NASA's Space Launch System and Why it Needs to be Cancelled

For decades, the space community bemoaned the discarding of the massive Saturn V rocket, the greatest of all heavy lift launch vehicles ever built, with the capacity of lifting 130 tons (118 metric tons) to low Earth orbit (LEO).  Space advocates complained because they felt that, after Apollo, it could have lifted great amounts of hardware to build rapidly a space station, space ships, or help transport habitats and other hardware to the lunar surface.
Instead, we threw all this away in favor of the space shuttle, which did it tenure for 30 years, and recently was retired.
In 2010, Congress passed the NASA Authorizing Act of 2010, where, after the cancellation of Project Constellation (A government program to return humans to the Moon, also known as “Apollo on Steroids”), NASA is to build a new heavy lift launch vehicle, called the Space Launch System (SLS).  Here, NASA took the other proposed Ares I and Ares V rocket designs from Constellation, themselves derived from the space shuttle, and commenced building the new SLS.  This is to be built in three different phases or blocks, upgrading each block to carry more weight than the previous rocket, with the final upgrade able to lift 145 tons (130 metric tons).
The Final block of the SLS will be bigger than the Saturn V, with a greater launch capacity, making it the greatest heavy lift launch vehicle ever built.
There’s only one problem;  nobody wants it!
The space movement doesn’t want it, commercial space doesn’t want it, and this author doesn’t want it!
This essay is against this project, and I will explain why.

The reasons, given in the nutshell, are as follows:
It is too expensive, $38 billion of government (your) money, and the   cost will only rise, exponentially.
The SLS has no clear purpose.
It is projected to be used once every four years.  Maybe more, but not by much.
The money NASA spends on developing it can be use in more constructive and creative ways to advance humanity into space, such as new technologies, including propulsion, that private industries cannot afford to do on their own.  The money can also be used to construct a space infrastructure needed to advance into space as up and coming industries start venturing out there.
Private launch companies, such as Boeing, SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, are coming into the fold, launching cargo at a fraction of the cost of government built rockets, especially the SLS.  Even if they require multiple launches matching the cargo capacity of the SLS, it will still be cheaper.
Finally, the SLS will not help the space movement;  it will hinder it, due the amounts of money it will cost to develop, build, use, and maintain;  money in the tens of billions of dollars that can be used otherwise for more advanced ways in the development of space.
Remember the International Space Station (ISS)?  When it was first proposed back in 1984, it was estimated to cost only $8 billion to build.  It ended up cost over $100 billion to build and maintain.  The SLS will go on the same path, because it will require annual funding by Congress, and it will not always get the funding NASA will get for it year after year.  Funding will start to be cut, and the cost of developing it will rise, due to technical glitches that the builders will no doubt encounter.  How much will it cost down the road, I don’t know, but it will rise by a lot; double, triple, quadruple the original cost, perhaps even more.
Another fact that will contribute to this rising cost is that the different stages of the rocket are manufactured by different companies.  They are as follows:
Core Stage - Michaud Assembly Facility
SSME (RS-25 Engines) - Aerojet Rocketdyne
Boosters - ATK (Alliant Techsystems)
On the boosters, Aerojet Rocketdyne are entering the competition with a booster design (Pyrios) using two F-1B engines that powered the first stage of the Saturn 5.
Upper Stage and Orion - Boeing
This in itself makes the rocket expensive, and the development of each stage is in the danger of cost overruns, which, in the long run, will make the SLS even more expensive.
A company like SpaceX is cheaper to go, because its entire rocket is built in one factory, keeping launch costs on the more inexpensive side.
The development of Heavy Lifts are expensive anyway. In 2004 dollars, the cost to develop the Saturn 5 rocket was $43 billion ($7.5 billion in 1966 dollars). The launch of a single Saturn 5 rocket costed $431 million, that’s $2.4 billion in 2004 dollars. (This data is from Encyclopedia Astronautica.) The SLS will not fare any better.  So far, it has been projected that a launch from an SLS will cost $5 billion (tqhat will rise).  It costed $1.5 billion to launch a space shuttle when it was in use, so compare that to the SLS.
Another fact is that the Saturn V and other rockets were developed by government specifications, and they are always more expensive.  Our government is not in the business of developing anytime inexpensively, and they don’t have the ability to do so anyway, for the above reasons. (Everyone has to get into the act.)

Now that private enterprise is moving in, NASA needs to get out of the rocket business entirely.  SpaceX, for example, has shown that they can launch the same amount of cargo that a NASA rocket, like the now defunct space shuttle can launch, but at a fraction of the cost.  SpaceX claims that it will be able to launch cargo at less than $1000 per pound, even with the Falcon Heavy (estimated to be $709 per pound).  The Falcon Heavy will be able to haul 117,000 lbs. to orbit that’s 58.5 tons.
Compare this with $1720 per pound with the SLS, and you have real savings here, even with multiple launches.  With the advent of the returnable first stage, the cost will even go down further.  The costs of launching cargo on the SLS will only rise, never fall.

I have heard all the cases for the SLS.  It has been stated that the SLS will be the workhorse of the 21st century, forever upgrading to more advanced versions, and the SLS is desperately needed if we are to advance into space.
Oh really?  Throughout the past century, we’ve, being private industry, have done this with cars, ships, and airplanes.  We will do the same thing with rockets and later, space ships (they are different).  Private industries will do that;  it’s the way things are done, with or without government help.  NASA’s new position will be to help research and develop the new technologies required for this.  Private companies can then take it from there.
The last argument is that the SLS will take us to the Moon, Mars, and destinations beyond that.  The Moon, yes, but Mars?  As it is?  It is designed to carry the Orion capsule, able to carry seven astronauts, but not very far…the Orion capsule itself is too small to carry astronauts over long distances for a long period of time.
I know what is required to take us to Mars, being advances in propulsion, long-term life support systems, and landing vehicles.  Dr. Robert Zubrin, head of the Mars Society, sees the SLS being used for his Mars Direct, and explains it in great detail in his books, but many space advocates, including me, feel that this is not the way to go, and for good reason.  (I will explain this in another essay).
There are pathways to Mars that will start from developing low Earth orbit, near Earth asteroids, and the Moon, and the SLS is not needed in any of these endeavors.

The harsh reality is that there is no planned project to use the SLS where other, more cheaper and efficient rockets cannot be used in its place, and that includes carrying the seven crew Orion capsule.  Quite simply, it is a waste of time, money, and resources.
There is one main reason why the SLS is being developed - to provide jobs.  To provide jobs in certain states so that those who are employed in this endeavor will continue to vote for the U.S. senator in their state responsible for providing these jobs by continually approve funding for the SLS, thus keeping that senator in office.
We in the space movement, have a special name for the SLS because of this situation.  We call it the Senate Launch System.   As stated in the last paragraph, the Senate Launch System is designed to keep U.S. senators in office who keep voting and providing funding to build this system so that the constituents can keep their jobs.
Well, those who work for the SLS will be able to find work in the private sector once this project is hopefully cancelled.

The old space program, with Apollo/shuttle program went from 1961 to 2011.  These 50 years have served us well.  When I was seven, I saw my first launch on TV, Gemini 5, and then subsequent launches, the Moon landings, Skylab, and finally, the shuttle, all broadcasted on television for the public to watch.
To their credit, the U.S. government and NASA got us to where we are now, and we wouldn’t be here had it not been for them.
The days of televised launches and the thrills of watching them are over, and that’s good.  It is now time for private enterprise to come into the picture.
Congress should not only cancel the Space Launch System, but NASA must get out of the rocket launching business completely, and leave all the launches to the private entities like SpaceX and its competitors.
Whenever the government or NASA (both really are the same thing) require launch services for whatever reason, they should consult these companies to buy these services.  “Buy the ride, not the rocket.”
NASA’s new role will be research and development of new technologies that the private industries cannot afford to do on their own.
The new role of NASA will be to develop new rocket and propulsion technologies, turn them over to the private companies, and then get out of the way.

Alastair Browne

Letters to and from the Space Frontier Foundation concerning Mars Direct

To the Reader:

     I am acquainted with Dr. Robert Zubrin, and have attended many of his lectures on Mars Direct,
with the very first Mars Conference held in 1998 In Boulder, Colorado.  In a nutshell, Dr. Zubrin
states that
we should proceed directly to Mars first, with full government funding as the Apollo program,
and then work our way back to the Moon from there.

     Zubrin promotes this as "A space program you can believe in."

     I've often given this a lot of thought, but then I decided to inquire Rick Tumlinson and Jeff Krukin,
and the Space Frontier Foundation, about this proposal.  Here is my letter and response.

     P.S.  I now believe and Krukin and Tumlinson are correct on this.  Read these letters to see why.

To:  Jeff Krukin, Rick Tumlinson:

     Could you tell me what you think of Dr. Robert Zubrin's proposal of Mars Direct,

which he explains in his book, "The Case for Mars?"

     Is it a good idea?  Should we try to pursue it?

Can we combine it with other ideas, perhaps your own?

     Please reply to this, I would really like to know.

I am in the process of rewriting my proposal, 

"A Permanent Moon Base and A Mission to Mars"

in which I am incorporating your ideas, and possibly

Dr. Zubrin's.

     Please let me know of your opinion.

Alastair Browne

RickTumlinson	6/29/12
to William, Jeff, me

Will Watson passed this on to me.
I consider Mr. Zubrin to be a very smart fellow, I have known him since he began working on Mars ideas and as Executive Director of FINDS gave him the first $100k to start the Mars Society (as a means of pushing NASA and gov. programs out of LEO to make way for commercial space). His ideas have a strong kernel of reality and possibility, but reliance on his Mars Direct scenario would be a recipe for disaster, and yet another dead end in space - which I will not stand for.

Jeff Greason and I are discussing and will possibly be proposing a much more robust, sustainable and leveraged approach tentatively called (5 Steps to Mars) that would create an infrastructure, develop long term resource utilization and support the growth of human outposts and societies from LEO to the Moon, Free Space and the Mars neighbourhood (including Ph/D.)

Rick Tumlinson

Jeff Krukin
to Rick, William, me

Hello Alastair,

Thank you for reaching out to Rick and myself.

I have not read Zubrin's books because I do not believe it is wise, effective, or efficient to bypass our near-space neighborhood and proceed directly to Mars in an economically and politically unsustainable manner.  The engineering is not the issue, the reduction of transit time is not the issue (although it is certainly desirable and there are other proposals for that along with Mars Direct).  Sustainability is the issue (as it is on Earth), for without that there will be no expanding presence of human beings throughout our Solar System.

Our species must explore, settle, and develop space in an evolutionary step-by-step manner, much as our ancestors did in wind-powered ships that needed to reprovision from land as they moved further into the world's oceans.  We are at this same phase as we move into the solar system.  First the Moon and asteroids and the LaGrange points, then Mars, then beyond.

None of the world's political systems will support the decades-long infusion of tax dollars needed to maintain far-flung space outposts that sustain a handful of people, let alone large colonies.  The initial enthusiasm and excitement wanes, and this is obvious from history.  Were this not the case, every national space agency would have more funding than it knew how to use.  Do you see this anywhere?  Can you imagine this happening?  Are there any arguments that can be made for this that have not already been made... and failed to generate the needed government funding over the long-term?

The path to Mars begins with a permanent Moon base, as you indicate in your proposal title.  But that, too, will only happen if it is economically sustainable, if that base produces something of value that can be sold.  In other words, while it may begin as a "base" it must transition to a colony that exports goods and services and earns a profit.  And then the colony becomes a city that becomes part of humanity's economic sphere and helps us push beyond itself and on to Mars.  And because that city becomes self-sustaining, it can support the scientists who want to perform their science and exploration locally (vs. robotically and remotely).

And yet, we must do something even before we have that permanent Moon base/colony.  We must have reliable, cost-effective, and economically sustainable Earth-to-orbit transportation, something that governments cannot provide because they are not designed to lower the cost of products and services.  As companies like SpaceX, Orbital Sciences Corp., Sierra Nevada Corp., Virgin Galactic, Masten Space Systems, Armadillo Aerospace, XCOR Aerospace, and others learn to develop and profit from orbital and suborbital space vehicles, we will learn how to create profitable business that will support a profitable Earth-space transportation infrastructure that will take us to Mars.  This will not happen quickly enough for Zubrin and others, but this does not concern me.  Meeting the artificial deadline of "I want to see this in my lifetime" is a disservice to the needs of humanity, which includes opening the space frontier as I have described above for access to resources.  Punching to Mars will not accomplish this, and so it is irrelevant.

I hope this is helpful.

Ever forward,

Jeff

The Myth of "What Might Have Been" in Space

After Apollo 17, back in 1972, the space program was scaled back.  We had three flights on Skylab, one flight on Apollo-Soyuz and then took a six year hiatus before a 30 year mission with the space shuttle.
Finally, private enterprise in stepping into the picture, with companies like SpaceX and Boeing, funded by NASA, to provide space taxis to the International Space Station (ISS).  Other private launch companies are also stepping up to the plate.  Two new asteroid mining companies, Deep Space Industries and Planetary Resources, have gotten started with plans to eventually mine asteroids, first of water, then minerals, leading to space industrialization.  Space tourism has already gotten started with tours on the ISS, with more private suborbital tours next in the agenda.  
In a few years, space development will be up and running.

This is 2015, as of this writing.  Apollo landed on the Moon in 1969, and completed its last manned lunar mission in 1972.  It’s been 43 years now, and during all that time, we, in the space community, have bemoaned the fact that we, the United States have reached the Moon, and then abandoned it.  Many of us, myself included, felt that this was one of the most foolish moves the U.S. government ever made; cutting back on the space program.  We had two major proposals after Apollo, both of them similar to each other in a way.  The were the Apollo Applications Program (AAP) and the Report on the Space Task Group, 1969, made after the first lunar landing.  President Richard Nixon wasn’t interested in either one, but he did later accept the proposal for the space shuttle that flew from 1981 to 2011.  
Because what followed wasn’t that ambitious, many have lamented the fact that we had big plans after Apollo, but we threw them away in favor of a space shuttle that only orbited the Earth.  
“We are way behind, and finally, after 43 years, we are beginning to catch up,” is now the statement of today.
If only Nixon had been more ambitious about space and had not cut back on it in the early 1970s!
If we had stayed the course after Apollo, with a follow-up program like the proposed Apollo Applications Program or the Space Task Group, with a fully reusable two staged space shuttle, a space station that can house up to 50 people, a transportation system of Moon bound ships, and a base on the Moon for six to 12 astronauts, we would be far out in space by now.  We would have build a Moon base in the 1970s, expanding into a city, landed on Mars in the late 1970s or early ‘80s, and would we now would have space cities, industries, and ships traveling from planet to planet from Earth to way beyond Mars.

  But would we really?  Would we have really had the civilization that you only read about in science fiction novels, RIGHT NOW?

Be in for a surprise.  The answer would have been NO, we wouldn’t, and for a reason that can be stated in one word - MONEY!
That’s right, money, as in government funding, being part of the federal budget; money and lack of enthusiasm.  
Does this make any sense to you?  Most of you would probably say yes, but you wouldn’t know the exact details.  I am here to tell you.  
First of all, I use to believe all this myself about us being out beyond Mars, until, at a space conference, I talked to someone about this at a banquet, and a month later, to Rick Tumlinson of the Space Frontier Foundation, and after what I’ve heard from both, and what I’ve seen go on with the shuttle and the ISS all these years, I got to thinking that they may be right.
If the Space Task Group of 1969, or even the Apollo Applications Program had proceeded as planned, there is a chance that, regardless of what might have been chosen, the program would have failed, big time. There would be two reasons for this. First, the public was losing interest by the final flight of Apollo 17. 
Second, the cost of these projects would have been exponential, and Congress, the General Accounting Office (GAO), and the public would not have supported this. 
Let’s start with the proposed shuttle. Originally, the shuttle would have been twice as large than the one that materialized. As for the shuttle we used, NASA, back in the early ‘70s, asked the GAO for $10 billion to fund building the new shuttle. The GAO responded by giving them $5 billion, hence the shuttle we had.
The proposed space/way station, being far bigger than the ISS, would have supported 50 people, and cost far more money. Remember how the ISS was to originally cost $8 billion, and ended up costing $100 billion, and rising? As I’ve mentioned, different parts were made by different companies, but NASA had to constantly change the design to accommodate more countries joining in on the project and the cost rose, and Congress kept cutting back the budget for it, delaying completion.  Again, costs rose as a result.
With the proposed way station, the problems manufacturing, launching, and assembling it would have been equal to that the of ISS, possibly worse (and don’t forget lunar space station and the two Moonbound ships, or more).
As for the Moon base, if we ever made it that far, money would have been pouring down a black hole, with costs increasing for Moonbound ships and base components, all made by different companies, and everybody wanting a big piece of the pie.  If completed, how many astronauts would have inhabited it, and what kind of work would they have performed? If it was to hold, say six to 12 people, would the government have supported it indefinitely? If so, money from the federal budget would have keep going into this venture, and the costs would have increased year by year. Congress, then would have started to cut back on it, and there would have been some serious debates about the base versus other badly needed federal programs (make up your own mind on what these programs are). 
Would Congress have put up with it? Would the public have put up with it? I don’t think so.
Most likely, no matter what mega-project that would have been chosen, it would have been cancelled long before it was to have been completed, either by Congress or some president after Nixon.  If we made it to building a space station, I don’t think we would have had a lunar base.  Even if we had a small lunar base, as described in the Apollo Applications Program, it would not have lasted. 
Don’t forget launch costs, especially that of the Saturn V. The Saturn V, though the greatest heavy lift launch vehicle, so far, was very expensive. Parts of the rocket was hand made, for example. The cost of a Saturn V, including launch, was in 2012 dollars about $1.17 billion, a little cheaper than a shuttle launch, but expensive nonetheless. How much money would the government have had to spend should any ambitious project after Apollo been undertaken?
Costs DO matter, and neither the government, nor the American people, would have tolerated it for long. Cut backs would definitely have been made, and private industry would not have stepped in, not during that point in time (the 1970s). The reason for that is that no industry is going to invest in anything in which they cannot profit. So, we would have been where we are now. 

In other words, it would not have made any difference.

One footnote: no other government would have long supported an ambitious project like this either; not alone, and not at this level of expense.

Project Apollo was a result of the Russians sending cosmonauts up ahead of the Americans, and President Kennedy’s response to the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba.  He wanted to both beat the Russians and cover up his blunder and show how strong he was, so he decides on challenging American ingenuity by “sending a man to the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth,” “before this decade (the 1960s) is out.”
It took a lot of motivation, and for us to achieve that goal, the order was to “waste everything but time.,” meaning money  We did, and it took us $20 billion in 1960s dollars (over $150 billion in today’s money).
We achieved the goal, but we had no ambitions on what to do after that.  The Moon landings were the end all, and a dead end at that.  I will say that it is one of humanity’s greatest achievements nonetheless.

The entire space program, from Apollo to the shuttle, was run by the government, and it was financed by the taxpayer.  Remember the order, “Waste everything but time”?  We can no longer do that.  We have an annual deficit to contend with, and even more frightening, the national debt, which, as of this writing, is $17 trillion and growing.

In this day and age, costs do have to be taken into consideration. The government cannot, and should not, forever support a space program like we had with Apollo. For better or worse, the Apollo and shuttle days are gone, forever!

But that is not a bad thing.  We now have private enterprise taking over, and this never would have been done at any other time, because of lack of accessibility to space.  There is now big money in space, in the form of minerals, energy, and zero gravity made products, to name a few.

Today, with the shuttle out of the way, private launch companies are moving into the fold, with much cheaper launch rates.  With that, other interests, such as energy, asteroid mining, and space tourism are taking advantage of this new opportunity.  The time for the space entrepreneur has arrived, and it is time for all governments to lead, follow, AND get out of the way.

Alastair Browne

The Proposed Space Settlement Act

(Draft of) AN ACT

Recognizing the right of the first permanent settlers on the Moon or Mars to claim and trade private ownership of the real estate around them. This would create an incentive "prize" for the private entrepreneurs of Earth to risk their lives and fortunes developing affordable space travel for all, and transporting the settlers to their new home - at zero cost to US taxpayers.



         Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

          This Act may be cited as "The Space Settlement Prize Act", or "The Space Real Estate Act" or "The Land Claims Recognition Act".

SECTION 2. FINDINGS

The Congress finds that —

       (1)      The expansion of the human habitat beyond Earth, through the establishment of a permanent Lunar settlement and a space "airline" enabling ordinary people to travel there, is a normal continuation of the age-old human drive to explore and settle unknown territory and will be of inestimable value for America and all mankind;

       (2)      Privately financed space exploration and settlement is preferable to taxpayer financing, because the government needs to limit its own expenditures;

       (3)      Space exploration and settlement, if financed by private companies and investors, will produce a huge boost to the economy, space industry employment for thousands, and new tax revenues for the United States;

       (4)      A new, additional, incentive is needed because the potential short-term profit sources are currently much too small to attract the billions of dollars of private capital necessary;

      (5)      The potential value of land on the Moon, Mars, or an asteroid can provide an additional economic incentive for privately funded space settlement at no cost to the government;

      (6)      Prizes such as the Orteig Prize and the Ansari X Prize have an excellent record of promoting privately funded innovation, so Congress wishes to establish a "Space Settlement Prize" to promote the human settlement of the Moon and Mars.

      (7)      At some time in the future Congress may be in a position to add an appropriately large monetary award, but, for now at least, the tremendous economic value of land claims recognition should be more than sufficient.

      (8)      There is currently no international law on private land ownership in space, because most major nations have deliberately refused to ratify "The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1979, (hereafter called the "Moon Treaty"). The U.S. Senate's refusal to ratify means that the Moon Treaty's provisions are not "the law of the land" in U.S. courts, and therefore do not inhibit the actions of U.S. citizens or legislators;

       (9)      More importantly, the framers of the Moon Treaty found it necessary to attempt to write a rule forbidding private ownership of land on the Moon, clearly confirming that such an objective had not already been accomplished by "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", 1967, (hereafter known as the "Outer Space Treaty"), nor by U.N. resolution GA/res/1962;

      (10)      The ratification failure of the Moon Treaty means there is no legal prohibition in force against private ownership of land on the Moon, Mars, etc., as long as the ownership is not derived from a claim of national appropriation or sovereignty (which is prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty);

      (11)      Presumably it is only a matter of time until new treaties are negotiated, establishing a functional private property regime and granting suitable land ownership incentives for privately funded space settlements. The U.S. will, of course, abide by such new international law when it has ratified such a new treaty. But, given the urgent need for privately funded human expansion into space, as soon as possible, something must be done immediately, on a provisional basis, to correct the present inefficiencies in the international standard on property rights in space and to promote privately funded space exploration and settlement;

      (12)      For property rights on the Moon, Mars, etc., the U.S. will have to recognize natural law's "use and occupation" standard, rather than the common law standard of "gift of the sovereign", because sovereignty itself is barred by existing international treaty;

      (13)      U.S. courts already recognize, certify, and defend private ownership and sale of land which is not subject to U.S. national appropriation or sovereignty, such as a U.S. citizen's ownership (and right to sell to another U.S. citizen, both of whom are within the U.S.) a deed to land which is actually located in another nation. U.S. issuance of a document of recognition of a settlement's claim to land on the Moon, Mars, etc., can be done on a basis analogous to that situation;

      (14)      This legislation concerns only the issuance of such a U.S. recognition and acceptance of a settlement's claim of private land ownership based on use and occupation, regardless of the nationality of the owner, and nothing in it is to be considered a claim of national appropriation of, nor sovereignty over, any outer space body, or any part thereof;

      (15)      The U.S. does not claim the right to "confer" private land ownership, and the U.S. states it is most definitely not making any claim of "national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or any other means" as prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty.

SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS

Space settlement: A permanently occupied facility, base, or city situated at a specific geographic location on an extraterrestrial body such as the Moon, Mars, or an asteroid.

Private entity: A company, a consortium of companies, and/or one or more individuals that are not controlled by any sovereign state or government. Examples of state control of a company include, but are not limited to, a government, government agency, or another government-controlled company owning or controlling an effective majority of the voting shares and/or having the ability to select the Board of Directors or executives. Merely being subject to normal government regulation, however, does not make a private company government controlled in this sense.

SECTION 4. RECOGNIZING EXTRATERRESTRIAL PRIVATE PROPERTY

       (1)       All U.S. courts and agencies shall immediately give recognition, certification, and full legal support to land ownership claims based on use and occupation, of up to the size specified in Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 below, for any private entity which has, in fact, established a permanently inhabited settlement on the Moon, Mars, or an asteroid, with regular transportation between the settlement and the Earth open to any paying passenger.

       (2)      For a land claim to receive such recognition and certification, the settlement must be permanently and continuously inhabited. The location and the population of the settlement may change, as long as there continues to be an inhabited settlement within the original claim.

       (3)      Deliberate abandonment of the settlement shall be grounds for invalidating land ownership recognition derived from that settlement, but there shall be no penalty for brief unintentional absences caused by accident, emergency, or aggression.

       (4)      Recognized ownership of land under this law shall include all rights normally associated with land ownership, including but not limited to the exclusive right to subdivide the property and sell portions to others, to mine any minerals or utilize any resources on or under the land, as long as it is done in a responsible manner which does not cause unreasonable harm to the environment or other people;

       (5)      If the requirements of this law continue to be met, all rights, privileges, and responsibilities shall be immediately transferable by sale, lease, or other appropriate means to other private space companies, individuals, or any other private entity. In order to facilitate that, all U.S. courts and agencies shall accept the validity of land ownership deeds issued by the settlement for portions of it's recognized land claim.

       (6)      As long as the required conditions continue to be met, U.S. recognition documents shall remain valid for 100 years or until the U.S. ratifies a treaty that establishes an international property rights regime which gives comparable reward to privately funded settlement, whichever comes sooner;

       (7)      The U.S. pledges to defend recognized extraterrestrial properties by imposing appropriate sanctions against aggressors, whether public or private. It pledges never to allow the sale to U.S. citizens of any extraterrestrial land which was seized by aggression. But it makes no pledge of military defense of recognized extraterrestrial properties.

       (8)      If, after ten years, these limits prove to have been insufficient to get privately funded settlement efforts started, Congress, or some national or international authority it delegates, shall consider whether the maximum size of claims should be enlarged.

SECTION 5. CLAIMANTS' OBLIGATIONS

      (1)      The claimant must commit to consistently make good faith efforts to promptly offer, or arrange for, safe and reliable transportation to and from the settlement to all, regardless of nationality, who are willing to pay a fare sufficient to cover expenses and a reasonable profit.

      (2)      The claimant may not unreasonably deny landing rights, and the right to transport passengers and cargo, to any other safe and peaceful vehicle willing to pay a reasonable fee for such landing rights.

      (3)      The claimant may set appropriate standards of behavior and safety, etc., for passengers and cargo and the use of its facilities, but it may not act in an anti-competitive manner.

      (4)      If demand for transport exceeds supply, and the claimant is making a good faith effort to increase the availability of transport, it may give preference to passengers and cargo offering the largest financial inducement.

SECTION 6. RECOGNIZED CLAIM SIZE

On Earth's Moon:

      (1)      The private entity that establishes the first such settlement on the Moon and meets the other conditions of this law shall be entitled to receive full and immediate U.S. recognition and certification of its claim of ownership of up to 600,000 square miles in a contiguous, reasonably compact shape which includes its base.

On Mars:

      (2)      Given the greater distance, higher costs and larger amount of available land on Mars, the private entity that establishes the first such settlement on Mars shall be entitled to receive full and immediate U.S. recognition and certification of its claim of ownership of up to 3,600,000 square miles in a contiguous, reasonably compact shape which includes its base.

On Asteroids:

      (3)      The private entity that establishes a permanently inhabited base on an asteroid shall be entitled to receive full and immediate U.S. recognition and certification of its claim of ownership of up to 600,000 square miles in a contiguous, reasonably compact shape that includes its base, or the entire asteroid if its surface area is smaller than 1,000,000 square miles.

SECTION 7. SUCCESSIVE CLAIMS

      (1)      No entity (nor two entities which are effectively under the same control) shall receive recognition for a controlling interest in two land claims on the same body;

      (2)      Each successive settlement on a body may receive recognition for a claim of up to fifteen percent less than the preceding one was entitled to;

      (3)      An entity in control of one settlement may sell services, such as transport, to a genuinely independent entity which establishes a different settlement and makes a second claim on that body.

SECTION 8. CONCURRENT CLAIMS

      (1)      In the event it cannot be established which of two settlements on the same body was established first, each may claim seven and one half percent less territory than it would have been entitled to if it were clearly the first of the two.

      (2)      If, in such a case, the land claims of the two settlements overlap, and the claimants are unable to divide the land between them through negotiation, a U.S. court shall allocate the land between the two settlements as seems fitting, before recognizing the claims.

SECTION 9. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

      (1)      The U.S. urges other countries to adopt similar laws, and the State Department is hereby instructed to try to negotiate a new multi-lateral treaty, or bi-lateral treaties with individual like-minded nations, making the same land claims recognition rules into international law.

      (2)      All rights and privileges conferred by this law shall be available equally to the citizens (individual and/or corporate) of any nation which passes laws or ratifies a treaty offering similar rights to U.S. citizens.

      (3)      If need be to secure international agreement, the State Department is authorized to agree to treaties which require that all claimants must be consortia which include companies or citizens from several different countries. It can even be required that at least one of the partners in each consortium be from a developing country.


Alan Wasser
    Updated: April, 2012

For the background, purposes and answers to frequently asked questions about this law, please visit: the Space Settlement Initiative

For a fully detailed, footnoted discussion of the many legal questions, opinions and precedents involved, as published in SMU Law School's Journal of Air Law & Commerce, the oldest and most respected law journal in its field, see: Space Settlements, Property Rights, and International Law: Could a Lunar Settlement Claim the Lunar Real Estate It Needs to Survive?.

For more on the group sponsoring this effort, please visit: The Space Settlement Institute.


Please send your comments to: contact@spacesettlement.org

Why Should We Go Out into Space Anyway?

“Any society, if it is to flourish instead of merely

survive, must strive to transcend its own limits.”

-Andrew Chaikin

   We live in very interesting times: the global economy, the internet, the new

millennium, new fields in medicine, and new opportunities in every endeavor one

can imagine.

   

   We also have many challenges facing us. We have formerly suppressed ethnic groups rising up and demanding to be recognized. In the Middle East and elsewhere, we, the

U.S., are trying to prevent rogue nations like Iran from obtaining nuclear, chemical,

and biological weapons for fear they would supply terrorists with these

weapons to use against the general public. We are also involved in a costly war

in the Middle East, for ever changing reasons.

  We have an economy with an ever increasing debt, and interest payments

eating up much of the annual budget.

  

   In addition, we have an environmental crisis: the destruction of the rain forests,

the depletion of Earth’s natural resources, the greenhouse effect that is

raising the Earth’s temperature and melting the polar ice caps. If this isn’t

enough, we also have an increase in natural disasters both here in the U.S. and

elsewhere, ranging from floods to fires and tornadoes.

   We live in a finite system on Earth, with an ever expanding population, and

we are using up finite resources to maintain a high standard of living. More than

ever before, humanity tends towards continual, even accelerated growth of

population, land occupancy, production, consumption of energy, resources, water,

and the increase of waste. Somewhere, this has to end. Should these resources

run out, society will no doubt collapse.

   Back in 1972, the Club of Rome came out with a book, The Limits to

Growth, detailing the threat of misuse of the environment. (It was updated in

1992 and again in 2004) In it listed five basic factors the determine these limits.

         1. Population

         2. Agricultural Production

         3. Natural Resources

         4. Industrial Production

         5. Pollution

   These are all connected. With a rising population, more demands are made

on the land for food products. The overuse of land leads to erosion and food

production drops. Natural resources are severely depleted by a prosperous

world population. Industrial production increases and pollution then rises, increasing

the death rate.

   One question is, how many people can be provided for on this Earth, at

what level of wealth, and for how long? In the western world, the standard of

living is high and they want to keep it that way. Developing countries are trying

to raise their standards of living to that of the West. This means using more of

Earth’s resources, but, as previously stated, the Earth’s resources are finite.

The faster developed nations convert raw natural resources into economic

goods, the less resources will be available for other countries and for future

generations. If the entire world used all of Earth’s resources, they will soon be

depleted, industrial output will eventually fall, along with the economy, and society

will then collapse. It is impossible for the rest of the world to develop as

the U.S., and the entire West, has. If we resort to equal sharing, the average

amount per person may not be enough to maintain life, especially with population

increase. This could result in social suicide.

   There is also the problem of pollution. Pollution is simply the dissipated energy

that accumulates from the energy flow of a society. The greater the energy

flow, the greater the pollution and eventually, the greater the deaths that

results. The energy ends up as dissipated waste, unavailable for future use.

   The wastes of human civilization builds up in the environment until they become

visibly annoying, even harmful. Pollution is increasing at an exponential rate.

Examples include the buildup of Carbon Dioxide, thermal energy, and nuclear

wastes. This past decade (the present year being 2015) has been the hottest

on record, and many are fearing the worst from climate change.

   

   Energy, however, is the driver of our modern civilization. If energy fails, everything

fails. More prosperity means a greater use of fuels. As the world’s resources

of non-renewable fuels - coal, oil, and natural gas are exceedingly unevenly

distributed over the globe, and undoubtedly limited in quantity, it is clear

that their exploitation at an ever increasing rate is an act of violence against nature

which must almost lead to an act of violence against men.

We must minimize their current rate of use - for once these fuels are gone,

they are gone forever.

   

   The crux of the matter is not only whether the human race will survive, but

even more whether it can survive without falling into a state of worthless existence.

To sum it all up, we live in a finite system with finite resources, exponential

population growth, the inability to provide a comfortable living for all of

Earth’s population from its finite resources, and billions of tons of pollutants

added to the ecosystem each year.

   Material growth in a finite world cannot go on forever, but it can go on forever

in an infinite world.

   With all these crisis threatening humanity, and opportunities for the same,

the world has finally reached an impasse. We, as human beings, cannot continue

on with what we are doing much longer.

   So, what are we to do? It is in the nature of humanity to resist change, especially

sweeping change. We like things the way they are, we live comfortably,

and we don’t want to go through the great inconvenience of change. What will

make us change is when we are in a crisis - that is when, and only when, our

creative juices start flowing.

   The doomsayers, incidentally, are having a field day with all this, saying the

world is coming to an end, with all of humanity, except for a chosen few, meeting

a very horrible end.

   One doom scenario is the increase of population and pollution. Food, because

of erosion, non-renewable resources, and industrial output decreases.

There is also the problem of water; as the population of a place increases, the

demand increases as the supply becomes stretched to its limit and the processing

facilities are unable to keep up with the increase, compounded with

droughts in some parts of the world. As a result of all this, society then collapses.

   Civilizations have built up, flourished, and in most cases, declined and

perished due to the unavailability of resources.

   One solution may be to go back to a simpler way of living and let the industries

like the automotive, aerospace, and petrochemical slide into extinction -

but we are not going to do that. We can’t! A retreat to a pastoral, machine free

society is not the answer, because there are just too many of us to be

supported by a pre-industrial agriculture. We must continue to go forward, not

back.

   Again, what are we to do?

   There are answers to these questions, and we can do something about

these problems and at the same time, create new opportunities. I am one of

those people who believe that the world is NOT coming to an end. However,

going back a few steps, we HAVE reached an impasse.

   We do have problems of overpopulation, wars, pollution, the depletion of

our natural resources, the constant desecration of our environment, climate

change, and energy, to name a few. These problems are serious, but not unsolvable.

     There is one answer of many. It is a major step, but it will also serve as a

pressure relief valve for the Earth. It lies 200 miles up, and it will serve as a

catalyst for dealing with a lot of our problems. It is going out into space, developing

its resources and settling its vast frontier.

   A model output would be a society sustainable without sudden and uncontrollable

collapse capable of satisfying the basic material requirements of all the

Earth’s people. This can be done with space resources.

   The main question is, “why go out into space when there are so many problems

here on Earth?” The answer lies in the question. We need to go out into

space because there ARE many problems here on Earth, and we need to expand

beyond the Earth in order to deal with them. Note the quotation at the beginning

of this essay. We have reached our limits here on Earth. Every bit of land

is, in some way, populated and our resources are being depleted. We need expansion

to fulfill our nation’s aspirations, as well as the world’s. In a fully employed

high growth economy, one has a better chance to free public and private

resources to fight the battle of pollution, in all forms, than in a low growth

economy. The exploitation of space will form a high growth economy, as we

shall see.

   Should we expand into space at full speed, a lot of these problems can not

only be dealt with, but we would have a new frontier with which to expand. Not

going in space will make things worse, not better. For example, a country that

becomes overpopulated will want to expand into the next country to use its

land and resources for its excess population. The country being expanded into

will not like this, resulting in war. Wars of this magnitude, for this very reason

will only increase, not decrease. Unlimited resources will make war unnecessary.

   The frontier is a very important reason to go to space. For the past 400

years, people in Europe, and then America, have responded to the call of the

frontier in the Americas and Australia. In Europe, the nobility owned most of

the land and if one was poor, he had very little chance to make a better life for

himself.

   If, however, he went out on the frontier, he could stake out his own land,

become whatever he wanted, and help build a new nation in the process. Yes,

mistakes were made and the natives who already lived on this “new” land were

pushed aside and treated badly.

   In space, there is a chance to learn from our mistakes and there are no natives

to push aside.

   The frontier on Earth is gone. All land has been claimed and exploited. As

Earth’s population increases, more and more people are living on the same

amount of land which is eroding rapidly.

   People miss the frontier as it calls, and it shows in having no place to go

and no incentive to advance. Nations, like people, thrive on a challenge and

languish without it. Society in a non-expanding world will not foster freedom,

creativity, individuality, or progress. If we are not pushing a frontier, we will become

less than our ancestors, who gave us everything we have today. If we do

not open up a space frontier, we will be doomed to ever dwindling resources

and increasingly destructive wars. We cannot allow that to happen.

   The Moon, Mars, near Earth asteroids, and space itself are possible places

where a new frontier can be opened. A new frontier requires not only energy,

but creativity. This will provide a new challenge for humanity, and individual

people grow in a challenge. On these celestial bodies, new societies, based on

their own beliefs, will be shaped. These will be new branches of human culture,

making their own contribution to humanity.

   These new societies will be based on change. The challenge is to mobilize

the energies of the youth of humanity. Youth is always looking for adventure,

and the space frontier can provide that. The challenge of the space frontier will

also keep lives from being wasted.

   Most of all, new societies will be established, creating the first extraterrestrial

civilizations. This means that if any catastrophe happens on Earth, humanity

will not be in danger of extinction - there will be all the space settlements in

which to fall back.

   As for new societies, should there be any persecuted minorities in any

country, these minorities could, if they so desire, move off the planet and settle

on a celestial body to continue to practice their way of living as the Puritans did

when they moved from England to America.

   There is room to expand for any group of people, be they religious, an ethnic

minority, or just seeking economic prosperity, to settle on the Moon, Mars,

space, or the asteroids, as a substitute for war on Earth. Space provides oppor-

tunity: room to expand, new lands to settle for anyone who wants it. Note

that a very small percentage of Earth’s population will actually go, and it won’t

solve Earth’s population problem, but the pressure relief valve, the opportunity

for anyone or group to leave Earth, will be there.

   Space will be a place for the people to go instead. There are asteroids out

there to be mined and precious metals that exist in amounts many times that of

Earth. With all the riches up there that we can bring down here, the quality of

life will improve here on Earth. If we mine the Moon and near Earth asteroids,

the previously mentioned doom scenario of society collapsing will be refuted.

We are running out of resources here on Earth, but the Moon and the asteroids

literally have thousands of times the amount of resources that we have already

mined. There are NO limits to growth!

   Space will provide a climate in which people may work hard to create a better

life for themselves. Because of the mining and the industrialization of these

celestial bodies and Earth orbit, new industries and jobs will be created in a

space economy that will dwarf any economic expansion in human history. Such

endeavors include the building of solar power satellite systems, the mining of

Helium-3 for energy, space tourism, new forms of agriculture, all providing an

ever growing economy. More and more people would be put to work, and an

open economy, because of the infinity of space, is better than a closed economy.

The best method of population control is a high standard of living, and that

is achieved by an ever expanding economy.

   Conservation of Earth’s natural resources is a noble cause, and it must be done, 

but it's a losing battle.  It will only slow down the rate of pollution and the depletion 

of these resources.  We merely delay the inevitable day of our destruction - 

we must go forward, not back.

   Earth orbit, the Moon, and near Earth asteroids will be places for many polluting

industries. There will also be a place for the polluting industries of metals

processing to go, and mining the asteroids and planets will create even new industries

and opportunities. With these industries moving off Earth, the Earth

itself will have a chance to be cleaned up and regreened, with clean air, water,

and land again. There is the counter-argument of polluting space. Well, poison

gases and liquids will dissipate in the infinite vacuum of space. If we don’t do

this, the Earth will drown in its own filth.

   There are new sources of energy in the forms of (intense) solar power and

Helium-3. These new sources of energy will used to offset the present depletion

of fossil fuels. A new hydrogen economy can also be created, from the energy

generated by both solar power satellite systems, and later, Helium-3, to

completely replace oil for transportation and other uses. Again, with hydrogen

replacing gasoline and fuel oil in transportation systems, pollution will be reduced

even further, perhaps even completely. It would also eliminate our dependence

on foreign oil, and reduce our trade deficit by a huge percentile.

   Science is another big reason for space. If you learn your science well, you

can become a part of pioneering new worlds.

During the Apollo program, we had tens of millions of students enrolling

themselves in the sciences. Many have become:

             -inventors

             -engineers

             -doctors

             -medical researchers

             -scientists.

   A new space movement, like Apollo, will inspire our young people to take up

the sciences and later benefit society as a whole.

   There is the argument that we should spend money of more specific scientific

needs, such as curing AIDS, cancer, and other diseases.

   Richard Godwin, editor of Apogee Books, points out that “We already spend

huge amounts of money on this type of research. The difference with space

exploration is dissimilar to specific issues like the above. Space exploration requires

research in materials science, medicine, human biology, electronics, computers,

propulsion systems, energy production, nanotechnology, communications,

weather forecasting, waste-recycling systems, geology, the list is endless.

It involves almost everything humans do here on Earth. Therefore, we can expect

breakthroughs in all of these fields, some completely unexpected. The impact

on our overall economy is almost immeasurable in terms of new products

and services being created from us trying to make space flight possible. No

other field of scientific endeavor delivers as much.”

   New chemicals, medicines can be mixed up there in zero gravity that cannot

be mixed on Earth, not to mention crystals and alloys. The fields of science will

obviously be expanded, in the fields of astronomy, chemistry, physics, life sciences,

and materials processing.

   In other words, the scientific and technological results can derive benefits

that will improve our quality of life here on Earth.

   People in space will become an adept population to adjust to the rough environment,

in processes such as food production, environment production, life

support and new propulsion systems. Space will inspire new technologies because

they will be needed to survive in the harsh environment.

   A country that is deriving a large share, if not most, of its wealth from the

broad expanse of space, where there are no borders to protect and plenty of

room for expansion, will be much less inclined to engage in conflict and more inclined

to just move on the the next asteroid, or area on the Moon. Profit will be

the prime motivator for individuals, countries, or corporations, and it is the

combination of the three that will hopefully get us there. Economic return is ultimately

the reason for space exploration and development. Everything else -

science, environmental monitoring, technological advances - can and will be

spun off from the drive to find profit among the planets.

   If we, the U.S., do not participate in the up and coming space movement,

we will eventually become a backwater country, and our wealth will decrease,

not increase. As a result, we will have less and less money to solve our domestic

problems, whatever they may be. Other countries, especially Europe, China,

Japan, India, and Russia ARE going into space, and we need not only to keep up,

but also lead in this venture, or at least be one of the leaders. This is the only way not

only to maintain our wealth, but increase it, for reasons already stated.

   Remember Stem Cell research? President Bush outlawed federal funding for

it while other countries went ahead and invested in it. They will soon be ahead

in this venture, if not already, while we stay behind, and these other countries

will soon be consulted in the medical profession, making money and gaining

prestige in the process. Fortunately, several states have taken matters into

their own hands. Also, the next president, Obama has renewed funding in this

venture.

   We must also incorporate space exploration and development in a list of

other necessary projects if the U.S. is to continue to be a prosperous country.

First, to have the money for all this, we must eliminate earmarks from spending

bills completely, along with other forms of government waste. Senators and

Congressmen alike must do away with pet projects all together, and realize that

federal money is for the affairs of the whole country, not their localities. They

can use local and state money for that. Other projects equally as important are

health care, fixing the infrastructure, energy independence (space can help with

this), global warming (climate change), and possibly doing other megaprojects

like building water pipelines, transporting water from flood prone areas to

drought stricken areas (my idea). We can go on a massive rebuilding project,

fixing up this country incorporating the space program along with it, and a

sweeping change for the better will take place, restoring our confidence and

prestige in the world.

   Space is here when we want it. It all depends on who is willing to initially

invest and take the risk. Mistakes will be made and there will be setbacks. For

those willing to take the risk, the payback will be enormous - space resources to

be mined, space made products to be manufactured, industries to be established

- all for whomever is willing to make the initial investments.

   This blog will cover all the aspects of the settlement starting with what

we have now, continuing with what has been proposed and what is presently

being built. It continues with building a cost efficient transportation system

from Earth to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and continuing on to the Moon. It then

covers the industrialization of LEO and the Moon, along with establishing the

first lunar societies. With a scientific base, the industries established will help

the base pay for itself.

   In addition to the Moon, asteroid mining (those asteroids that cross Earth’s

orbit) will be covered. With the metals these asteroids contain, the money they

can make will be in the TRILLIONS of dollars. You heard right! This feat alone

will pay for an entire future space program, with money to spare. Not only that,

this can help eliminate the federal deficit and pay off the national debt, saving

the economy from ruin!

   Energy will also be covered. Space industrialization will require new forms

of energy technology that can permanently wean us off oil.

   Last, with the technology and infrastructure in place, we will be able to venture

to Mars - and set up camp there as well.

   I hope this answers the question of the WHY of space. Quite simply, humanity

has now reached an impasse and we need to expand beyond the bounds

of Earth if we are to survive. However, this can be the greatest adventure of all

time. For those of you willing to partake in it, stay tuned!