04/22/23 1

QuickTime™ and aPhoto CD Decompressor

are needed to use this picture

Return to the Moon - Expanding Earth’s Economic Sphere

Harrison H. SchmittRutgers Symposium on Lunar Settlements

New Brunswick, NJJune 4, 2007

04/22/23 2

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Why Return to the Moon?• Satisfy basic human instincts for exploration

– Freedom, betterment, curiosity– New lands, trade, and knowledge

• Continue at least 40,000 years of exploration’s benefits to modern humans– New homes, livelihoods, know-how, resources– Supported by both “government” and private initiatives

• Perpetuate exploration and eventual settlement of space– Comparable to past migrations into our global habitat– Opportunity for the expansion of free institutions

04/22/23 3

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Conditions for True Space Settlement• Economic Self-sufficiency• Initial Capitalization

•Affordable Access• Compatible Space Law

04/22/23 4

Economic Self-sufficiency• Settlers from the Start

– Cost and Commitment• Exports

– Helium-3 and/or Beamed Energy– Space Consumables

• Lunar Production– Construction Materials (Immediate)– Water, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Food and other

Consumables (Early to Mid-term)– Indigenous Manufacturing (Long-term)

• Need Initially Covered by Imports – Paid for by Energy and Consumables Revenues

04/22/23 5

Initial Capitalization

• U.S. Government– ~$150 Billion Dollars (15 years)

• International Partnership– >> $150 billion Dollars (>>15 years)– Intelsat / Inmarsat Model Only Potentially Feasible

International Management Approach• Private Investors

– ~$15 Billion Dollars (~15 years)

04/22/23 6

Affordable Access• <$3000/kg to TLI for >50T in 2007 dollars

(fully burdened) – Constellation System (54MT) Estimate:

~$6000 marginal cost• Griffin: 2007 (Congress/OMB Driven)

– Saturn VI / “Orion” System (100MT) Estimate: ~$3000/kg

• Schmitt: 2006 (Private Investor Driven)• Ancillary Consequences

– Lunar Tourism– Moon-based Science and Technology

Applications

04/22/23 7

Technical And Financial Envelope For Technical And Financial Envelope For Private Lunar InitiativePrivate Lunar Initiative

• Demonstration of Commercial Viability of Helium-3 Fusion (“Fly-off” Between 4-5 Approaches)– ~US$5 Billion Investment for Demonstration Plant

• Re-creation of a Saturn V Class of Heavy Lift Boosters with payload costs <US$3000/kg to the Moon– ~US$5 Billion Investment [? Ares 1-5 Development]

• Lunar Settlement’s Capability to Produce 100kg/yr Helium-3 (Miner-Processors, Infrastructure, and “The Company Town”.)– ~US$2.5 Billion Investment (? Lunar Outpost Devel.)

• Financially Viable at >US$2.50/million Btu for Steam Coal ($140 Million/100kg Helium-3) [$2.5-5 Billion Reserve - 17-33%]

NASA PHOTOUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison Photo

04/22/23 8

CHRONOLOGY OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS RELEVANT TO SPACE

ANTARCTIC TREATY

LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION

ANTARCTIC MINERAL RESOURCES CONVENTION

ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENT PROTOCOL

RIO ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS

LAW OF THE SEA RE-NEGOTIATED “AGREEMENT”

KYOTO AGREEMENT

INTELSAT AGREEMENT

OUTER SPACE TREATY

RESCUE/RETURN OF ASTRONAUTS, ETC.

LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE IN SPACE

REGISTRATION OF OBJECTS LAUNCHED

IMMARSAT AGREEMENT

MOON AGREEMENT

SPACE STATION AGREEMENT

1997

1994

1991

1988 1988

19821979

1976

1967

19641959

ITALICS - NOT RATIFIED BY U.S.

RED - ONLY SPACE TREATY DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO RESOURCES TO WHICH THE U.S. IS A PARTY

EARTH SPACE

1992

1968

1972

1975

SENATE RATIFICATION “LAW OF THE SEA” ?200?

COMMERCIAL SPACE ACT OF 1997COMMERCIAL SPACE ACT OF 1998 COMMERCIAL SPACE ACT OF 2003

1997

2003

04/22/23 9

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

• 1967 Space Treaty– Compatible with Signatory

Nation Oversight• 1979 Moon Agreement

– Not Compatible– Requires International

Regulatory and Management Structure to be in Place

SPACE LAW SPACE LAW AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENTAND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

04/22/23 10

QuickTime™ and aPhoto CD Decompressor

are needed to use this picture

•Outer Space Treaty of 1967–Only Truly Operative Space Treaty Relative to Resources–Implementation of Moon Agreement would be Self-defeating

•1967 Treaty Permissive Relative to Access to Space Resources

–Private, Government, Multilateral or International Initiative Equally Permissible–Private Entity Must Be Sponsored (Licensed) by Party to Treaty

•Multilateral Private Property Regime Desirable

SPACE LAWSPACE LAW

04/22/23 11

Law Of The Sea Convention:1994 Revised Agreement

• President Bush, on the 15th of May, Asked the Senate to Ratify the 1994 Revised Convention Previously Signed and Submitted to the Senate by President Clinton

• Major Improvements In Language Were Made Over What The Senate Studied and Refused to Consider in 1982, But……..

• "Common Heritage Of Mankind" Reference Remains Undefined, However, The President Clinton’s Message To The Senate Indicated That It Means: – The Oceans And Its Floor Are Not Subject To National

Appropriation – Private Economic Activity Is Consistent With This Concept

• Only Mining Activity Is Subject To Regulation By The Convention's International Seabed Authority

• Similar Language And Regulatory Intent Relative to Resources Implied In The 1979 Moon Agreement

04/22/23 12

Law Of The Sea Convention1994 Revised Agreement

• Existence Of The International Seabed Authority Is A Problem– The Existence Of The Convention's Own Operating Arm, “The

Enterprise,” Creates Internationally Supported Competition To Any Private Initiatives.

• Clinton’s Transmittal Statement Contends That They Have Made This Harmless But Provision Still Exists

– Special Status Also Conferred On Developing Nations At The Expense Of Others

• Compulsory Dispute Settlement Provisions Gives Up National Sovereignty

• Potential For Inhibiting Litigation Against Any Development• Supposedly, The U.S. Has Veto Power Over Implementation, But

How Can Anyone Be Certain That Power Will Be Exercised?

04/22/23 13

Law Of The Sea Convention• Status (02/18/01): Convention And Agreement Are “In Force”

– 135 Nations (Including The EC) Ratified The 1982 Convention– 100 Nations Have Ratified The 1994 Revised Agreement– Absence Of U.S. Inhibits Implementation

• Existing United States Deep Seabed Mining Law (DSHMRA) – Stated By Clinton Administration To Be Similar To

Provisions In “The Agreement [Revised]”• Mining, However, Remains Subject To Both International

Regulation, Fees And Potentially Unfair Competition From “The Enterprise”

04/22/23 14

Law Of The Sea Convention1994 Agreement

• Questions Relative To The Wisdom Of Senate Ratification– Did 1994 Agreement Really Fix U.S. Objections To The 1982 Convention?

• Complexity Of International Seabed Authority • Special Status Of Developing Nations At Expense Of U.S.• Compulsory Dispute Settlement Provisions• Conflicts With Existing U.S. Laws• Implications Of “Common Heritage Of Mankind” Language• Commitments Implied• Commitment To Funding Of International Seabed Authority• Potential For The Authority To Create Its Own Mining Arm• Reach and Reliability of U.S. Veto

• At The Very Least, The Senate Should Be Forced to Fully Analyze The National and Space Related Implications of Ratification

04/22/23 15

Primary Problem That Many Have With International

Treaties Such As The Law Of The Sea Convention (And

Kyoto):Incremental Loss Of U.S.

Sovereignty To An International Majority With

Fundamentally Different Interests and Values

04/22/23 16Amazon link:

ShamelessPlug