps to get a revised bill to the US Congress?

Alan: Well, we still have a long way to go. The biggest step is to get one or more Congressmen and Senators to sponsor the bill. No one has gone that far, yet. It would also help a lot if more space activists took up the cause and started asking their own representatives about it.


Colin:  Thank you Alan!  I appreciate your efforts to expand humanity out into space.  I encourage my readers to review the draft land claims recognition bill.  Now is the time to make recommendations for needed changes to the bill.  The debate will be helpful to refine the bill.