Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Lunar Mining Aff
A Grand Day Out. 1AC—Inherency ...................................................................................................................... 2
1AC—Plan .............................................................................................................................................................. 4
1AC—Helium-3...................................................................................................................................................... 5
1AC—Helium-3—Energy ...................................................................................................................................... 7
1AC—Helium-3—Terrorism ................................................................................................................................ 11
1AC—Economy.................................................................................................................................................... 14
1AC—Solvency .................................................................................................................................................... 17
Commercialization—New Legal Regime Key ..................................................................................................... 20
Commercialization—Investors Interested ............................................................................................................ 22
Helium-3—Rare on Earth ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Helium-3—It’s on the Moon ................................................................................................................................ 24
Helium-3—Alternative Energy............................................................................................................................. 25
Helium-3—Nuclear Detection .............................................................................................................................. 31
Helium-3—A2: Can’t solve prolif ........................................................................................................................ 32
Helium-3—Medicine ............................................................................................................................................ 33
Helium-3—Fusion ................................................................................................................................................ 34
Helium-3—A2: Boron Trifluoride (BF3) ............................................................................................................. 35
Helium-3—A2: Tritium ........................................................................................................................................ 36
Helium-3—A2: Can’t get He-3 ............................................................................................................................ 37
Helium-3—A2: Not Competitive/It’s Expensive ................................................................................................. 38
Helium-3—A2: Destroys Lunar Landscape ......................................................................................................... 39
Mining—Other Resources (Potential Addons) ..................................................................................................... 40
Mining—Colonization Addon .............................................................................................................................. 41
Mining—Hegemony Advantage ........................................................................................................................... 42
Economy—Aerospace Key................................................................................................................................... 45
Economy—A2: No Aerospace Workforce ........................................................................................................... 49
Solvency—Property Rights—Ext ......................................................................................................................... 50
Solvency—Property Rights—Territory Conflicts ................................................................................................ 51
Solvency—Property Rights--Investors ................................................................................................................. 52
Solvency—Property Rights—Laundry List .......................................................................................................... 53
Solvency—Property Rights—A2: Property Rights Inevitable ............................................................................. 54
Solvency—Privatization ....................................................................................................................................... 55
Solvency—Government-initiated Privatization .................................................................................................... 57
Solvency—Unilateral Action => International Co-op .......................................................................................... 58
Solvency—Abandoning Treaties: Spillover ......................................................................................................... 59
Solvency—Unilateralism ...................................................................................................................................... 60
Treaties—A2: Moon Treaty/Common Heritage/Res Communis ......................................................................... 61
Treaties—A2: Ratify Moon Treaty....................................................................................................................... 62
Treaties—A2: Outer Space Treaty........................................................................................................................ 63
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
1
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
A Grand Day Out.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
2
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Inherency
Contention One is Inherency
Environmental conditions make it impossible to find He-3 on Earth, but there are vast amounts on the
moon
Harrison H Schmitt, American geologist, a former NASA astronaut, University Professor and a U.S. Senator for one term
Stefano Coledan, Journalist for Popular Mechanics, October 2004, “Mining the Moon”, Popular Mechanics, Vol. 181, Iss. 10; pg.
56, 6 pgs
It is not a lack of engineering skill that prevents us from using helium-3 to meet our energy needs, but a lack of the isotope
itself. Vast quantities of helium originate in the sun, a small part of which is helium-3, rather than the more common
helium-4. Both types of helium are transformed as they travel toward Earth as part of the solar wind. The precious isotope
never arrives because Earth's magnetic field pushes it away. Fortunately, the conditions that make helium-3 rare on Earth
are absent on the moon, where it has accumulated on the surface and been mixed with the debris layer of dust and rock, or
regolith, by constant meteor strikes. And there it waits for the taking.
An aggressive program to mine helium-3 from the surface of the moon would not only represent an economically practical
justification for permanent human settlements; it could yield enormous benefits back on Earth.
And, there’s a huge interest in lunar mining—the only problem is lack of an effective legal regime
Tronchetti 2009 (Fabio Tronchetti, Associate Professor at the School of Law of the Harbin Institute of Technology, July 2009
“The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: A Proposal for a Legal Regime,” Studies in Space
Law Vol. 4, http://ebookee.org/The-Exploitation-of-Natural-Resources-of-the-Moon-and-Other-Celestial-Bodies_566751.html)PS
As already indicated, one major reason to explain the fact that States and private operators have not started to exploit the
resources of the Moon and other celestial yet is the absence of rules setting out how this exploitation should be carried out.
Th e major space law treaties, indeed, do not contain any specifi c rule dealing with the use of extraterrestrial resources, and
thus there is no clearcut regime dealing with it which has received the general acceptance of States. In this regard, analysis
will focus especially on two legal documents: the 1967 Outer Space Treaty9 and the 1979 Moon Agreement.10 Th e Outer
Space Treaty, which represents the most important legal instrument of the system of space law and which establishes
principles applicable to all activities to be carried out in the space environment, does not contain any specifi c reference to
the use of space resources. Not even the term “exploitation” is mentioned in the Treaty. This does not mean, however, that
the Treaty’s principles are not applicable directly or indirectly to the exploitation of extraterrestrial resources. Th e problem,
however, as will be seen, is that such provisions are of a very general nature and do not provide the meaning of the terms
used. Th eir vague character, combined with the uncertainty that they generate, lead to the conclusion that these provisions
are not accurate enough to ensure the peaceful and orderly development of the exploitation of the resources of the Moon
and other celestial bodies. The provisions of the Moon Agreement, whose purpose was to regulate the use for scientifi c and
commercial purposes of lunar and other celestial bodies’ resources, lose relevance when applied to the exploitation of
extraterrestrial materials. Some of its key provisions have been rejected by the majority of States, and none of the spacefaring nations are Parties to the Agreement itself. Th e consequence is, as we will see, that in order to ensure the safe,
rational, peaceful and orderly exploitation of the resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies a legal regime containing
rules establishing how this exploitation has to be organized and carried out must be established. On the one hand, this legal
regime has to be based on the existing space law principles which, in the last forty years, have provided comprehensive
direction and guidance to space activities. On the other hand, the legal regime has to take into consideration the present
state of space activities, in which private operators are playing a more relevant role day by day. Such operators, who are
very interested in exploiting extraterrestrial resources, must be stimulated to accept and comply with the provisions of such
a legal regime. In other words, the success of any legal regime for exploitation of such resources will rely on its ability to
strike a balance between these two distinct interests.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
3
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Plan
Plan: The United States Federal Government should establish a legal system regulating resource
extraction from the Earth’s moon by granting limited property rights over extracted lunar materials to
parties colonizing the moon.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
4
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Helium-3
Contention 2 is Helium-3
Property Rights ensures Investor Confidence to colonize the moon and extract helium-3—only way to get
companies to mine the moon
White 1998 (Wayne N. White , Jr. Attorney at Law, whose work was presented at the International Institute of Space Law's 40th
Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, “Real Property Rights in Outer Space,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/research_library/WayneWhite98-2.pdf, 1998)
Private entities from the developing nations could obtain property rights by purchasing obsolete facilities from foreign
entities that are more technologically advanced. A regime of real property rights would provide legal and political certainty.
Investors and settlers could predict the outcome of a conflict with greater certainty by analogizing to terrestrial property
law. Settlers and developers would also be reassured, knowing that other nations would respect their right to remain at a
given location
Real property rights are the key to getting private investment in mining Helium-3—subsidies and prizes
aren’t enough
Wasser and Jobes 2008 (Alan Wasser* and Douglas Jobes**, *Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute and a former CEO
of the National Space Society. He is a former member of the AIAA Space Colonization Technical Committee, former member of the
Board of Directors of ProSpace, and a former Senior Associate of the Space Studies Institute and **President of The Space Settlement
Institute and a promoter of space exploration and settlement, PACE SETTLEMENTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL LAW: COULD A LUNAR SETTLEMENT CLAIM THE LUNAR REAL ESTATE IT NEEDS TO SURVIVE?
Winter, 2008)
There appears to be one incentive, however, that could spark massive private investment leading to the establishment of
permanent space settlements on the Moon and beyond with an immediate payback to investors. The concept of "land claims
recognition" (developed by author Alan Wasser and others over the last twenty years) seems to be the most powerful
economic incentive, much more so than all the other incentives, such as government-funded prizes and corporate tax
holidays combined. n8 If and when the Moon and Mars are settled in the future through other incentives, the nations of
Earth will eventually have to recognize these settlements' authority over their own land. But to create an incentive now,
governments would need to commit to recognizing that ownership in advance, rather than long after the fact.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
5
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Helium-3
And, privatized expeditions are the only way to feasibly retrieve He-3—governments have political
concerns and a lack of resources
Henry Gass, Writer for the Ecologist, 7-11-11, The Ecologist, “Plans to strip mine the moon may soon be more than just
science-fiction”,
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/962678/plans_to_strip_mine_the_moon_may_soon_be_more_than_just_scienc
efiction.html
. Tietz says ‘there’s a great deal of interest out there’ from potential investors. ‘This will not be funded by any government
or any federal agency like NASA. This is all going to be – if it ever happens – it will all be private investment,’ continues
Tietz. In a June 2009 article in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers magazine Spectrum, Shackleton founder
Bill Stone wrote that lunar prospecting could cost as much as $20 billion over a decade. ‘At the moment, no country seems
eager to foot the bill,’ writes Stone. ‘Where governments fail to act on au vitally important opportunity, the private sector
can and should step in.’ Stone outlined that, to save $1 billion during the initial staging of the lunar mining base, the first
human team would only take enough fuel to land and establish the base—not enough for a return trip to Earth. ‘This may
sound radical, but the human crew who will undertake this mission will do so knowing that their success and survival
depend on in situ fuel generation for the return. Should they fail, theirs will be a one-way trip; the risk is theirs to take,’
writes Stone. ‘For government-sponsored space agencies, such a concept is unthinkable; they cannot tolerate the political
risk of failure. Yet it is the only viable business choice. Centuries of explorers made the same hard choice in pushing the
limits on land, sea, and air. It’s time to carry it forward into space.’ According to Tietz, governments are at present neither
politically inclined nor financially able to carry out prospecting missions in space. Tietz says governments have different
priorities – most research-oriented – they have to fund with limited budgets. ‘Private enterprise, we believe, can move very
quickly – almost like our internet companies – if they have the right funding and the right regulatory environment to go do
what they want to do they can go do it very fast and effectively, privately, and are basically only beholden to their Board of
Directors and investors,’ continues Tietz. ‘Governments would then be the beneficiaries of the products that we would
produce if we were then successful,’ says Tietz. ‘It’s openly sourced to all of humanity, first-come-first-serve.’
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
6
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Helium-3—Energy
Scenario 1 is Energy
Dependence on Fossil fuels means an energy crisis is inevitable in the status quo—fusion energy from He3 is the only way to prevent exhaustion of fossil fuels and spread of toxic nuclear wastes
Wilson Greatbatch, FAAAS, 1996, Prometheus, “HELIUM-3 FUSION ENERGY: A NATIONAL IMPERATIVE BY 2050
AD”, http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/helium.htm
The world population will increase to ten billion people by the year 2050. By that time we will have exhausted all of the 7
trillion barrels of oil, equivalent to any kind of economically recoverable fossil fuel on earth. We will have run out of places
to store the toxic wastes from our nuclear fission reactors. We will have no alternative resource but fusion energy. The
physics of present fusion energy, involving the fusion of deuterium and tritium in a thermonuclear reactor, the TOKAMAK,
is approaching resolution but problems of reactor materials survival remain, which will probably take 30 years to work out.
This is due to the very destructive neutrons generated in the reaction process. In contrast, helium-3 is a completely clean
source of energy. Two helium-3 atoms are fused in a thermonuclear reactor to produce normal helium and energy. The fuel
is non-radioactive, the process produces no radioactivity, and the residue produces no radioactivity. It is the perfect energy
source. However the helium-3 reaction takes place at 10 times the temperature of the TOKAMAK. It will probably take 10
to 20 years to work out the physics of containing the reaction. There is very little helium-3 on earth, only that which was
left here when the earth was formed, and some additional amount which we have made in our reactors since then. It is
generated from nuclear reactions in the sun and comes to us on solar wind. None lands on earth because it is diverted away
by the earth's magnetic field. But is does land on the moon. The moon is loaded with it. It is estimated that there is ten times
as much helium-3 energy on the moon as our total historical inventory of fossil fuels. 25 tonnes of helium-3 (one shuttle
load) would supply the total US energy needs for a whole year in 1993. The shuttle load would have a value of about 25
billion dollars, which would equate to oil at $7 per barrel.
Lunar resources are the only solution to the energy problem—no other viable energy alternatives
Tronchetti 2009 (Fabio Tronchetti, Associate Professor at the School of Law of the Harbin Institute of Technology, July 2009
“The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: A Proposal for a Legal Regime,” Studies in Space
Law Vol. 4, http://ebookee.org/The-Exploitation-of-Natural-Resources-of-the-Moon-and-Other-Celestial-Bodies_566751.html)PS
Th e Moon and the other celestial bodies of our solar system contain a vast amount of natural resources.5 Th ese resources
can be removed by their original location and utilized to produce energy both in situ and on Earth once brought to our
planet. It has been estimated that the use of extraterrestrial resources as a source of energy not only will have tremendous
impact but also will have the capability to solve the energy crisis currently existing on Earth. As is well known, the stocks
of raw materials are running out and experts estimate that fossil oil will be fi nished in thirty to fourty years. Alternative
ways for generating energy, such as using hydrogen, nuclear power, and solar power, have already been employed on Earth
in order to try to solve this problem. However, it has been proven by scientists that the utilization of the natural resources of
the Moon and other celestial bodies will produce better results in this respect due to the quality and quantity of such
resources.6 Keeping in mind such importance of lunar and other celestial bodies’ resources, their exploitation may generate
a large amount of benefi ts and may contribute to improve the quality of life on Earth. Th erefore, there is a clear need for
an appropriate legal regime organizing this exploitation in an orderly and safe way, which – to the extent it does not exist –
should be dealt with urgently.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
7
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Helium-3—Energy
Energy crises escalate resource wars and extinction
Lendman 2007 (Stephen Lendman, renowned author and Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG,)
recipient of a 2008 Project Censored Award, University of California at Sonoma. “Resource Wars - Can We Survive Them?” June 6,
2007, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5892)
With the world's energy supplies finite, the US heavily dependent on imports, and "peak oil" near or approaching,
"security" for America means assuring a sustainable supply of what we can't do without. It includes waging wars to get it,
protect it, and defend the maritime trade routes over which it travels. That means energy's partnered with predatory New
World Order globalization, militarism, wars, ecological recklessness, and now an extremist US administration willing to
risk Armageddon for world dominance. Central to its plan is first controlling essential resources everywhere, at any cost,
starting with oil and where most of it is located in the Middle East and Central Asia. The New "Great Game" and Perils
From It The new "Great Game's" begun, but this time the stakes are greater than ever as explained above. The old one
lasted nearly 100 years pitting the British empire against Tsarist Russia when the issue wasn't oil. This time, it's the US with
help from Israel, Britain, the West, and satellite states like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan challenging Russia and China
with today's weapons and technology on both sides making earlier ones look like toys. At stake is more than oil. It's planet
earth with survival of all life on it issue number one twice over. Resources and wars for them means militarism is
increasing, peace declining, and the planet's ability to sustain life front and center, if anyone's paying attention. They'd
better be because beyond the point of no return, there's no second chance the way Einstein explained after the atom was
split. His famous quote on future wars was : "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War
IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Under a worst case scenario, it's more dire than that. There may be nothing left
but resilient beetles and bacteria in the wake of a nuclear holocaust meaning even a new stone age is way in the future, if at
all. The threat is real and once nearly happened diuring the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962. We later learned a
miracle saved us at the 40th anniversary October, 2002 summit meeting in Havana attended by the US and Russia along
with host country Cuba. For the first time, we were told how close we came to nuclear Armageddon. Devastation was
avoided only because Soviet submarine captain Vasily Arkhipov countermanded his order to fire nuclear-tipped torpedos
when Russian submarines were attacked by US destroyers near Kennedy's "quarantine" line. Had he done it, only our
imagination can speculate what might have followed and whether planet earth, or at least a big part of it, would have
survived.
And, fossil fuel dependence is the biggest internal link to warming—even slight temperature increases are
devastating
Payne and Dutzik 2009 (Sarah Payne and Tony Dutzik, Policy Analyst at Frontier Group and Senior policy analyst with Frontier
Group whose research has focused on climate and energy policy, transportation, and contributor to The New York Times and WSJ
“The High Cost of Fossil Fuels: Why America Can’t Afford to Depend on Dirty Energy,” June 2009)
In recent years, economists and others have come to realize the scale and scope of these hidden costs of fossil fuel
consumption— the severe impact that air pollution has on public health, the massive economic costs that loom from global
warming, and the myriad of other costs, large and small, that make America’s dependence on fossil fuels increasingly
intolerable. Global Warming Fossil fuel consumption is the leading contributor to global warming. Global warming has the
potential to impose vast and unpredictable impacts on our environment and our lives. A warmer planet means changing
weather, melting ice and shifting ocean currents. These changes go on to cause tertiary impacts, such as altered water
resources, agricultural production and fish stocks. For the human economy, the impacts of global warming carry significant
costs, including, in some cases, the cost of human life. According to a British government review of the economics of
global warming led by former World Bank Chief Economist Sir Nicholas Stern, a global temperature increase of 5 to 6
degrees Celsius—which, the review finds, is a “real possibility” within the next 100 years— could result in the permanent
loss of 5 to 11 percent of global GDP, and possibly up to 7 to 14 percent of GDP.35 If losses of 14 percent had occurred in
2007, for example, they would amount to a worldwide economic cost of more than $7 trillion. 36 These costs arise from
several impacts of global warming.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
8
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Helium-3—Energy
Lunar reserves of Helium-3 would provide fusion energy that will replace fossil fuels and nuclear
fission—interest is high already, it’s only a matter of getting back to the moon
Tronchetti 2009 (Fabio Tronchetti, Associate Professor at the School of Law of the Harbin Institute of Technology, July 2009
“The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: A Proposal for a Legal Regime,” Studies in Space
Law Vol. 4, http://ebookee.org/The-Exploitation-of-Natural-Resources-of-the-Moon-and-Other-Celestial-Bodies_566751.html)PS
Th e most valuable resource contained on the Moon is Helium-3. Helium-3 represents, indeed, the main reason behind the
attention and interests that States and private operators are showing with respect to the Moon and to the possibility to
exploit its resources. Helium-3 is an isotope, scarcely present on Earth but abundant on the Moon, which combined with
other materials, such as deuterium, can be used as fuel in fusion power reactors. Th e value of Helium-3 is that it can
generate nuclear power and, asl a consequence, energy in a clean way, namely through a process of nuclear fusion which
does not produce toxic waste. Th anks to these special characteristics the extraction of Helium-3 is likely to have a huge
impact on the way energy is produced and distributed on Earth. Helium-3, indeed, has the potential to replace fossil fuels
and other substances as primary source of energy on Earth.12 It has been estimated that twenty-five tonnes of Helium-3 can
provide all the power that the United States needs in a year.13 As to the resources contained in the celestial bodies others
than the Moon, it has been estimated that some 1400 Near Earth Asteroids with a diameter larger than one kilometer cross
the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Th ese asteroids are easy to be reached from the Moon. Some of these asteroids are dead
comets with large amounts of water; others contain vast amounts of iron. Also the two Martian moons, Phobos and Deimos,
contain vast quantities of minerals.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
9
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Helium-3—Energy
Positive feedbacks will generate runaway global warming –– civilization will collapse if emissions
continue unchecked
Lester Brown, 2008 Director and Founder of the global institute of Environment in the U.S., [Lester E. Brown, “Plan B
3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization”]
In 2004, Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow at Princeton University published an article in Science that showed how
annual carbon emissions from fossil fuels could be held at 7 billion tons instead of rising to 14 billion tons over the next 50
years, as would occur with business-as-usual. The goal of Pacala, an ecologist, and Socolow, an engineer, was to prevent
atmospheric CO2 concentrations, then near 375 ppm, from rising above 500 ppm. 71 They described 15 ways, all using
proven technologies, that by 2054 could each cut carbon emissions by 1 billion tons per year. Any seven of these options
could be used together to prevent an increase in carbon emissions through 2054. Pacala and Socolow further theorize that
advancing technology would allow for annual carbon emissions to be cut to 2 billion tons by 2104, a level that can be
absorbed by natural carbon sinks in land and oceans. 72 The Pacala/Socolow conceptualization has been extraordinarily
useful in helping to think about how to cut carbon emissions. During the three years since the article was written, the
urgency of acting quickly and on a much larger scale has become obvious. We also need now to go beyond the conceptual
approach that treats all potential methods of reducing carbon emissions equally and concentrate on those that are most
promising. Researchers such as James Hansen, a leading climate scientist at NASA, believe that global warming is
accelerating and may be approaching a tipping point, a point at which climate change acquires a momentum that makes it
irreversible. They think we may have a decade to turn the situation around before this threshold is crossed. I agree. 73 We
often hear descriptions of what we need to do in the decades ahead or by 2050 to avoid “dangerous climate change,” but we
are already facing this. Two thirds of the glaciers that feed the Yellow and Yangtze rivers of China will disappear by 2060
if even the current 7 percent annual rate of melting continues. Glaciologists report that the Gangotri glacier, which supplies
70 percent of the ice melt that feeds the Ganges River during the dry season, could disappear entirely in a matter of
decades. 74 What could threaten world food security more than the melting of the glaciers that feed the major rivers of Asia
during the dry season, the rivers that irrigate the region’s rice and wheat fields? In a region with half the world’s people,
this potential loss of water during the dry season could lead not just to hunger but to starvation on an unimaginable scale.
Asian food security would take a second hit because its ricegrowing river deltas and floodplains would be under water. The
World Bank tells us that a sea level rise of only 1 meter would inundate half of the riceland in Bangladesh. While a 1-meter
rise in sea level will not happen overnight, what is worrisome is that if ice melting continues at today’s rates, at some point
such a rise in sea level will no longer be preventable. The melting that would cause this is not just what may happen if the
earth’s temperature rises further; this is something that is starting to happen right now with the current temperature. 75 As
summer neared an end in 2007, reports from Greenland indicated that the flow of glaciers into the sea had accelerated
beyond anything glaciologists had thought possible. Huge chunks of ice weighing several billion tons each were breaking
off and sliding into the sea, causing minor earthquakes as they did so. 76 With melt-water lubricating the surface between
the glaciers and the rocks on which they rested, ice flows were accelerating, flowing into the ocean at a pace of 2 meters an
hour. This accelerated flow, along with the earthquakes, shows the potential for the entire ice sheet to break up and
collapse. 77 Beyond what is already happening, the world faces a risk that some of the feedback mechanisms will begin to
kick in, further accelerating the warming process. Scientists who once thought that the Arctic Ocean could be free of ice
during the summer by 2100 now see it occurring by 2030. Even this could turn out to be a conservative estimate. 78 This is
of particular concern to scientists because of the albedo effect, where the replacement of highly reflective sea ice with
darker open water greatly increases heat absorbed from sunlight. This, of course, has the potential to further accelerate the
melting of the Greenland ice sheet. A second feedback loop of concern is the melting of permafrost. This would release
billions of tons of carbon, some as methane, a potent greenhouse gas with a global warming effect per ton 25 times that of
carbon dioxide. 79 The risk facing humanity is that climate change could spiral out of control and it will no longer be
possible to arrest trendsuch as ice melting and rising sea level. At this point, the future of civilization would be at risk. This
combination of melting glaciers, rising seas, and their effects on food security and low-lying coastal cities could overwhelm
the capacity of governments to cope. Today it is largely weak states that begin to deteriorate under the pressures of
mounting environmental stresses. But the changes just described could overwhelm even the strongest of states. Civilization
itself could begin to unravel under these extreme stresses.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
10
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Helium-3—Terrorism
Scenario 2 is Terrorism
Helium-3 is critical to preventing terrorism and proliferation, 2 internal links
First is nuclear power plants
Radioactive material in nuclear power plants is vulnerable for terrorist theft; high risk of attack on nuclear
power plants and material will be used to manufacture nuclear weapons
Ira Helfand, Chief emergency medicine section, 2/9/02, British Medical Journey, “Nuclear Terrorism”.
(http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7333/356.full).
Nuclear terrorism might take several forms. An attack on a nuclear power plant or other nuclear installation could result in a
massive release of radioactive material. Despite initial statements by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission that
commercial power plants could withstand an aircraft crashing into them, it seems likely these plants are highly vulnerable.
As early as 1982 a study by the Argonne National Laboratory of the US Department of Energy found that, if a jet aircraft
crashed into a nuclear reactor and only 1% of its fuel ignited after impact, the resulting explosion could compromise the
integrity of the containment building, with possible release of radioactive material. In the aftermath of 11 September, David
Kyd, spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency, confirmed this view, stating: “[Reactors] are built to
withstand impacts, but not that of a wide bodied passenger jet full of fuel… . These are vulnerable targets, and the
consequences of a direct hit could be catastrophic” (Moneyline, CNN, 18 Sep 2001). In addition to the reactors themselves,
nuclear power plants harbour enormous quantities of radioactive materials in spent fuel pools. On average these spent fuel
pools contain five times as much radioactive material as the reactor core, and they are housed in simple corrugated steel
buildings even more vulnerable to attack than the reactor containment buildings. The vulnerability of nuclear power plants
is highlighted by reports that 47% of US nuclear power plants failed to repel mock terrorist attacks conducted by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the 1990s. The results of an attack on either a reactor or a spent fuel pool could
equal or exceed the effects of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, which led to 30 acute deaths from radiation sickness, at least
1800 excess cases of childhood thyroid cancer, the evacuation of 100 000 people, and the radioactive contamination of vast
tracts of land in several countries
Helium-3 will replace waste-producing nuclear fission with clean fusion reactions
Casey Kazan, Staff Editor Daily Galaxy, 8-2-2007, The Daily Galaxy, “The Moon & Helium 3 -Earth's Energy Salvation”,
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/08/helium-3--could.html
The planet's energy solution might be a non-radioactive isotope rare on earth, Helium-3, first discovered by Apollo
astronauts in 1969 that experts view as a perfect fossil-fuel substitute: extremely potent, nonpolluting, with virtually no
radioactive by-product. Twenty tons could provide the annual energy demand of the U.S. In monetary terms, it's worth $4
billion per ton. Over billions of years, solar winds, the rapid stream of charged particles emitted by the sun, strike the moon,
depositing helium 3 in the powdery soil, which could be directly converted into energy through a thermonuclear fusion
reaction with no nuclear waste and provide energy for thousands of years. In contrast to deuterium and tritium, which
release 80 percent of their energy in the form of radioactive neutrons, helium 3 fusion could be produce safely in populated
regions little residual radioactivity. Helium 3, an isotope of the familiar helium used to inflate balloons and blimps, has a
nucleus with two protons and one neutron. A nuclear reactor based on the fusion of helium 3 anddeuterium, which has a
single nuclear proton and neutron, would produce very few neutrons -- about 1 percent of the number generated by the
deuterium-tritiumreaction. Helium 3 fusion energy - classic Buck Rogers propulsion system- may be the key to future space
exploration and settlement, requiring less radioactive shielding, lightening the load. Scientists estimate there are about one
million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space
shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
11
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Helium-3—Terrorism
Second is detection
Helium-3 prevents nuclear smuggling and ensure nuclear material has not been stolen by terrorists
Dana A. Shea, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy,
December 22, 2010, “The Helium-3 Shortage: Supply, Demand, and Options for Congress”, The Congressional Research
Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41419.pdf
The demand for helium-3 for national and homeland security purposes falls into two main categories: the detection of
smuggled radiological and special nuclear material and the monitoring of known special nuclear material to ensure its
security. 53 The Department of Defense, Department of State, NNSA, and DHS all have deployed radiation detection
equipment to detect smuggled radiological and nuclear material. 54 Through programs such as Cooperative Threat
Reduction, the Second Line of Defense, and the Radiation Portal Monitor program, these agencies have deployed thousands
of radiation portal monitors both domestically and overseas. Each portal uses approximately 50 liters of helium-3 as the
basis for its neutron detection capability. Some of the programs have been in place since before 2001. Others, such as those
operated through DHS, were established later. The broad expansion of these deployments has provided the greatest demand
for helium-3 and been the largest drain on the helium-3 stockpile. The Department of Defense and NNSA also use helium-3
in neutron detectors to ensure that stores of special nuclear material are fully accounted for. Accurate neutron counting over
long time periods is one way to monitor the continued presence of materials such as plutonium. In addition, the United
States contributes helium-3 to meet the nuclear security and monitoring needs of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA). Department of Defense guidance and navigation systems for munitions, missiles, aircraft, and surface vehicles
include ring laser gyroscopes that use helium-3. Testing and qualification are under way on an alternative gas for this
purpose.
55
National Security used Helium-3 to detect nuclear radiation- preventing nuclear attacks.
Jenny Marder, Currently a reporter in the PBS NewsHour's National Affairs Unit, will become a full time reporter for the Science
News Unit, February 16, 2011 at 1:08 PM EDT, “Helium 3 Shortage Affects National Security, Medicine”, PBS News Hour,
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/02/helium-3-shortage-reaches-across-sectors.html
First responders from the Nuclear Radiological Advisory Teams are poised at all times to grab their gear and spring into
action in response to radiation threats. "We can expect from the time that a radiological fingerprint arrives at the labs to
have an answer within one hour," said Joseph Krol, associate administrator for the Office of Emergency Operations at the
National Nuclear Security Administration. "We're making it much more difficult for an organization to move radiological
material." The detectors are primed to target gamma rays and neutron emissions, which are present in most radiological
material. But to work, they require an important ingredient: helium 3. Helium 3, a non-radioactive isotope of helium, is
extremely sensitive at detecting neutron radiation. When the gas interacts with neutrons, charged particles are formed,
which can be easily screened by the sensors.
There are no alternatives—He-3 is the only effective detector
Molly McElroy, a neuroscience Ph.D. candidate at the University Illinois , 23 April 2010, “AAAS Workshop Explores How to
Meet Demand for Helium-3 in Medicine, Industry, and Security”, http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0423helium3.shtml
Some possible alternatives to helium-3 are detectors filled with boron trifluoride (BF3) or lined with boron, which are two
“existing alternatives that can be deployed today,” Kouzes said. Plastic fibers coated with lithium-6 are another possible
alternative. Kouzes has tested these alternatives and said that they potentially will work for deployment, but that they will
require hardware and software modifications and integration testing. The alternatives have some disadvantages,
though. BF3, which is toxic, has stringent transportation limitations. Litium-6 coated plastic fibers are
not currently efficient enough. “Boron-lined tubes seem to be the best bet,” Kouzes said, but they require
a multiple tube array in order to efficiently detect neutrons.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
12
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Helium-3—Terrorism
A terrorist attack escalates to a global nuclear exchange
Patrick F. Speice, Jr., JD Candidate @ College of William and Mary, February 2006, “NEGLIGENCE AND NUCLEAR
NONPROLIFERATION: ELIMINATING THE CURRENT LIABILITY BARRIER TO BILATERAL U.S.-RUSSIAN
NONPROLIFERATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS,” William & Mary Law Review, , 47 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 1427]edlee
Accordingly, there is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device or fissile material from
Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent Soviet-era nuclear security
measures. 39 Terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one intact
from the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by [*1438] such a country, or
[buying or stealing] one from another subnational group that had obtained it in one of these ways." 40 Equally threatening,
however, is the risk that terrorists will steal or purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear device on their own. Very
little material is necessary to construct a highly destructive nuclear weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily
complex, the technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon are not significant. 42 Moreover, the sheer number of
methods that could be used to deliver a nuclear device into the United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists
could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was built. 43 Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at
preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most effective means of countering the risk of
nuclear terrorism. 44 Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial
complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. 45 This resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists becoming
unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. 46 Although the economy has stabilized somewhat, there [*1439] are still
at least 20,000 former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to retire, 47 raising the chilling
prospect that these scientists will be tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material to sell, to states or
terrorist organizations with nuclear ambitions. 48 The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear
knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A
terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. 49
Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with
nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 50
In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers
that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. 51 This proliferation
will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states, 52 as well as
increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear
weapons. 53
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
13
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Economy
Contention 3 is the Economy
Property rights spurs the creation of new industries in the epic quest to commercialize space—current
conditions stifle investment
Ty S. Twibell, J.D. Candidate, 1998, University of Missouri- Kansas City School of Law, B.S., Public Administration, Southwest
Missouri State University 1994, 1997, “sPACE LAW: LEGAL RESTRAINTS ON COMMERCIALIZATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF OUTER SPACE”, Lexis.
The final consideration in understanding the problems plaguing the United States space industry is the impact of regulatory
schemes not only on agencies and companies motivated to invest in space, but the psychological impact on the motivating
forces themselves the investors. Investors in satellite projects "have been discouraged by the many legal, regulatory,
financial, political and logistical hurdles to launching systems . . . ." The space industry continues to be extremely stifled
despite the efforts of some domestic law and governmental agencies who aim to promote the commercialization of space.
Although space is a multi- billion dollar industry, in today's economy, it does not compare to the automotive or steel
industries. The full potential of the space industry could eclipse most existing industry. Much more potential exists for the
space industry than merely launching objects into space or facilitating communications technology. Space endeavors have
the potential to create new industries, impacting almost every current terrestrial industry and resource. Because of this great
untapped potential, the United States should be taking a leading role, especially considering the prior precedent set by the
international success of the Mercury and Apollo space programs as well as its current status as a superpower. Space
development requires massive investment, risk-taking, and long-range planning due to the enormous expense and logistics
of space activities. However, the rewards are immeasurable and if the legal restraints are lifted, the industry of the future
could follow.
First, this is key to the jeopardized American aerospace industry—market expansion, and skilled
workforce creation
Davis 2009 (Dean Davis a Senior Principal Aerospace Scientist/Engineer employed by the Boeing Phantom Works: Analysis,
Modeling, Simulation, & Experimentation team, Spring 2009, “Space Settlement”, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL)
Establishing a permanent human presence on the Moon is the key to maintaining America’s technological superiority in the
area of aerospace. Should America allow China or another nation to establish its foothold on the Moon first, the American
economy will suffer. Our lunar base will serve in subsequent decades as a testbed for human exploration beyond the
Moon—to Mars, the asteroids, and, further in the future, the outer planets. As time passes, viable mission designs are
expected to experience reductions in risk, cost, and time optimization for translunar, crewed missions. The communications
network infrastructure will use the Moon in revolutionary new ways and will enable further expansion of what is already a
$300 billion market, driven by space systems. The Moon may be the cornerstone for expansion and survival of this critical
segment of our global economy. In addition, U.S. efforts in human interplanetary space exploration and colonization may
stimulate a new generation of students to take science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes in preparation for
emerging high-technology engineering and science careers. Other economic reasons for establishing a permanent human
presence on the Moon include helium-3 mining (assuming a nuclear fusion technology breakthrough occurs), significant
reductions in space transportation costs, the prospect of space tourism (lunar hotels and resorts), and the potential for safe
information storage.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
14
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Economy
The aerospace industry is key to the economy—spills over into other commercial sectors
Herrnstadt ‘8 (Owen E., Associate General Council of International Associations of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; Director
of International Policy “Offsets and the lack of a Comprehensive U.S. Policy,” Economic Policy Insitute Briefing Paper #201, 04-1408, http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp201.html)
<Aerospace is an especially important industry for a nation's economic and physical security, and perhaps no other country
has benefited more from the aerospace industry than the United States.9 The Final Report of the Commission on the Future
of the United States Aerospace Industry states that the industry "contributes over 15 percent to our Gross Domestic Product
and supports over 15 million high quality American jobs" (Aerospace Industry Commission 2002, 1-2). U.S. aerospace has
been identified as a major source of "technical innovation with substantial spillovers to other industrial and commercial
sectors" and "high-wage employment, which spreads the benefits of rising productivity throughout the U.S. economy.…"
The Aerospace Commission also noted the industry's contribution to the nation's "economic growth, quality of life, and
scientific achievements…." (Aerospace Industry Commission 2002, 1-2).
And, it’s Mead—Nuclear war
Mead 2009 (Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow in US Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2/4/2009,
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2)
So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a
progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian
development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the
power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society
integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian
traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and
banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than
more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has
relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably,
it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and
wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History
may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring
messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system
under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven
Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost
as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but
the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a
depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The
United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
15
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Economy
Second, property rights stimulates space-based industries including energy, medicine, and resources—
these industries are key to preventing human extinction
Ty S. Twibell, J.D. Candidate, 1998, University of Missouri- Kansas City School of Law, B.S., Public Administration, Southwest
Missouri State University 1994, 1997, “PACE LAW: LEGAL RESTRAINTS ON COMMERCIALIZATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF OUTER SPACE”, Lexis.
As stated at the forefront of this Note, the emergence of man into space and the proliferation of outer space economic
activity is not merely an exercise in scientific endeavor or a luxury of an advanced society. It also holds the key to the
"salvation" of humankind who can reap vast rewards in economic benefits: cheaper and more accessible energy, advanced
medicine, infinite natural resources, and space for an expanding population. Any doctrine, such as the res communes
doctrine, that prevents man from receiving space's incomparable rewards must be scrutinized and questioned. The risk and
expense of space activity mandates high levels of cooperation at many levels, including private and governmental
cooperation and cooperation amongst international governments. Thus, by allowing property rights in space and increasing
the legal certainty for space investors, the potential effect is one of both international harmony and humanitarian rewards.
Moreover, the survival of mankind could ultimately depend on a well-developed foothold in space and commercial
development. One day Earth will die. It could be tomorrow or in a few billion years. Assuming the latter occurs, the
middle-aged sun will swell up into a red giant and swallow the Earth before it retracts into a white dwarf or black hole.
Such apocalyptic visions may seem like worries infinitely far away into the future or merely academic. However,
environmental catastrophes equally devastating upon the human population may happen at any moment, including nuclear
accidents, war and other man-made disasters such as the greenhouse effect. This is notwithstanding the Earth's inevitable
destruction. There will also be environmental catastrophes beyond our control. For example, there are about 2,000 asteroids
or other similar objects that will cross Earth's orbit, measuring at least one kilometer in size that "threaten us with collision
and mass global destruction" and at least a documented 400 of these "will certainly collide with Earth." It is difficult to
determine when such a destructive collision will occur. Consequently, there is nothing to gain and everything to lose by not
increasing the motivation for space commercialization. Whereas, if we do pursue an aggressive course into space, starting
by structuring our legal system to support it, the rewards will be infinite. We must not permit the means to prevent the ends.
Soon, space activities will not merely be symbols of feats in human ingenuity and technology, but the actual steps of human
progress.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
16
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Solvency
Contention 4 is Solvency
Solvency Advocate
Ty S. Twibell, J.D. Candidate, 1998, University of Missouri- Kansas City School of Law, B.S., Public Administration, Southwest
Missouri State University 1994, 1997, “PACE LAW: LEGAL RESTRAINTS ON COMMERCIALIZATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF OUTER SPACE”, Lexis.
The problems with international methods in changing space law are obvious. Changes in domestic law often take a
significant amount of time. Moreover, when many nations around the world have to agree on one thing, international
changes often take much longer. It can take years for a nation to sign an agreement. For example, nations have slowly
signed the 1979 Moon Treaty over a period of several years. Conversely, if the world-wide common consensus is the same,
changes can occur very fast. When it looks like international changes could take many years, unilateral action may be more
attractive. One obvious solution would simply be for the United States to ignore the 1967 Space Treaty's no- sovereignty
provision. However, such an action would carry with it many negative international repercussions and could threaten
United States investment in space. Further, success in space commercialization, because of the enormous investments
required, may depend on international cooperation. Professor Reynolds proposes a better solution. The United States could
simply state that it would recognize the claims of those who discover valuable mineral deposits by both citizens and noncitizens of the United States. Recognition of these claims and the protection of these claims from third parties "would not
constitute 'national appropriation' or the exercise of sovereignty over territory, but rather, the exercise of U.S. jurisdiction
over its citizens and of its power to protect them against third parties." This action would be consistent with principles in
analogous law sharing the res communis character of space. Similar to White, Reynolds cites the Deep Seabed Hard
Mineral Resources Act, "which established a mechanism for recognizing mining claims by United States ventures regarding
deep seabed mineral deposits outside the territorial jurisdiction of any nation." Instead of creating an international scheme
for adopting a body of law similar to the Deep Seabed Act, Reynolds merely proposes that it is a good precedent and a
supporting basis for unilateral action. Reynolds states that "[b]ecause the Act applies to an international common area, the
high seas, with the same res communis legal character as outer space, it provides an interesting precedent for unilateral
United States efforts to recognize property rights in outer space pending some agreed-upon international regime." Many
nations have their own space program and are fast becoming technologically and economically capable of implementing a
viable space industry. The space industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and, for the time being, is forced to operate
within the confines of current space law. These confines restrict it to launching, satellite systems, and scant space
manufacturing. The existing legal regime will not permit it to grow any further. Unless space law alters its course, there is
little incentive to invest in outer space. Minor legal change could create the needed legal incentive to invest in an industry
requiring enormous investments of capital and substantial risk. The rewards are infinite, including economic gain, infinite
resources, humanitarian progress, and solutions to future crises. The issue of legal change may seem academic, however,
our future survival may depend on it.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
17
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Solvency
Real property rights is the only way to solve—prevents turf conflicts
White 1998 (Wayne N. White , Jr. Attorney at Law, whose work was presented at the International Institute of Space Law's 40th
Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, “Real Property Rights in Outer Space,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/research_library/WayneWhite98-2.pdf, 1998)
A development regime which provides some form of property rights will become increasingly necessary as space develops.
Professionals foresee an integrated system of solar power generation, lunar and asteroidal mining, orbital industrialization,
and habitation in outer space. In the midst of this complexity, the right to maintain a facility in a given location relative to
another space object may create conflict. Such conflicts may arise sooner than we expect, if private companies begin
building subsidiary facilities around space stations. Eventually large public facilities will become the hub of private space
development, and owners will want to protect the proximity value of their facility location. It also seems likely that at some
point national governments and/or private companies will clash over the right to exploit a given mineral deposit. Finally,
the geosynchronous orbit is already crowded with satellites, and other orbits with unique characteristics may become scarce
in the future. The institution of real property is the most efficient method of allocating the scarce resource of location value.
Space habitats, for example, will be very expensive and will probably require financing from private as well as public
sources. Selling property rights for living or business space on the habitat would be one way of obtaining private financing.
Private law condominiums would seem to be a particularly apt financing model -- inhabitants could hold title to their living
space and pay a monthly fee for life-support services and maintenance of common areas.
And, privatized expeditions are the only way to feasibly retrieve He-3—governments have political
concerns and a lack of resources
Henry Gass, Writer for the Ecologist, 7-11-11, The Ecologist, “Plans to strip mine the moon may soon be more than just
science-fiction”,
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/962678/plans_to_strip_mine_the_moon_may_soon_be_more_than_just_scienc
efiction.html
. Tietz says ‘there’s a great deal of interest out there’ from potential investors. ‘This will not be funded by any government
or any federal agency like NASA. This is all going to be – if it ever happens – it will all be private investment,’ continues
Tietz. In a June 2009 article in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers magazine Spectrum, Shackleton founder
Bill Stone wrote that lunar prospecting could cost as much as $20 billion over a decade. ‘At the moment, no country seems
eager to foot the bill,’ writes Stone. ‘Where governments fail to act on au vitally important opportunity, the private sector
can and should step in.’ Stone outlined that, to save $1 billion during the initial staging of the lunar mining base, the first
human team would only take enough fuel to land and establish the base—not enough for a return trip to Earth. ‘This may
sound radical, but the human crew who will undertake this mission will do so knowing that their success and survival
depend on in situ fuel generation for the return. Should they fail, theirs will be a one-way trip; the risk is theirs to take,’
writes Stone. ‘For government-sponsored space agencies, such a concept is unthinkable; they cannot tolerate the political
risk of failure. Yet it is the only viable business choice. Centuries of explorers made the same hard choice in pushing the
limits on land, sea, and air. It’s time to carry it forward into space.’ According to Tietz, governments are at present neither
politically inclined nor financially able to carry out prospecting missions in space. Tietz says governments have different
priorities – most research-oriented – they have to fund with limited budgets. ‘Private enterprise, we believe, can move very
quickly – almost like our internet companies – if they have the right funding and the right regulatory environment to go do
what they want to do they can go do it very fast and effectively, privately, and are basically only beholden to their Board of
Directors and investors,’ continues Tietz. ‘Governments would then be the beneficiaries of the products that we would
produce if we were then successful,’ says Tietz. ‘It’s openly sourced to all of humanity, first-come-first-serve.’
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
18
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
1AC—Solvency
the plan will spur calls for international cooperation—acts as a jump start to a global discussion of space
legal issues and boost soft power
Twibell 1997 (Ty S. Twibell, J.D. Candidate 1998, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, B.S, Public Administration,
Southwest Missouri State University, “NOTE & COMMENT: CIRCUMNAVIGATING INTERNATIONAL SPACE LAW,” ILSA
Journal of International & Comparative Law, p. 259, Fall 1997)
Unlike Congress and state legislatures, the United Nations does not have an analogous lobbying structure to implement
legislative change. People are not salaried solely for the purpose of wining and dining United Nations ambassadors to have their views affect United
Nations decision making. United Nations lobbyists are the states themselves (although they may be acting on behalf of internal or domestic lobbying
interests). The United States could be a lobbyist for the space and property right cause by promoting its own space industry
and preparing to do so. Such maneuvers of the world's largest economic and technological giant would not go unnoticed, rather, it
would send a message of an impending need for a new international space regime. Other nations would observe the United
States preparing for massive space ventures that could question the 1967 Space Treaty's no-sovereignty provision. They
would then be extremely motivated to act upon their concerns and address property right issues before the United States
foreseeably quashes their opportunities perceptively to them anyway. Further, other nations would necessarily and
inevitably work in conjunction with the United States in its space endeavors, paving the path further or international legal
change.
This gets international community onboard to work on new legal regimes—solves for international
tension
Tronchetti 2009 (Fabio Tronchetti, Associate Professor at the School of Law of the Harbin Institute of Technology,July
2009 “The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: A Proposal for a Legal Regime,” Studies in
Space Law Vol. 4,http://ebookee.org/The-Exploitation-of-Natural-Resources-of-the-Moon-and-Other-CelestialBodies_566751.html)PS
Th e exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies leads to one of the most fascinating future
developments in the fi eld of space law and space related activities. As the large number of benefi ts that such exploitation
is expected to generate may signifi cantly contribute to the betterment of living conditions on Earth, considering the
industrial, fi nancial and political interests related to the possibility to exploit such resources and the huge number of
organizations, both of a public and a private nature, interested in carrying out this exploitation, a legal regime to regulate it
is needed. Th e safe, orderly and peaceful development of the exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon and other
celestial bodies can only be guaranteed by a legal regime establishing rules according to which such exploitation may be
carried out. Th is need for setting up what essentially is a new legal regime stems from the fact that the existing space law
regime does not contain any specifi c rules related to the exploitation of space resources. Th e Outer Space Treaty does not
make any reference to the possibility to exploit extraterrestrial resources. Th e Treaty actually never uses the term
exploitation. Th e Moon Agreement, whose main purpose is to set out rules to govern the exploitation of lunar and other
celestial bodies’ natural resources, has not been ratifi ed by the majority of States, comprising the space-faring ones. Th
erefore, in case the exploitation of the natural resources contained in the Moon and other celestial bodies would be based
upon the existing space law rules only, the risk of disorder, uncertainty and tension among the subjects involved would be
high. A specifi c legal regime is needed. For that purpose, this book proposes the establishment of a legal regime to govern
the extraction and exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
19
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Commercialization—New Legal Regime Key
Legal regime key to investor cooperation
Tronchetti 2009 (Fabio Tronchetti, Associate Professor at the School of Law of the Harbin Institute of Technology, July 2009
“The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: A Proposal for a Legal Regime,” Studies in Space
Law Vol. 4, http://ebookee.org/The-Exploitation-of-Natural-Resources-of-the-Moon-and-Other-Celestial-Bodies_566751.html)PS
At least in this case, however, it is submitted that the law must anticipate the technological developments. One of the main
reasons explaining that exploitation of extraterrestrial resources has not started yet is the absence of specifi c rules making
clear how this exploitation should be organized, what the rights and duties are of the parties involved, and whether or not it
is possible to gain property rights over the extracted materials. Such absence has generated legal uncertainty among
spacefaring States and private operators interested in those resources by preventing them from investing money and from
developing the required technologies to actually carry out such exploitation. Therefore, there is a need to develop a legal
regime that basically establishes what is allowed and what is prohibited when exploiting an extraterrestrial site. The
presence of such a regime will contribute to foster legal certainty among States and private companies and thereby
stimulate them to devote their resources to the exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies.
Expanded, specific legal regime key; safety and investor confidence*
Tronchetti 2009 (Fabio Tronchetti, Associate Professor at the School of Law of the Harbin Institute of Technology, July 2009
“The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: A Proposal for a Legal Regime,” Studies in Space
Law Vol. 4, http://ebookee.org/The-Exploitation-of-Natural-Resources-of-the-Moon-and-Other-Celestial-Bodies_566751.html)PS
Th us, it must be questioned whether the commercial exploitation of outer space resources should be based upon these
principles only. The exploitation of extraterrestrial materials, a fascinating as well as complex venture, raises several
specific legal issues, such as those related to the right of mining extraterrestrial sites or to property rights over the extracted
materials, which may not be properly addressed and solved by simply relying on the existing space law principles. These
principles need to be supplemented and extended with specific rules addressing all the foreseeable scenarios and legal
problems that may emerge in the course of these exploitative activities. Therefore, a legal regime establishing rules to
regulate the exploitation of outer space resources must be established. Secondly, the presence of a legal regime represents
the only feasible solution to guarantee the safe as well as orderly development of extraterrestrial exploitative activities.
Indeed, it is only through the full respect for a detailed set of rules indicating under which conditions these activities may be
carried out and what the rights and duties are of the subjects involved, that such exploitation may be performed in an
organized and peaceful manner. In order to do so, however, it is important that such a legal regime contains clear and
unambiguous rules which are able to provide space operators with certainty and predictability regarding their exploitative
activities and the benefi ts generated therein. Th e absence of these rules has prevented and discouraged space-faring
nations and private companies from investing in projects aimed at exploiting the natural resources of the Moon and other
celestial bodies. Th irdly, the presence of such a legal regime is essential from another point of view as well. Carrying out
the exploitation of the resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies is a very risky and expensive activity.
Consequently, no one would invest without a stable legal framework protecting and securing the proper financial and
technical investments. It should be noted of course that the feeling of importance of establishing a legal regime to govern
the exploitation of extraterrestrial materials is not shared by all. A large group of private operators does not consider such a
legal regime necessary.513 In their opinion, it will increase the cost of the exploitative activities, delay their beginning and,
eventually, may even prevent these activities from taking place altogether. Private operators may think their interests are
actually in having unclear rules dealing with the exploitation of space resources. Th ey consider they might to try to take
advantage of such uncertainty and obtain the largest possible profi ts because of general uncertainty as to what would be
allowed and what not – those who dare would be rewarded, those who would be hesitant for lack of legal certainty, left out.
Nevertheless, it seems that they do not take into proper account the risks inherent in such an approach. Without the
presence of specific rules regarding the exploitation of extraterrestrial materials, it is diffi cult to imagine how such an
exploitation could be safely organized. For instance, who will be entitled to exploit the natural resources of a lunar site? For
how long? Who will have property rights over the extracted materials? How will it be possible to maintain in force the nonappropriative nature of outer space? These questions will remain unsolved, and the only possible outcome will be an
increasing tension among the subjects involved in such activities and a high risk of conflict among them. This is a situation
that has to be avoided, and a legal regime to manage the commercial use of space resources has to be draft ed to do exactly
that. Of course, not all private operators share the view that a legal regime to regulate the exploitation of space resources is
not needed, and actually detrimental to their interests. There are private companies that not only consider such a regime a
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
20
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
useful means to ensure the orderly development of the exploitation of extraterrestrial materials but also are willing to
respect and operate in conformity with the provisions and requirements of such a regime. Considering the fundamental
contribution that such companies could make to the success of the exploitation of space resources, both from a
technological and fi nancial point of view, it is of primary importance that the legal regime is able to support and protect
their interests.
Thomas 2005 (Jonothan Thomas, Qualified Legal Analyst for the International Law and Management Review,
“PRIVATIZATION OF SPACE VENTURES: PROPOSING A PROVEN REGULATORY THEORY FOR FUTURE
EXTRATERRESTRIAL APPROPRIATION” International Law and Management Review Volume 1, Spring 2005)PS
Current approaches attempt to reform the existing corpus juris spatialis by either working within the confines of a res
communis framework or by creating entirely new bodies of regulatory authority. These approaches are insufficient because
they do not provide enough compensation or incentive to private enterprises and states. Despite the laudable and widely
discussed attempts at reform within the existing framework of CHM principles, theorists are unable to provide effective
solutions that compensate for market pressures and human self-interest. Thus, states should abandon the Outer Space Treaty
and Moon Treaty in favor of a free-market approach based on traditional property jurisprudence which acknowledges and
utilizes the capitalistic nature of modem economies.102 This jurisprudence is the most practicable solution because it has
guided human acquisition of property for millennia. Traditional property jurisprudence would allow all states to actively
participate in an outer space market by grant of charter. Laws basing the acquisition of extraterrestrial property on (1)
discovery; (2) claim; and (3) possession would best facilitate and encourage outer space appropriation and exploration.
Gruner 2004 (Brandon C. Gruner, associate based in the New York office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. He is a member of its
Corporate Department and its Intellectual Property Practice Group with experience in the areas of the intersection of intellectual
property rights, and trademark. “A New Hope for Ineternational Space Law: Incorporating Nineteenth Century First Possession
Principles into the 1967 Space treaty for the Colonization of Outer Space in the Twenty-First Century,” Seton Hall Law Review Vol.
35:299, p., 2004)PS
Furthermore, those nations that promote and accept the Common Heritage version of the res communis principle have a
more difficult burden in that they must persuade the international community to accept this concept of property rights.318
Since the Common Heritage of Mankind is an alternative system of governance, the burden is on undeveloped nations to
prove the principle's superiority over the historically successful system of sovereignty.319 Thus far, however, arguments
for the implementation of this socio-economic policy have been met with hostility.:20 Although undeveloped nations have
aligned themselves with the Common Heritage of Mankind concept,321 developed nations have failed to acknowledge its
legitimacy and legality because the principle does not comply with the three prerequisites that must be fulfilled for it to be
accepted as a rule of modern international law. For any principle to be accepted by the international community, it first
must be clear and well-defined so that the international community may integrate the concept into international law.323
Next, nations must abide by the principle and widely agree on its authority in international law.324 Finally, customary
recognition of the concept must be manifested by States or, at a minimum, be supported worldwide to verify its broad
acceptance.32, Applying this framework, the first problem with international acceptance of the Common Heritage principle
has been that States have been unable to develop a homogeneous interpretation of the Common Heritage concept-and thus
the principle is not clear and well-defined.326 It is uncertain, for example, whether the 1979 Moon Treaty requires an
equitable distribution of space resources, since the concept of sharing is inapplicable to other commons areas, like the deep
seabed.327 Furthermore, the Common Heritage principle is entirely declaratory and imprecise due to its open
interpretations of humanity's rights in outer space.32 If mankind truly is an heir to 329 outer space --and the concept of
heritage clearly suggests that common areas should be treated as inheritances transmitted from 330* ancestors to future
generations -then mankind should not only have the right to acquire its inheritance free from resource waste and
environmental abuse, but mankind should have the right to exploit its inheritance as well, "because an heir is entitled to
both."33' The concept of sharing inherent in the Common Heritage principle, however, seemingly puts a limit on
exploitation of space resources because the area must be preserved for future generations.332 This ambiguity differs vastly
from the legal certainty of sovereignty, which States uniformly recognize as allowing a property rights scheme of the
sovereign's choice.33
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
21
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Commercialization—Investors Interested
Investors would invest in lunar property.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, University of Tennesse Law Professor, 6-1-2008, Popular Mechanics Magazine, “Who Owns the
Moon? The Case for Lunar Property Rights” http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/4264325
So property rights on the moon are still the subject of international discussion. But would anyone buy lunar land? And what
would it take to establish good title? The answer to the first question is clearly "yes." Lots of people would buy lunar land-and, in fact, lots of people have, sort of. Dennis Hope, owner of Lunar Embassy, says he's sold 500 million acres as
"novelties." Each parcel is about the size of a football field and costs $16 to $20. Buyers choose the location--except for the
Sea of Tranquility and the Apollo landing sites, which Hope has placed off-limits. To convey good title, Hope essentially
wrote the U.N. to say he was going to begin selling lunar property. When the U.N. didn't respond with an objection, he
asserted that this allowed him to proceed. Although I regard his claim to good title as dubious, his customers have created a
constituency to recognize his position. If he sells enough lunar property, it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. So there's
demand, even for iffy titles.
Private companies and investors are the best actor for space industry development.
Henry Gass, Writer for the Ecologist, 7-11-11, The Ecologist, “Plans to strip mine the moon may soon be more than just
science-fiction”,
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/962678/plans_to_strip_mine_the_moon_may_soon_be_more_than_just_scienc
efiction.html
. Tietz says ‘there’s a great deal of interest out there’ from potential investors. ‘This will not be funded by any government
or any federal agency like NASA. This is all going to be – if it ever happens – it will all be private investment,’ continues
Tietz. In a June 2009 article in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers magazine Spectrum, Shackleton founder
Bill Stone wrote that lunar prospecting could cost as much as $20 billion over a decade. ‘At the moment, no country seems
eager to foot the bill,’ writes Stone. ‘Where governments fail to act on au vitally important opportunity, the private sector
can and should step in.’ Stone outlined that, to save $1 billion during the initial staging of the lunar mining base, the first
human team would only take enough fuel to land and establish the base—not enough for a return trip to Earth. ‘This may
sound radical, but the human crew who will undertake this mission will do so knowing that their success and survival
depend on in situ fuel generation for the return. Should they fail, theirs will be a one-way trip; the risk is theirs to take,’
writes Stone. ‘For government-sponsored space agencies, such a concept is unthinkable; they cannot tolerate the political
risk of failure. Yet it is the only viable business choice. Centuries of explorers made the same hard choice in pushing the
limits on land, sea, and air. It’s time to carry it forward into space.’ According to Tietz, governments are at present neither
politically inclined nor financially able to carry out prospecting missions in space. Tietz says governments have different
priorities – most research-oriented – they have to fund with limited budgets. ‘Private enterprise, we believe, can move very
quickly – almost like our internet companies – if they have the right funding and the right regulatory environment to go do
what they want to do they can go do it very fast and effectively, privately, and are basically only beholden to their Board of
Directors and investors,’ continues Tietz. ‘Governments would then be the beneficiaries of the products that we would
produce if we were then successful,’ says Tietz. ‘It’s openly sourced to all of humanity, first-come-first-serve.’
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
22
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Helium-3—Rare on Earth
Helium-3 Stock Piles Are At A Record Low.
Anderson 10 (Tom Anderson is the product line leader for GE 42 Energy’s Reuter-Stokes Radiation Measurement Solutions.
4/22/10 “CAUGHT BY SURPRISE: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE HELIUM-3 SUPPLY CRISIS”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg57170/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg57170.pdf)
The need to act is critical. The Department of Energy’s helium- 3 reserves have been depleted to approximately 50,000
liters. To put this in perspective, GE has purchased over 100,000 liters of helium- 3 from the DOE since 2003. Since 9/11,
GE has manufactured over 40,000 helium-3 detectors which support homeland security and nuclear safeguards programs.
DNDO and the Integrated Project Team have played a key role in responding to the helium-3 shortage. I believe DNDO is
exploring the most practical options available to produce helium-3. Short of planning a trip to the moon, as was discussed
this morning, to mine helium-3, the most promising near-term prospect is to accelerate work with the Canadian government
to harvest the helium- 3 from the tritium storage beds at Ontario Power Generation. Expeditious recovery and processing of
this gas could be used to sustain helium-3 detectors for applications such as oil exploration and nuclear safeguards while
replacement technologies are developed.
There is a very limited supply of He-3 on Earth- .0001 percent of nation’s helium
Jenny Marder, Currently a reporter in the PBS NewsHour's National Affairs Unit, will become a full time reporter for the Science
News Unit, February 16, 2011 at 1:08 PM EDT, “Helium 3 Shortage Affects National Security, Medicine”, PBS News Hour,
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/02/helium-3-shortage-reaches-across-sectors.html
But here's the problem: the helium 3 supply is extremely scarce and depleting rapidly. Helium 3 only represents .0001
percent of the nation's helium. Most of the nation's supply has been plumbed from the decay of tritium, an isotope of
hydrogen, which is used to make nuclear weapons. Helium 3 is produced when nuclear weapons are dismantled, but with
stockpiles shrinking, less tritium means less helium 3.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
23
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Helium-3—It’s on the Moon
Several rare resources exist on the moon including Helium-3
Henry Gass, Writer for the Ecologist, 7-11-11, The Ecologist, “Plans to strip mine the moon may soon be more than just sciencefiction”,http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/962678/plans_to_strip_mine_the_moon_may_soon_be_more_than_just_sci
encefiction.html
It may not be long before we start mining the moon for its resources, particularly the rare Helium-3 for its use in nuclear
fusion. Billions of tonnes of resources, ranging from water to gases to metals, have been detected on the Moon and further
out into space, and both governments and private companies are navigating the ambiguous legal parlance to determine how
to reach, extract and distribute it all. Vast quantities of the isotope Helium-3 are known to exist on the Moon, as well as in
the atmospheres of planets like Jupiter, and could come into high demand as the essential fuel for the so-called 'golden
dream' of nuclear fusion power. While existing nuclear fission plants break apart atoms and harvest the excess energy,
nuclear fusion combines atoms of hydrogen to create helium, a process that releases vast amounts of energy. According to
Matthew Genge, lecturer in the Faculty of Engineering at Imperial College London, the Moon’s lack of atmosphere means
it has been bombarded by high-energy particles for billions of years, some of which have embedded on its surface. Many of
these particles, including Helium-3, can be extracted through heating Moon rock and collecting the gas. ‘Millions to
hundreds of millions of tonnes, I should think, is readily accessible,’ says Genge. ‘You can strip mine the Moon and you
can cook out the Helium-3.’ What's more, he says, nuclear fusion using Helium-3 would be cleaner, as it doesn't produce
any spare neutrons. ‘It should produce vastly more energy than fission reactions without the problem of excessive amounts
of radioactive waste.’ Scientists have so far only been able to sustain a fusion reaction for a few seconds, but with nothing
near the scale or energy yield necessary to be replicated for commercial use. With billions invested into its potential, many
scientists believe it will eventually be perfected - at which point demand for Helium-3 is likely to 'explode'. Helium-3 is
available in such low quantities on earth that even though nuclear fusion doesn’t even work properly yet, it is still worth
US$16 million per kilo
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
24
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Helium-3—Alternative Energy
Helium-3 Eliminates Fossil Fuel Dependence, Solving Economic Failure.
Bilder, Richard B. Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School. “A Legal Regime for
the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options.” Fordham International Law Journal. Volume 33, Issue 2. Article 1.
2009. http://ddw11.wikispaces.com/file/view/Helium-3+Law+Review+Article.pdf
During the past several years, the United States and three of the world's other leading space powers, Russia, China, and India,
have each announced their intent to establish a base on the Moon, in part with the purpose-or, in the case of the United States, at
least the exploratory goal-of seeking to mine and bring to Earth helium-3 ("He-3"), an isotope' of helium rarely found naturally on
Earth but believed to be present in large amounts as a component of the lunar soil.2 The potential value of He-3 is that it is
theoretically an ideal fuel for thermonuclear fusion power reactors, which could serve as a virtually limitless source of safe
and non-polluting energy.3 For example, it is estimated that forty tons of liquefied He-3 brought from the Moon to the
Earth-about the amount that would comfortably fit in the cargo bays of two current U.S. space shuttles-would provide
sufficient fuel for He-3 fusion reactors to meet the full electrical needs of the United States, or one quarter of the entire
world's electrical needs, for an entire year.4 While the technological and economic feasibility of fusionbased nuclear
energy, particularly fusion reactors utilizing He-3 as fuel, is still uncertain and contested, and its commercial realization at
best decades away,5 the implications of such a development could be far-reaching and profound. Fusion energy could
significantly reduce the world's heavy dependence on fossil fuels, which are associated with environmental pollution,
greenhouse gas emissions, and global warming-not to mention their rising price and role in recurrent geopolitical and
economic tensions. Fusion energy could also provide a safer alternative to many countries' growing reliance on energy
generated from nuclear fission reactors, which hold the potential dangers of nuclear accidents, terrorism, weapons
proliferation, and radioactive waste disposal. Moreover, in contrast to the prospect of depletion of terrestrial fossil fuels, it
is estimated that there is sufficient He-3 present on the Moon to meet humanity's rapidly growing energy needs for many
centuries to come.6 Thus, despite the problematic future of He-3-based fusion energy, it is not surprising that the United
States and other major powers are beginning to position themselves to ensure their future access to lunar He-3 resources.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
25
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Helium-3 Fusion Solves The Disadvantages of Status Quo Energy—Five Reasons.
Bilder, Richard B. Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School. “A Legal Regime for
the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options.” Fordham International Law Journal. Volume 33, Issue 2. Article 1.
2009. http://ddw11.wikispaces.com/file/view/Helium-3+Law+Review+Article.pdf
THE PROSPECTS FOR HE-3-BASED FUSION ENERGY 1 He-3 is a component of the "solar wind" comprised of gas
and charged particles continuously emitted by the sun into the solar system in the course of its thermonuclear fusion
processes. 1 2 During more than four billion years in which the solar wind has impacted the Moon, significant amounts of
He-3, in addition to particles of other ionized components of the solar wind, have become embedded in the Moon's regoliththe loose and dusty upper layer of rocks and soil comprising much of the Moon's surface. 13 While He-3 constitutes only a
minute proportion of the lunar regolith, 14 it is estimated that, altogether, there may be as much as one million metric tons
of He-3 potentially recoverable from the Moon's surface.' 5 This amount of He-3 is theoretically equivalent to ten times the
energy content of all of the coal, oil, and natural gas economically recoverable on Earth. 16 Since the Earth, unlike the
Moon, possesses a magnetic field and atmosphere that deflect the solar wind, He-3 is rarely found naturally on Earth. 1 7
The small amounts of He-3 available for research and experiment on Earth are derived principally from the decay of tritium
used in thermonuclear weapons.' 8 While interest in lunar He-3 relates to its potential use as a fuel for thermonuclear power
reactors,' 9 the technological and economic feasibility of fusion power itself has yet to be demonstrated. 20 Unlike the
engineering and material requirements for power production in the uranium and plutonium-fueled nuclear fission reactors
now operating in the United States and a number of other countries, the generation of power by thermonuclear fusion
requires the containment of ionized plasmas at extremely high temperatures, a feat not easily or economically achievable at
present with existing materials and technology. 21 Nevertheless, the enormous potential of fusion energy continues to spur
persistent and intensive efforts to overcome these obstacles. One of the most significant efforts is the recent establishment,
by a consortium of the European Union (through the European Atomic Energy Community), Japan, the People's Republic
of China, the Republic of India, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United States, of the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor ("ITER"),22 a large-scale, international experimental research project designed to
explore the scientific and engineering feasibility of magnetic containment fusion power production. 23 The program will be
located in Cadarache, France, and is expected to cost over US$12 billion and continue for thirty years. 24 For a number of
reasons, including the limited terrestrial availability of He-3 and the very high temperatures required to achieve He-3-based
fusion, most current research, and any first generation fusion power reactors, will likely be based on a fuel cycle involving
the fusion of deuterium ("D") and tritium ("T"), two isotopes of hydrogen available on Earth and capable of fusing at
considerably lower temperatures.2 5 However, an He-3-D fuel cycle, if and when technically achievable, theoretically offers
significant advantages as compared with the D-T fuel cycle. Unlike a D-T fusion reaction, which results in considerable
neutron radiation, an He-3-D fusion reaction would produce little radioactivity and a substantially higher proportion of
directly usable energy.26 More specifically, the comparative advantages of an He-3-D fuel cycle over a D-T fuel cycle
would include: (1) increased electrical conversion efficiency; (2) reduced radiation damage to containment vessels,
obviating the need for frequent expensive replacement; (3) reduced radioactive waste, with consequent reduced costs of
protection and disposal; (4) increased levels of safety in the event of accident; and (5) potentially lower costs of electricity
production. 27 In particular, an He-3-D fuel cycle would significantly reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation because an
He-3-D reaction, unlike a D-T reaction, would produce few neutrons and could not be readily employed to produce
plutonium or other weapons-grade fissile materials. 28 Consequently, interest in developing He-3-fueled thermonuclear
energy is likely to continue.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
26
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Moon Mining is better alternative to gasoline.
Michael Schirber, Astrophysics (Ph.D.), 8-13-2008, MSNBC, “How moon rocks could power the future”,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26179944/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/how-moon-rocks-could-power-future/
Kulcinski and his colleagues have designed rovers that could move along the surface, scraping up lunar soil and heating it
with concentrated sunlight. Such a mining operation would retrieve 300 times more energy than it uses (including all the
energy to fly to the moon and back), Kulcinski estimates. In comparison, mining coal returns 15-20 times the energy put in.
His team has estimated that it might cost around $800 million to bring back each ton of lunar helium-3. This might sound
like a lot, but if you could sell the fusion energy at a price comparable to gasoline based on oil at $100 per barrel, the
helium-3 would be worth $10 billion per ton.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
27
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Helium – 3 is the ideal substitute to gasoline.
Casey Kazan, Staff Editor Daily Galaxy, 8-2-2007, The Daily Galaxy, “The Moon & Helium 3 -Earth's Energy Salvation”,
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/08/helium-3--could.html
The planet's energy solution might be a non-radioactive isotope rare on earth, Helium-3, first discovered by Apollo
astronauts in 1969 that experts view as a perfect fossil-fuel substitute: extremely potent, nonpolluting, with virtually no
radioactive by-product. Twenty tons could provide the annual energy demand of the U.S. In monetary terms, it's worth $4
billion per ton. Over billions of years, solar winds, the rapid stream of charged particles emitted by the sun, strike the moon,
depositing helium 3 in the powdery soil, which could be directly converted into energy through a thermonuclear fusion
reaction with no nuclear waste and provide energy for thousands of years. In contrast to deuterium and tritium, which
release 80 percent of their energy in the form of radioactive neutrons, helium 3 fusion could be produce safely in populated
regions little residual radioactivity. Helium 3, an isotope of the familiar helium used to inflate balloons and blimps, has a
nucleus with two protons and one neutron. A nuclear reactor based on the fusion of helium 3 anddeuterium, which has a
single nuclear proton and neutron, would produce very few neutrons -- about 1 percent of the number generated by the
deuterium-tritiumreaction. Helium 3 fusion energy - classic Buck Rogers propulsion system- may be the key to future space
exploration and settlement, requiring less radioactive shielding, lightening the load. Scientists estimate there are about one
million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space
shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
28
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Helium – 3 is the best alternative for fossil fuels.
Wilson Greatbatch, FAAAS, 1996, Prometheus, “HELIUM-3 FUSION ENERGY: A NATIONAL IMPERATIVE BY 2050
AD”, http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/helium.htm
The world population will increase to ten billion people by the year 2050. By that time we will have exhausted all of the 7
trillion barrels of oil, equivalent to any kind of economically recoverable fossil fuel on earth. We will have run out of places
to store the toxic wastes from our nuclear fission reactors. We will have no alternative resource but fusion energy.
The physics of present fusion energy, involving the fusion of deuterium and tritium in a thermonuclear reactor, the
TOKAMAK, is approaching resolution but problems of reactor materials survival remain, which will probably take 30 years
to work out. This is due to the very destructive neutrons generated in the reaction process. In contrast, helium-3 is a
completely clean source of energy. Two helium-3 atoms are fused in a thermonuclear reactor to produce normal helium and
energy. The fuel is non-radioactive, the process produces no radioactivity, and the residue produces no radioactivity. It is
the perfect energy source. However the helium-3 reaction takes place at 10 times the temperature of the TOKAMAK. It will
probably take 10 to 20 years to work out the physics of containing the reaction. There is very little helium-3 on earth, only
that which was left here when the earth was formed, and some additional amount which we have made in our reactors since
then. It is generated from nuclear reactions in the sun and comes to us on solar wind. None lands on earth because it is
diverted away by the earth's magnetic field. But is does land on the moon. The moon is loaded with it. It is estimated that
there is ten times as much helium-3 energy on the moon as our total historical inventory of fossil fuels. 25 tonnes of
helium-3 (one shuttle load) would supply the total US energy needs for a whole year in 1993. The shuttle load would have a
value of about 25 billion dollars, which would equate to oil at $7 per barrel.
More He-3 fossil fuel dependence evidence
Tronchetti 2009 (Fabio Tronchetti, Associate Professor at the School of Law of the Harbin Institute of Technology, July 2009
“The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: A Proposal for a Legal Regime,” Studies in Space
Law Vol. 4, http://ebookee.org/The-Exploitation-of-Natural-Resources-of-the-Moon-and-Other-Celestial-Bodies_566751.html)PS
In this respect also the special case of Helium-3, the most valuable resource contained on the Moon, may be mentioned.
Helium-3 could replace fossil oil as a primary source of energy on Earth, and its utilization to produce energy to be
provided to people on Earth would represent the optimal way of fulfi lling the duty to generate benefi ts for all mankind
while using space resources. However, this process should be structured in a way that poor States can have access to this
energy under fair conditions. Otherwise, the whole idea of exploring and using outer space for the benefi t and in the
interests of all States will lose its signifi cance.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
29
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
He-3 efficient alternative energy
Harrison H Schmitt, American geologist, a former NASA astronaut, University Professor and a U.S. Senator for one term
Stefano Coledan, Journalist for Popular Mechanics, October 2004, “Mining the Moon”, Popular Mechanics, Vol. 181, Iss. 10; pg.
56, 6 pgs
Small quantities of helium-3 previously discovered on Earth intrigued the scientific community. The unique atomic
structure of helium-3 promised to make it possible to use it as fuel for nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun, to
generate vast amounts of electrical power without creating the troublesome radioactive byproducts produced in
conventional nuclear reactors. Extracting helium-3 from the moon and returning it to Earth would, of course, be difficult,
but the potential rewards would be staggering for those who embarked upon this venture. Helium-3 could help free the
United States-and the world-from dependence on fossil fuels.
That vision seemed impossibly distant during the decades in which manned space exploration languished. Yes, Americans
and others made repeated trips into Earth orbit, but humanity seemed content to send only robots into the vastness beyond.
That changed on Jan. 14,2004, when President George W. Bush challenged NASA to "explore space and extend a human
presence across our solar system."
It was an electrifying call to action for those of us who share the vision of Americans leading humankind into deep space,
continuing the ultimate migration that began 42 years ago when President John F. Kennedy first challenged NASA to land
4leadership can take us back to the moon, then to Mars and, ultimately, beyond.
Easy to generate electricity
Harrison H Schmitt, American geologist, a former NASA astronaut, University Professor and a U.S. Senator for one term
Stefano Coledan, Journalist for Popular Mechanics, October 2004, “Mining the Moon”, Popular Mechanics, Vol. 181, Iss. 10; pg.
56, 6 pgs
Although quantities sufficient for research exist, no commercial supplies of helium-3 are present on Earth. If they were, we
probably would be using them to produce electricity today. The more we learn about building fusion reactors, the more
desirable a helium-3-fueled reactor becomes.
Researchers have tried several approaches to harnessing the awesome power of hydrogen fusion to generate electricity. The
stumbling block is finding a way to achieve the temperatures required to maintain a fusion reaction. All materials known to
exist melt at these surface-of-the-sun temperatures. For this reason, the reaction can take place only within a magnetic
containment field, a sort of electromagnetic Thermos bottle.
Initially, scientists believed they could achieve fusion using deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen found in seawater. They
soon discovered that sustaining the temperatures and pressures needed to maintain the so-called deuterium-deuterium
fusion reaction for days on end exceeded the limits of the magnetic containment technology. Substituting helium-3 for
tritium allows the use of electrostatic confinement, rather than needing magnets, and greatly reduces the complexity of
fusion reactors as well as eliminates the production of high-level radioactive waste. These differences will make fusion a
practical energy option for the first time.
He-3 need for oil industry
Danny Sirdofsky, Journalist for
the Medill News Service at Northwestern University, 4/13/10, Medill News Service for Huntsville Times,
“Isotope shortage could cause big problems”, http://medilldc.net/2010/04/helium3/
The oil industry may take a financial hit due to the shortage, as businesses chart the geologic formation of the land they are
drilling using Helium-3-filled tubes (a process known as oil-well logging). The isotope can detect gamma rays in the
surrounding rock, with low levels being the sign of a potential oil reservoir.
According to a recent presentation given by Brad Roscoe, a scientific adviser and nuclear program manager at the oilfield
services provider Schlumberger-Doll Research, some oil rigs could lose up to $1 million a day if they stop drilling to test
replacements for Helium-3.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
30
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Helium-3—Nuclear Detection
Helium-3 is necessary for detecting nuclear arms.
Danny Sirdofsky, Journalist for the Medill News Service at Northwestern
University, 4/13/10, Medill News Service for Huntsville Times,
“Isotope shortage could cause big problems”, http://medilldc.net/2010/04/helium3/
An obscure isotope known as Helium-3, which is used for everything from nuclear arms detection systems to medical
imaging, is dwindling rapidly from an already limited supply. Most of the Helium-3 in the United States is being used at
border crossings around the country, which detect plutonium and other materials used to make nuclear arms. The substance
is used in the more than 850 Radiation Portal Monitors that line the nation’s northern and southern borders The isotope also
plays a role in some road construction processes, oil-well logging, cryogenics (freezing materials at extreme temperatures)
and physics research
National Security used Helium-3 to detect nuclear radiation- preventing nuclear attacks.
Jenny Marder, Currently a reporter in the PBS NewsHour's National Affairs Unit, will become a full time reporter for the Science
News Unit, February 16, 2011 at 1:08 PM EDT, “Helium 3 Shortage Affects National Security, Medicine”, PBS News Hour,
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/02/helium-3-shortage-reaches-across-sectors.html
First responders from the Nuclear Radiological Advisory Teams are poised at all times to grab their gear and spring into
action in response to radiation threats. "We can expect from the time that a radiological fingerprint arrives at the labs to
have an answer within one hour," said Joseph Krol, associate administrator for the Office of Emergency Operations at the
National Nuclear Security Administration. "We're making it much more difficult for an organization to move radiological
material." The detectors are primed to target gamma rays and neutron emissions, which are present in most radiological
material. But to work, they require an important ingredient: helium 3. Helium 3, a non-radioactive isotope of helium, is
extremely sensitive at detecting neutron radiation. When the gas interacts with neutrons, charged particles are formed,
which can be easily screened by the sensors.
Many countries have a high demand for He-3 to detect nuclear radiation, but there is not enough supply.
Molly McElroy, a neuroscience Ph.D. candidate at the University Illinois
, 23 April 2010, “AAAS Workshop Explores How to Meet Demand for Helium-3 in Medicine, Industry, and Security”,
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0423helium3.shtml
About 80% of the helium-3 used in the United States is for homeland security, as it can detect neutrons emitted from
plutonium that might be smuggled across international borders. Beyond monitoring for smuggled nuclear materials, helium3 is used for basic research, oil and gas exploration, and medical lung imaging. Its unique properties may someday make it
useful in nuclear fusion, said Fetter, who’s on leave from the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. But
helium-3, composed of two protons and one neutron, is exceedingly rare on Earth. It is found in the air at seven parts per
trillion; such low concentrations make it too expensive to extract. It is believed to exist in larger quantities on the moon.
That leaves one main reliable source: Decaying tritium. While manufacturing tritium just to obtain helium-3 also is
prohibitively expensive, it is a reliable byproduct of the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Tritium—which has a 12.4 year
half-life and decays to helium-3—is used to boost the yield of nuclear weapons. Tritium doesn’t contribute much to the
explosion, Fetter said, but rather serves as a source of neutrons. The helium-3 produced from the decay of tritium can be
recovered and repurposed. After the Cold War, the United States had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. U.S. tritium
production ended in 1988 and the number of warheads was subsequently reduced. Throughout the 1990s, the supply of
helium-3 exceeded demand. By 2000, the United States had accumulated over 200,000 liters of helium-3. But after the 9/11
terrorist attacks in 2001, the demand for helium-3 increased for neutron detectors at border points, Fetter said. Then demand
began to exceed helium-3 production through decay of tritium, and the stockpile was drawn down. The United States began
to make tritium again in 2007, but in limited supply. In 2008, about 79,000 liters of helium-3 were used, more than half of
the existing stock. “Then we realized, we can’t go this way much longer,” Fetter said. “We have to bring demand in balance
with supply.” The need for helium-3 in border protection is shared by other countries. At the AAAS workshop, Stephen
White, nuclear and technology adviser at the British Defence staff at the British Embassy in Washington, D.C., said that the
United Kingdom has “12,000 miles of shore to protect” and portal monitoring is the primary use of helium-3. White said
that the U.K. also uses helium-3 for science and medical applications, and that they’re not looking to expand their uses of
the gas.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
31
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Helium-3—A2: Can’t solve prolif
Bilder 2009 (Richard B. Bilder, Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School, 2009 ,“A Legal Regime for
the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options,” Fordham International Law Journal Volume 33, Issue 2 Article 1)
However, if and when technically achievable, an He-3-D fuel cycle would theoretically offer very significant advantages as
compared with the D-T fuel cycle. This would be chiefly because, unlike a D-T fusion reaction which results in
considerable neutron radiation, an He-3-D fusion reaction would produce little radioactivity as well as a substantially higher
proportion of directly usable energy.15 More specifically, the comparative advantages of an He-3-D fuel cycle over a D-T
fuel cycle would include: (1) increased electrical conversion efficiency; (2) reduced radiation damage to containment
vessels, obviating the need for frequent expensive replacement; (3) reduced radioactive waste, with consequent reduced
costs of protection and disposal; (4) increased levels of safety in the event of accident; and (5) potentially lower costs of
electricity production.16 In particular, since an He-3-D fusion reaction, unlike a D-T reaction, would produce few neutrons,
it could not be readily employed to produce plutonium or other weapons-grade fissile materials and would consequently
significantly reduce risks of nuclear proliferation. Consequently, interest in the eventual development of He-3 fueled
thermonuclear energy is likely to continue. 17
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
32
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Helium-3—Medicine
He-3 in conjunction with the MRI creates a crystal clear image for lungs- no alternatives.
Molly McElroy, a neuroscience Ph.D. candidate at the University Illinois
, 23 April 2010, “AAAS Workshop Explores How to Meet Demand for Helium-3 in Medicine, Industry, and Security”,
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0423helium3.shtml
Participants also discussed helium-3 alternatives in medicine, where use is approaching about 2000 liters of helium-3 per
year in the United States. The non-toxic, non-corrosive isotope can be used as a diagnostic along with magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI). A patient breathes in polarized helium-3 and the MRI reveals ventilation defects in the lungs, which can
reveal chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema. The technique is also used to
evaluate the efficacy of drug treatments for these diseases. Are there alternatives to helium-3 use in medicine? John
Pantaleo, Isotope Program Director in the Office of Nuclear Physics at the U.S. Department of Energy, described some of
the alternatives. The isotope xenon-129 could be used instead of helium-3, but xenon-129 does not produce as clear images
as does helium-3. And, John Pantaleo said, xenon-129 has a sedative effect on patients and may not usable in children. He
also said that inhaled helium-3 might be recaptured as the patients exhale it and then recycled for other uses.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
33
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Helium-3—Fusion
Helium-3 Is A Prerequisite To Fusion Development—Status Quo Fusion Unattractive And Unlikely To
Develop.
Cheetham, Brad and Pastuf, Dan. 2008. [University at Buffalo, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. “Lunar
Resources and Development: A brief overview of the possibilities for lunar resource extraction and development.”
http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/~cheetham/index_files/Moon%20Paper%20441.pdf
The possibility of a Helium-3 fueled lunar economy was mentioned previously. In order for this to be a possibility fusion
technology must be advanced beyond the current very small scale reactions being achieved (Schmitt). One problem with
this plan of waiting for fusion technology to develop before establishing a lunar base is that fusion without helium-3 is very
much less attractive. Using common deuterium fusion plans, power plants would actually produce more nuclear waste per
kilowatt hour than a nuclear fission plant of comparable size would (Schmitt 41). Thus fusion technology is somewhat
dependent on having a large supply of He-3 while at the same time, getting He-3 from the Moon is depending on having
large scale fusion plants operational. Only time will tell which occurs first, but with additional funding, and a He-3 source
its likely fusion power could be figured out.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
34
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Helium-3—A2: Boron Trifluoride (BF3)
No alternatives to He-3.
Molly McElroy, a neuroscience Ph.D. candidate at the University Illinois , 23 April 2010, “AAAS Workshop Explores How to
Meet Demand for Helium-3 in Medicine, Industry, and Security”, http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0423helium3.shtml
Some possible alternatives to helium-3 are detectors filled with boron trifluoride (BF3) or lined with boron, which are two
“existing alternatives that can be deployed today,” Kouzes said. Plastic fibers coated with lithium-6 are another possible
alternative. Kouzes has tested these alternatives and said that they potentially will work for deployment, but that they will
require hardware and software modifications and integration testing. The alternatives have some disadvantages, though.
BF3, which is toxic, has stringent transportation limitations. Litium-6 coated plastic fibers are not currently efficient
enough. “Boron-lined tubes seem to be the best bet,” Kouzes said, but they require a multiple tube array in order to
efficiently detect neutrons.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
35
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Helium-3—A2: Tritium
Bilder 2009 (Richard B. Bilder, Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School, 2009 ,“A Legal Regime for
the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options,” Fordham International Law Journal Volume 33, Issue 2 Article 1)
However, if and when technically achievable, an He-3-D fuel cycle would theoretically offer very significant advantages as
compared with the D-T fuel cycle. This would be chiefly because, unlike a D-T fusion reaction which results in
considerable neutron radiation, an He-3-D fusion reaction would produce little radioactivity as well as a substantially higher
proportion of directly usable energy.15 More specifically, the comparative advantages of an He-3-D fuel cycle over a D-T
fuel cycle would include: (1) increased electrical conversion efficiency; (2) reduced radiation damage to containment
vessels, obviating the need for frequent expensive replacement; (3) reduced radioactive waste, with consequent reduced
costs of protection and disposal; (4) increased levels of safety in the event of accident; and (5) potentially lower costs of
electricity production.16 In particular, since an He-3-D fusion reaction, unlike a D-T reaction, would produce few neutrons,
it could not be readily employed to produce plutonium or other weapons-grade fissile materials and would consequently
significantly reduce risks of nuclear proliferation. Consequently, interest in the eventual development of He-3 fueled
thermonuclear energy is likely to continue. 17
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
36
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Helium-3—A2: Can’t get He-3
Solvency- how to physically get the he-3
Harrison H Schmitt, American geologist, a former NASA astronaut, University Professor and a U.S. Senator for one term
Stefano Coledan, Journalist for Popular Mechanics, October 2004, “Mining the Moon”, Popular Mechanics, Vol. 181, Iss. 10; pg.
56, 6 pgs
Perhaps the most daunting challenge to mining the moon is designing the spacecraft to carry the hardware and crew to the
lunar surface. The Apollo Saturn V spacecraft remains the benchmark for a reliable, heavy-lift moon rocket. Capable of
lifting 50 tons to the moon, Saturn Vs remain the largest spacecraft ever used. In the 40 years since the spacecraft's
development, vast improvements in spacecraft technology have occurred. For an investment of about $5 billion it should be
possible to develop a modernized Saturn capable of delivering 100-ton payloads to the lunar surface for less than $1500 per
pound. Returning to the moon would be a worthwhile pursuit even if obtaining helium-3 were the only goal. But over time
the pioneering venture would pay more valuable dividends. Settlements established for helium-3 mining would branch out
into other activities that support space exploration. Even with the next generation of Saturns, it will not be economical to
lift the massive quantities of oxygen, water and structural materials needed to create permanent human settlements in space.
We must acquire the technical skills to extract these vital materials from locally available resources. Mining the moon for
helium-3 would offer a unique opportunity to acquire those resources as byproducts. Other opportunities might be possible
through the sale of low-cost access to space. These additional, launch-related businesses will include providing services for
government-funded lunar and planetary exploration, astronomical observatories, national defense, and long-term, on-call
protection from the impacts of asteroids and comets. Space and lunar tourism also will be enabled by the existence of lowcost, highly reliable rockets.
Bilder 2009 (Richard B. Bilder, Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School, 2009 ,“A Legal Regime
for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options,” Fordham International Law Journal Volume 33, Issue 2 Article 1)
How would lunar He-3 be extracted and transported to Earth?18 Since the solar wind components are weakly bound to the
lunar regolith, it should be relatively easy to extract them utilizing reasonable extensions of existing technology. Thus,
under one proposed scenario, once a lunar base is established, robotic lunar mining vehicles fitted with solar heat collectors
would: (1) traverse appropriate areas of the Moon's surface – probably, in particular, the lunar maria or “seas” – scooping
up the loose upper layer of the lunar regolith and sizing it into small particles; (2) utilize solar energy to process and heat
the collected regolith to the temperatures necessary to release, separate and collect in a gaseous state the He-3, as well as
certain other solar-wind elements embedded in the regolith particles; (3) discharge the spent regolith back to the lunar
surface; and (4) return with the collected He-3 and other gaseous byproducts to the lunar base. The collected He-3 gas could
then be liquified in the lunar cold and transported to Earth, perhaps in unmanned remotely-operated shuttles. Importantly,
such a mining operation could result in the collection not only of He-3 but also, as byproducts of the collection process,
significant amounts of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water, all potentially very useful – indeed, perhaps
indispensable – for the establishment and maintenance of a lunar base or further outer space activities such as expeditions
to Mars 11 or other planets.19
Bilder 2009 (Richard B. Bilder, Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School, 2009 ,“A Legal Regime for
the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options,” Fordham International Law Journal Volume 33, Issue 2 Article 1)
Whether the production of lunar He-3-based fusion power will prove commercially viable remains a complex and disputed
question. The commercial success of such a development will clearly depend, among other things, on the parallel and
integrated achievement, not only of economically efficient He-3 fueled fusion power reactors, but also of a sustainable
lunar mining enterprise capable of economically extracting and returning to Earth an assured supply of He-3 to fuel such
reactors; neither of these will be worth doing without the other. However, the development of He-3-based fusion need not
start from scratch but will likely build on the substantial research and investment already committed to the development of
fusion power more generally in ITER and other already ongoing projects. Moreover, the development of lunar He-3 mining
can similarly build on -- and indeed form an additional rationale for -- the already existing commitment of various space
powers to the establishment of lunar bases; as indicated, lunar mining activities may be worth developing not only to
extract He-3 from the lunar regolith, but also to obtain a variety of other byproducts highly useful for the support of lunar
bases.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
37
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Helium-3—A2: Not Competitive/It’s Expensive
Bilder 2009 (Richard B. Bilder, Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School, 2009 ,“A Legal Regime for
the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options,” Fordham International Law Journal Volume 33, Issue 2 Article 1)
Finally, the economic viability of He-3-based fusion power will, of course, depend on its eventual cost of production in
comparison to the cost of production of alternative sources of energy such as fossil fuel or other conventional sources of
energy, energy produced by nuclear fission reactors, or D-T or otherwise-based fusion energy – all figures difficult to
accurately predict at this time. Proponents of He-3-based fusion energy argue that, even taking into consideration the
substantial costs involved – costs of developing and operating He-3-based fusion power reactors; establishing, equipping
and maintaining an adequate lunar base and He-3 mining operation; and transporting He-3 back to Earth – He-3-based
fusion power will eventually be more than competitive with the cost of other types of fossil fuel, fission or fusion energy,
and indeed will provide more than sufficient incentive for the potential participation of both government and private capital
and enterprise in such an endeavor.21
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
38
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Helium-3—A2: Destroys Lunar Landscape
Bilder 2009 (Richard B. Bilder, Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School, 2009 ,“A Legal Regime for
the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options,” Fordham International Law Journal Volume 33, Issue 2 Article 1)
Since He-3 is believed to comprise only a small proportion of the lunar regolith, it will probably be necessary to process
large amounts of lunar regolith in order to obtain the quantities of He-3 necessary to sustain a large-scale terrestrial He-3
based power program. However, since the regolith will be discharged back to the Moon's surface immediately after
processing, the extraction of He-3 and other solar wind components from the lunar soil seems in itself unlikely to have a
significant detrimental impact on the lunar environment or landscape.20
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
39
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Mining—Other Resources (Potential Addons)
Water also a valuable resource found on the moon.
Henry Gass, Writer for the Ecologist, 7-11-11, The Ecologist, “Plans to strip mine the moon may soon be more than just
science-fiction”,
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/962678/plans_to_strip_mine_the_moon_may_soon_be_more_than_just_scienc
efiction.html
This is especially true for prospecting missions beyond the Moon. A mission to retrieve Helium-3 from Jupiter’s
atmosphere, for example, would take ten years, and businesses will likely be reluctant to wait a decade for a return on such
a pricy investment, says Genge. Another potential lunar resource – water – could fuel these future missions into deep space.
Orbital scans suggest there are at least a billion tonnes of water frozen on the Moon after impacting in craters of the Moon’s
surface – usually in the darker areas where temperatures can be as low as 35 degrees Kelvin.Texas-based Shackleton
Energy Company has already begun operations aimed at mining the Moon within the next few years. The company’s
plans for mining and refining operations would involve melting the ice and purifying the water, converting the water into
gaseous hydrogen and oxygen, and then condensing the gases into liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen and hydrogen peroxide,
all potential rocket fuels. Shackleton CEO Dale Tietz says the water extracted would be used almost exclusively as rocket
fuel to power operations both within Low Earth Orbit (LEO) – such as space tourism and the removal of space-debris – on
the Moon, and further out into space. ‘We are a for-profit business enterprise moving forward, and so we are only going
there really for one reason and that is to mine, prospect mine and harvest water for rocket propellant production,’ says
Tietz.
Lunar resource laundry list.
Tronchetti 2009 (Fabio Tronchetti, Associate Professor at the School of Law of the Harbin Institute of Technology, “The
Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: A Proposal for a Legal Regime,” July 2009, Studies in
Space Law Vol. 4, , http://ebookee.org/The-Exploitation-of-Natural-Resources-of-the-Moon-and-Other-CelestialBodies_566751.html)PS
As for the Moon, it presents vast amount of mineral resources distributed uniformly across its surface and subsurface. It has
been demonstrated that the Moon is rich in aluminum, iron, silicon, oxygen, hydrogen, chromium, manganese, potassium,
and other minerals. Th ese minerals can be utilized in their original form or refi ned into structural and electrical materials.
Th ey can be brought back to Earth or used for life support of a permanent lunar basis or as rocket propellant. For instance,
oxygen and hydrogen are contained in the lunar regolith at all latitudes. Oxide minerals such as limonite or olivine can be
removed as water vapor by warming up these minerals with hydrogen. Th e water vapor which is obtained can be
condensed and electrolyzed into hydrogen, and the oxygen is liquefi ed. Th ese components can be used as life support or
propellant for rockets.11 Another potential use of the lunar minerals is as fuel for a solar powered satellite system, usually
referred as SPS. Th SPS system would basically collect solar energy in space, convert it to electricity and send it to Earth
via microwave beams.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
40
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Mining—Colonization Addon
Mining Makes Colonization Possible—It Produces An Environmentally Sustainable Environment With
All The Resources Key To Human Survival.
Bilder, Richard B. Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School. “A Legal Regime for
the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options.” Fordham International Law Journal. Volume 33, Issue 2. Article 1.
2009. http://ddw11.wikispaces.com/file/view/Helium-3+Law+Review+Article.pdf
How would lunar He-3 be extracted and transported to Earth?29 Because the solar wind components are weakly bound to
the lunar regolith, 0 it should be relatively easy to extract them utilizing reasonable extensions of existing technology. In
one proposed scenario, once a lunar base is established, robotic lunar mining vehicles fitted with solar heat collectors
would: (1) traverse appropriate areas of the Moon's surface-probably, in particular, the lunar maria, or "seas"-scooping up
the loose upper layer of the lunar regolith and sizing it into small particles; (2) utilize solar energy to process and heat the
collected regolith to the temperatures necessary to release, separate, and collect in a gaseous state the He-3, along with
certain other solar-wind elements embedded in the regolith particles; (3) discharge the spent regolith back to the lunar
surface; and (4) return with the collected He-3 and other gaseous byproducts to the lunar base. 3' The collected He-3 gas
could then be liquified in the lunar cold and transported to Earth, perhaps in remotely-operated shuttles.3 2 Importantly, this
type of mining operation could result in the collection not only of He-3 but also significant amounts of hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water, all potentially very useful-indeed, perhaps indispensable-for the maintenance of a lunar
base or further outer space activities such as expeditions to Mars or other planets. 33 Since He-3 is believed to comprise only
a small proportion of the lunar regolith, it will probably be necessary to proce ss large amounts of lunar regolith in order to
obtain the quantities of He-3 necessary to sustain a large-scale terrestrial He-3-based power program. However, the
extraction of He-3 and other solar wind components from the lunar soil seems in itself unlikely to have a significant
detrimental impact on the lunar environment because the regolith will be discharged back to the Moon's surface
immediately after processing. 34
Mining The Moon Is Key To The Exploration of Space—Sustainable Moon Settlements Could Continue
Exploration, Provide National Security, And Protect Earth From Asteroids.
Stefano Coledan. Popular Mechanic. “Mining The Moon.” December 7, 2004.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056
New Spacecraft Perhaps the most daunting challenge to mining the moon is designing the spacecraft to carry the hardware
and crew to the lunar surface. The Apollo Saturn V spacecraft remains the benchmark for a reliable, heavy-lift moon rocket.
Capable of lifting 50 tons to the moon, Saturn V's remain the largest spacecraft ever used. In the 40 years since the
spacecraft's development, vast improvements in spacecraft technology have occurred. For an investment of about $5 billion
it should be possible to develop a modernized Saturn capable of delivering 100-ton payloads to the lunar surface for less
than $1500 per pound. Returning to the moon would be a worthwhile pursuit even if obtaining helium-3 were the only
goal. But over time the pioneering venture would pay more valuable dividends. Settlements established for helium-3
mining would branch out into other activities that support space exploration. Even with the next generation of Saturns, it
will not be economical to lift the massive quantities of oxygen, water and structural materials needed to create permanent
human settlements in space. We must acquire the technical skills to extract these vital materials from locally available
resources. Mining the moon for helium-3 would offer a unique opportunity to acquire those resources as byproducts. Other
opportunities might be possible through the sale of low-cost access to space. These additional, launch-related businesses
will include providing services for government-funded lunar and planetary exploration, astronomical observatories, national
defense, and long-term, on-call protection from the impacts of asteroids and comets. Space and lunar tourism also will be
enabled by the existence of low-cost, highly reliable rockets. With such tremendous business potential, the entrepreneurial
private sector should support a return to the moon, this time to stay. For an investment of less than $15 billion--about the
same as was required for the 1970s Trans Alaska Pipeline--private enterprise could make permanent habitation on the moon
the next chapter in human history.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
41
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Mining—Hegemony Advantage
Lunar mining is key to American hegemony
First, The United States risks losing its space leadership now—exploration key to solidifying US primacy
Raska 2011 (By MICHAEL RASKA, Michael Raska: China and the Globalization of Space: Toward A New Space Race?
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/07/20/158495.html, Wednesday, 20 July 2011)
The space program of the United States is stalling as a result of the global economic crisis, making the world leader in
space technologies increasingly dependent on Russia for the launch of its manned and unmanned vehicles and vulnerable to
emerging space powers seeking to get into the game, among whom first and foremost China. With the final landing of the
Space Shuttle Atlantis, the US will effectively lose its independent human spaceflight launch capability. During the
transition to the follow-on systems, it will have to rely on Russian Soyuz space launch vehicles for both manned and
unmanned flights to the International Space Station. Meanwhile, more nations are joining the Space Club with a growing
awareness that space is vital to national security. According to a study by Euroconsult, more than 50 countries are currently
investing in domestic space programs. In 2010, world government spending on space set a historic record with civil and
defense government spending combined at $71.5 billion, and projected to remain at around $70 billion until 2015. The
global diffusion of space-based technologies and related knowledge broadens the international competitive pressures to
develop innovative space capabilities. Dominant actors are increasingly challenged by a second and third tier of space
leaders, and the competitive gaps among all nations are narrowing. China, as a rising great power, views the exploration of
space not only as the cornerstone of its national science and technology innovation efforts, but also as an important catalyst
to achieve its national development goals and its vital political, economic, and security interests. With space investments
exceeding $2 billion in 2010, China became the second largest spender on space in Asia after Japan with $3.8 billion. China
last year conducted as many launches as the United States’ 15, second only to Russia with 31. While many aspects of
China’s vast space programs remain classified, Beijing has publicized its technical prowess and space ambitions in areas
such as launch vehicles, launch schedules, satellites, human space flight, as well as command and control, anti-satellite
technologies, and sensor capabilities. In 2003, China became the third nation to complete a successful manned space
mission by launching the Shenzhou-5 (Divine Vessel) carried by the Long March-2F rocket. Since then, China has carried
out two additional manned missions: Shenzhou 6 (SZ-6) in October 2005 with two “taikonauts” onboard and Shenzhou 7
(SZ-7) spaceflight from September 2008. By 2025, China envisions the completion of a 60-ton orbital space station, and
possibly fielding of a reusable launch vehicle (RLV). China’s evolving space capabilities have also benefited from the
increasing participation of its aerospace industry in the global commercial aerospace market. Since the late 1990s, Beijing
has gradually introduced elements of competition, autonomy, entrepreneurship, and decentralization into China’s defenseindustrial base with the aim to overcome the entrenched monopoly of China’s traditional defense industrial conglomerates
and transform them into global primes by the end of next decade. The competitive nature of global space launch vehicle
markets provides greater incentives for Chinese aerospace companies not only to increase their revenues, but more
importantly close the technological gaps through global commercial technology transfers and services. In this regard,
China is believed to have embarked on a full scale technology development program on a new heavy-lift Long March
rockets - the LM-5 series, designed to overcome the limitation of existing SLVs in terms of cost and reliability. The LM-5
is expected to be launched in 2014 from the newly constructed Wenchang Space Center on the Hainan Island. Space
launch vehicles and systems are also dual-use strategic assets, valuable to both civilian and military communities. In China,
there is no clear separation between its civil and military space programs and industries. Beijing does not clearly delineate
its satellite functions in terms of military, civilian, or commercial use. The PLA’s General Armaments Department (GAD)
of the Central Military Commission manages the launch, tracking, and control of all space launches, civilian and military
satellites, and coordinates technical aspects of China’s unmanned and manned space activities, including the manned
spaceflight Project 921. With the pace, scope, and dual dimension of China’s space programs, the key question is whether
other countries may also accelerate their efforts to develop similar space capabilities? As more nations are joining the
Space Club, there is a growing awareness that space is vital to national security, as space assets may be increasingly
vulnerable to a range of threats that may deny, degrade, deceive, disrupt or destroy these assets. Since the great space race
between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, aerospace has been considered as the “international
geostrategic high ground.” With the globalization of space, that ground will become increasingly competitive and
contested.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
42
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Mining—Hegemony Advantage
And, Plan is key to space leadership – we’ll access internal links through hard and soft power
Spudis ’10 (Paul D. Spudis is a Senior Staff Scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas. “The New Space
Race,” February 9, 2010, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1376)
In one of his early speeches defending the Apollo program, President John F. Kennedy laid out the reasons that
Among the many ideas that he articulated, one stood out. He said, "whatever men shall undertake, free men
America had to go the Moon.
must fully share." This was a
classic expression of American exceptionalism, that idea that we must explore new frontiers not to establish an empire, but to
ensure that our political and economic system prevails, a system that has created the most freedom and the largest amount of
new wealth in the hands of the greatest number of people in the history of the world. This is a statement of both soft and hard
power projection; by leading the world into space, we guarantee that space does not become the private domain of powers who
view humanity as cogs in their ideological machine, rather than as individuals to be valued and protected. The Vision was created to
extend human reach beyond its current limit of low Earth orbit. It made the Moon the first destination because it has the material and energy
resources needed to create a true space faring system. Recent data from the Moon show that it is even richer in resource potential
than we had thought; both abundant water and near-permanent sunlight is available at selected areas near the poles. We go to the Moon to learn how to
extract and use those resources to create a space transportation system that can routinely access all of cislunar space with both machines and people. Such a
system is the logical next step in both space security and commerce. This goal for NASA makes the agency relevant to important national interests. A return to
the Moon for resource utilization contributes to national security and economic interests as well as scientific ones. There is indeed a new space race. It
is just as important and vital to our country's future as the original one , if not as widely perceived and appreciated. It consists of a
struggle with both hard and soft power. The hard power aspect is to confront the ability of other nations to deny us access to
our vital satellite assets of cislunar space. The soft power aspect is a question: how shall society be organized in space? Both
issues are equally important and both are addressed by lunar return. Will space be a sanctuary for science and PR stunts or will
it be a true frontier with scientists and pilots, but also miners, technicians, entrepreneurs and settlers? The decisions made now
will decide the fate of space for generations. The choice is clear; we cannot afford to relinquish our foothold in space and
abandon the Vision for Space Exploration.
This is key to American Hegemony
Posen 2003 (Posen, Barry R. "Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony." International Security.
Vol. 28, No. 1 (Summer 2003): 5-46. page 8-9 )
Surrendering the ability to carry astronauts into space promises to be a blow to America’s international stature. And in this
age of global connectivity and global competition, what may seem like a marginal matter could become a serious problem.
We already live at a time America is perceived as a nation in decline. Pierre Hassner of the Paris-based National
Foundation for Political Science recently concluded, “It will not be the New American Century.” A 2005 piece in the
Guardian dismissed America as “the hollow superpower.” It’s no wonder that Obama addressed the “nagging fear” of
America’s decline in his inauguration speech, and Bush dismissed “the belief that America is in decline” in his 2006 State
of the Union address. What’s relevant here is how America’s self-imposed absence from space could fuel the declinist fire,
weaken America’s standing, and enhance the position of America’s enemies. Again, history is instructive: When Sputnik
rocketed into orbit and Moscow triumphed, Senator Henry Jackson called it “a national week of shame and danger.”
America’s attempt to match Moscow only highlighted the gap between the two superpowers when, weeks after Sputnik,
America’s answer, Vanguard, exploded on takeoff. Leebaert writes that Moscow’s initial space superiority was “alarming
because it was far more visible than anything else in science and technology.” Combined with America’s futility, the
situation negatively impacted the country’s prestige and security, “the two in those days being habitually linked.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
43
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Mining—Hegemony Advantage
Loss of hegemony means global war
Khalilzad 2011 (Former US ambassador, former Professor at Columbia Zalmay Khalilzad, PhD, United States ambassador to
Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense
Department from 1990 to 1992 (2/8/11, National Review, “The Economy and National Security; If we don’t get our economic house
in order, we risk a new era of multi-polarity,” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmaykhalilzad)
We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries
such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are
growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a
multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but
when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify
geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one
another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The
stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership.
By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major
wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American
retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in
an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races,
miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers,
weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be
emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone
of great-power competition. Beijing’s economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of
naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. China’s strategic
modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative
economic ties in the region have grown, China’s expansive territorial claims — and provocative statements and actions
following crises in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast
Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
44
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Economy—Tech
Helium-3 Mining Systems Improve Technology And Space Transportation.
Benaroya, Haym. Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Rutgers University. “Prospects of Commercial Activities at a
Lunar Base.” Solar System Development Journal. (2001) 1(2), 1-22. July 7, 2011.
http://coewww.rutgers.edu/~benaroya/publications/ssdj.pdf
Three potential energy sources are described in Table 1. Helium 3, solar power satellites (SPS), and a lunar (solar) power
system (LPS) all have significant feedback potential for other commercial applications. A space-based energy system
would be global in scale and funding and would thus be a challenging goal for macro-engineering management to achieve.
This management experience would be globally shared and would be utilized for other global projects. Robotics and
artificial intelligence would also benefit from the use of smart and capable robots to autonomously conduct such functions
as space assembly and lunar mining and processing. Computer systems would be extended in capacity and reliability,
energy-transfer technology would be enhanced, and materials research would quest for more efficient space systems and
learn to utilize in-situ materials. SPS and LPS will require advancement in photovoltaic cell technology. This quest can also
influence transportation technology because at least one of the solutions could lead to more efficient space propulsion. This
would reduce travel times and minimize exposure to potentially debilitating space environments.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
45
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Economy—Aerospace Key
Aerospace industry key to Economy- jobs, exports and manufacturing.
Blakey 2010 (marion C. Blakey is President and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association and formerly
served a five-year term as administrator of the FAA.) "Space exploration remains vital issue given country's
economic current woes" The Hill. Sept. 8 2011 http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/117645space-exploration-remains-vital-issue-given-countrys-economic-current-woes
So, given our current economic woes, why should anyone care about space exploration? Unemployment? Let’s see. Our
space programs are an integral part of our aerospace and defense industry that employs 819,000 workers and indirectly
supports 30,000 suppliers and two million middle-class jobs across all 50 states. Manufacturing and trade? Aerospace
companies export 40 percent of their total output, and routinely post the nation’s largest manufacturing trade surplus,
which was over $56 billion in 2009. National security concerns require that most of these jobs must remain on American
soil. Space even has a role to play in whether your eggs are safe to eat. Research on the International Space Station is
resulting in breakthroughs that could soon lead to salmonella vaccines. So, Washington, we have a problem. Will we rise to
the challenge and maintain the preeminent U.S. role in space or let the program drift into irrelevancy? Action is needed
now. Congress must complete a NASA authorization bill and appropriate the necessary funds before the November
elections or face the possibility that our leadership in space will be seen only on the History Channel.
Aerospace Sector K2 Econ-Exports and Jobs.
International Trade Administration 2011 "Aerospace Industry is Critical Contributor to U.S. Economy
According to Obama Trade Official at Paris Air Show." 6-21-11 trade.gov/press/press-releases/2011/aerospaceindustry-critical-contributor-to-us-economy-062111.asp
Francisco Sánchez, Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, addressed national and international groups at
the 2011 Paris Air Show to reinforce the President’s National Export Initiative (NEI) and support the U.S. aerospace
industry. “The U.S. aerospace industry is a strategic contributor to the economy, national security, and technological
innovation of the United States,” Sánchez said. “The industry is key to achieving the President’s goals of doubling exports
by the end of 2014 and contributed $78 billion in export sales to the U.S. economy in 2010.” During the U.S. Pavilion
opening remarks, Sánchez noted that the aerospace sector in the United States supports more jobs through exports than any
other industry. Sánchez witnessed a signing ceremony between Boeing and Aeroflot, Russia’s state-owned airline. Aeroflot
has ordered eight 777s valued at $2.1 billion, and the sales will support approximately 14,000 jobs. “The 218 American
companies represented in the U.S. International Pavilion demonstrate the innovation and hard work that make us leaders in
this sector,” said Sánchez. “I am particularly pleased to see the incredible accomplishments of U.S. companies participating
in the Alternative Aviation Fuels Showcase, which demonstrates our leadership in this important sector and shows that we
are on the right path to achieving the clean energy future envisioned by President Obama.” The 2011 Paris Air Show is the
world’s largest aerospace trade exhibition, and features 2,000 exhibitors, 340,000 visitors, and 200 international
delegations. The U.S. aerospace industry ranks among the most competitive in the world, boasting a positive trade balance
of $44.1 billion – the largest trade surplus of any U.S. manufacturing industry. It directly sustains about 430,000 jobs, and
indirectly supports more than 700,000 additional jobs. Ninety-one percent of U.S. exporters of aerospace products are
small and medium-sized firms.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
46
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Aerospace industry key to competitiveness-Skilled workers
Wright, 1993 - ( Stephen Wright, Major, USAF), “AEROSPACE STRATEGY FOR THE AEROSPACE
NATION”, 93 http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/p195.pdf
Whither the Aerospace Nation? {17} If this paper serves no other purpose, it must serve as a wake-up call, a call to action
for the aerospace nation. United States policy makers must view aerospace power as a national treasure. If economists like
Robert Reich, Michael Porter and Lester Thurow, are correct, the aerospace industry will be critical to America’s future
economic prosperity. Each argues that the future belongs to those nations with trained, skilled workers that add unique,
high value to products. Each agrees that aerospace is one of those industries. Militarily we cannot operate without control of
aerospace--all military strategies rely upon it. Aerospace dominance provides the capability for U.S. forces to win within
the political imperatives of the future, especially with reference to casualties. Aerospace power, both its economic and
military elements, is under great pressure to succeed in the future. To do so requires a national aerospace strategy.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
47
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Economy—Aerospace Key
Aerospace vital to Economy- e-commerce, exports and manufacturing.
Aviation Week and Space Technology 2000 (“What’s at Stake in US Aeronautics Decline” COL. 153, NO.
14, PG. 82 10-2-2000, LN)
Several huge national problems will result for the U.S. if these trends are not reversed: -- If air traffic expands to meet the
expected demand, twice as many passengers will be flying 10 years hence, and within 20 years there will be triple the
number flying today. But that is only a market projection. If ATC is not modernized, the system will choke in 8-10 years.
Tweaking the current system will not do enough. What is required is new approaches to air traffic management and the
application of new technologies. -- If aviation cannot continue to expand, growth of the ''new economy'' will be stifled. Few
Americans realize how much e-commerce depends on aviation. The Internet can handle the front end of a transaction, but it
takes airplanes to deliver the goods. -- The ''old'' economy would suffer, too. Airlines and aircraft manufacturing account
for an estimated $ 436 billion in annual economic activity and a net 3% of the Gross Domestic Product. More important,
aerospace is the largest net exporter in the U.S. economy -- more than $ 40 billion annually. But Boeing is losing market
share to Airbus Industrie and has fewer recently designed aircraft to offer. And, the U.S. does not even manufacture
regional jets. Such trade surpluses cannot last without new products and the better technology they require. -- Finally,
national security could be threatened if the U.S. does not maintain leadership in aeronautics. The Defense Dept. has no
strategy that does not assume U.S. air superiority. But that cannot be assumed if R&D spending continues to flag. No one in
Congress set out to gut U.S. leadership in aeronautics. It was just easy to cut. The trouble, as former NASA Administrator
James M. Beggs points out, is that a nation can postpone investment in R&D without suffering any ill effects -- until a
decade or so later. But the erosion must be stopped now. First, Congress should adequately fund aviation R&D in the
NASA, Defense Dept. and FAA budgets in Fiscal 2001. The Administration requests would begin to reverse the downward
trend. But more needs to be done to address the nexus of problems in U.S. aviation and aerospace. No candidate for
President has indicated much recognition of the problems or what is at stake, much less articulated a vision for aviation in
the nation's future. Perhaps that is too much to ask in a campaign year. But it is not too much to ask of an incoming
administration. We applaud the planned creation of a national commission on the future of the U.S. aerospace industry, and
we urge the next President to become personally involved to ensure its success. Aviation and aerospace are vital to the U.S.'
future. If Americans fail to support aeronautics and aviation-related research, there will be no next generation of
professionals to solve the obvious looming problems and create products the world will demand. And without that, the U.S.
puts at risk a linchpin of its economy, national security and quality of life.
Aerospace key to economy- Sales, projected growth, movement of data and goods, innovation, and
national security.
ARTF 2008 (Aerospace Revitalization Task Force, “Report of the Interagency Aerospace Revitalization Task
Force”, February 2008, www.doleta.gov/pdf/REPORT_Aerospace_2008.pdf)
The workforce of each sector reflects a wide array of talents and competencies, from researchers and engineers to
technicians, mechanics, and skilled machinists. AIA projects industry sales in 2007 totaled $53.3 billion for civil aircraft,
$54.8 billion for military aircraft, $17.7 billion for missiles, and $605 million in space sales. Robust growth is anticipated
again in 2008, with projections that industry sales will grow 6 percent, or $12 billion, driven largely by increase deliveries
of civil aircraft, engines, and related parts and components.11 The importance of the aerospace industry to the economy and
the public is best summarized the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Labor Aerospace Research Agenda and
Lean Aerospace Initiative:12 It enables the global movement of people and goods; It enables the global acquisition and
dissemination of information and data; It advances national security interests; and, It provides a source of innovation by
pushing the boundaries of exploration and inspiration.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
48
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Economy—A2: No Aerospace Workforce
Aerospace specialists exist now – they’re just not involved in the industry. The aff would push them
towards it
Black 2007, (Adjunct Professor of Physics and Astronomy and Chair of Committee on Issues affecting the Future of the U.S. Space
Science and Engineering Workforce of the National Research Council (David C. ““Building and Maintaining a Healthy and Strong
NASA Workforce”, May 17)
The Committee applauds NASA’s early efforts at developing a strategy for workforce development, but feels that it needs substantial
work on several fronts. This strategy is based fundamentally on the notion of maintaining ten healthy centers. While such an approach
is understandable from a purely political perspective, I am concerned that it runs great risk that it becomes essentially a jobs program
with work being sent to centers that are not necessarily staffed to do the jobs. If there were complete mobility in the civil service
workforce, NASA might be able to make this approach viable, but that mobility does not exist . The NASA Workforce Strategy does
recognize many of the key challenges that NASA faces, but the Committee is concerned that the NASA strategy views its workforce
issues in isolation of what the Committee has dubbed the “aerospace workforce ecosystem.” The workforce problems that NASA faces
are a microcosm of a broader national problem, one that faces academia, industry and other government entities , and it is the view of
the Committee that all parties would be best served by seeking a national solution to these problems. This approach would yield a
more stable long-term solution for NASA and the nation’s aerospace workforce as a whole. This may take a cultural shift on the part
of NASA and its centers. Data provided to the Committee by NSF from 2003 reveals that fully 75% of the workforce with a degree in
aeronautics and space science-related fields does not currently work in those fields (Figure 1). The workforce is potentially available, but
needs revectoring.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
49
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Solvency—Property Rights—Ext
Best Card
Wasser and Jobes 2008 (Alan Wasser* and Douglas Jobes**, *Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute and a former CEO
of the National Space Society. He is a former member of the AIAA Space Colonization Technical Committee, former member of the
Board of Directors of ProSpace, and a former Senior Associate of the Space Studies Institute and **President of The Space Settlement
Institute and a promoter of space exploration and settlement, PACE SETTLEMENTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL LAW: COULD A LUNAR SETTLEMENT CLAIM THE LUNAR REAL ESTATE IT NEEDS TO SURVIVE?
Winter, 2008)
Despite certain conventional wisdom, the Outer Space Treaty does not in fact appear to ban private property in space.
Nations could recognize land ownership claims made by private space settlements without being guilty of national
appropriation or any other violation of the Treaty. Land claims recognition legislation would, therefore, be perfectly legal
under existing international laws. Such legislation would be the best way to promote privately funded space settlement, and
in fact, may be the sine qua non for the expansion of the habitat of humanity beyond the Earth. This is not an arcane
discussion of legal theory, but rather a call for immediate action - a single enabling act that will cost nothing but will act to
lever the opening of the new frontier. The U.S. Congress should, in its next session, consider a bill like The Space
Settlement Prize Act n181 to legitimize the property rights of individuals in space and create the financial reward system (at
no cost to the government) that will make true space settlement actually happen. n182
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
50
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Solvency—Property Rights—Territory Conflicts
Real property rights policy solvency
White 1998 (Wayne N. White , Jr. Attorney at Law, whose work was presented at the International Institute of Space Law's 40th
Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, “Real Property Rights in Outer Space,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/research_library/WayneWhite98-2.pdf, 1998)
A development regime which provides some form of property rights will become increasingly necessary as space develops.
Professionals foresee an integrated system of solar power generation, lunar and asteroidal mining, orbital industrialization,
and habitation in outer space. In the midst of this complexity, the right to maintain a facility in a given location relative to
another space object may create conflict. Such conflicts may arise sooner than we expect, if private companies begin
building subsidiary facilities around space stations. Eventually large public facilities will become the hub of private space
development, and owners will want to protect the proximity value of their facility location. It also seems likely that at some
point national governments and/or private companies will clash over the right to exploit a given mineral deposit. Finally,
the geosynchronous orbit is already crowded with satellites, and other orbits with unique characteristics may become scarce
in the future. The institution of real property is the most efficient method of allocating the scarce resource of location value.
Space habitats, for example, will be very expensive and will probably require financing from private as well as public
sources. Selling property rights for living or business space on the habitat would be one way of obtaining private financing.
Private law condominiums would seem to be a particularly apt financing model -- inhabitants could hold title to their living
space and pay a monthly fee for life-support services and maintenance of common areas.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
51
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Solvency—Property Rights--Investors
Property Rights ensures Investor Confidence
White 1998 (Wayne N. White , Jr. Attorney at Law, whose work was presented at the International Institute of Space Law's 40th
Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, “Real Property Rights in Outer Space,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/research_library/WayneWhite98-2.pdf, 1998)
Private entities from the developing nations could obtain property rights by purchasing obsolete facilities from foreign
entities that are more technologically advanced. A regime of real property rights would provide legal and political certainty.
Investors and settlers could predict the outcome of a conflict with greater certainty by analogizing to terrestrial property
law. Settlers and developers would also be reassured, knowing that other nations would respect their right to remain at a
given location.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
52
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Solvency—Property Rights—Laundry List
Long Solvency Card for Property Rights
White 1998 (Wayne N. White , Jr. Attorney at Law, whose work was presented at the International Institute of Space Law's 40th
Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, “Real Property Rights in Outer Space,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/research_library/WayneWhite98-2.pdf, 1998)
Under a regime of functional property rights, title would arise on the basis of a principle entirely different from traditional
property rights. Conferral of title would not depend upon a government's control over a specific area, but rather upon its
control over the space objects and personnel at that location. Once conferred, these rights would, nevertheless, be almost
identical to terrestrial property rights. On Earth the exclusion of others from the use and enjoyment of a given area is the
principal right associated with real property ownership. In space first-come, first-served occupation, and the prohibition
against harmful interference with other states' activities provides states with a similar, albeit less clearly defined, right of
exclusion. Property rights legislation would extend this right to a state's citizens. Functional property rights would be
subject to the limitations of Article VIII jurisdiction. These rights would terminate if activity were halted, as for example, if
a space object was abandoned or returned to Earth. Finally, rights would be limited to the area occupied by the space object,
and to a reasonable safety area around the facility. Hence, orbital property rights would extend only to the moving
"envelope" occupied by a facility, and not to its entire orbital path. In other respects a real property regime could be
structured at a state's discretion. States would determine the conditions necessary to establish and maintain property rights.
They could follow the example of the United States' Homesteading Acts, and require owners to maintain a facility (and/or
conduct certain activities) in a fixed location, for a specified period of time (e.g. one to five years), to establish a property
right. The regime would have to specify the period of inactivity or abandonment necessary to extinguish a property right,
and the permissible deviation of an orbital facility from its proper location. In outer space, requiring facility owners to
maintain a fixed orbit offers several advantages. First, it will reduce the probability of collision. It seems likely that some
sort of "space traffic control" will evolve to track and direct space objects; plotting titled orbital locations as constants
would permit controllers to concentrate on space vehicles and satellites in less stable orbits. Facility owners would benefit
from this arrangement if non-titled space objects (or space objects exceeding their parameters) were held presumptively
liable in a collision. Secondly, fixed orbits discourage indiscriminate dumping of debris, because debris can be more easily
tracked to plotted, fixed points of origin. Hence, courts would sometimes be able to assess liability for debris-caused
damage. Functional property rights permit free access to all areas of outer space and celestial bodies because they do not
necessitate territorial sovereignty and its consequent appropriation of large areas of space. Safety zones may extend to a
reasonable distance around a facility, and exist only for the security of the facility and to promote safe navigation in its
vicinity. The regime is attractive because it is so easy to implement. Nations can unilaterally enact legislation, and they can
tailor that legislation to conform to their existing property laws. The regime will cost states virtually nothing to implement,
yet it will encourage citizens to enter what promises to be a very lucrative field. Participating states should additionally
provide for reciprocity and/or negotiate some form of limited "mini-treaty" to coordinate national property legislation. Such
a treaty would elaborate on the elements in Article VIII -- it would define the property rights conferred under Article VIII,
and provide for their recordation; it would define the term "space object," with particular emphasis on the distinction
between space vehicles and permanently situated space facilities; it would define the term "personnel"; and it would
delineate the extent of jurisdiction and control, with particular emphasis on the physical extent of safety zones, and upon the
temporal duration of jurisdiction, i.e. upon the period of abandonment necessary to extinguish jurisdiction. Conclusion
Existing international space law permits the institution of limited, functional property rights in outer space. Article II of the
1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits national and not private appropriation of spatial resources, and in particular prohibits
national claims of territorial sovereignty. This article proposes a regime of functional property rights which would be legal
under both the common law and civil law theories of property, and under Articles II and VIII of the Outer Space Treaty .
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
53
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Solvency—Property Rights—A2: Property Rights Inevitable
Wasser and Jobes 2008 (Alan Wasser* and Douglas Jobes**, *Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute and a former CEO
of the National Space Society. He is a former member of the AIAA Space Colonization Technical Committee, former member of the
Board of Directors of ProSpace, and a former Senior Associate of the Space Studies Institute and **President of The Space Settlement
Institute and a promoter of space exploration and settlement, PACE SETTLEMENTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL LAW: COULD A LUNAR SETTLEMENT CLAIM THE LUNAR REAL ESTATE IT NEEDS TO SURVIVE?
Winter, 2008)
Another possible argument, based on the "inevitable" future, is that there is no need to push the legal envelope by passing
Lunar land claims recognition now, because once a space settlement is established, a property rights regime will evolve
naturally. It certainly is true that, if a permanent space settlement were established without prior legislation, there would be
claims [*71] of property ownership in space that would have to be litigated at length in the courts of the United States and
other countries. In fact, if no advance legislation has been passed, there will be outrageous property claims based on much
lesser bases than actual settlement. n156 This legal uncertainty scares off space developers who fear that, after they have
spent a fortune developing space, they will only win the right to spend another fortune on legal bills. n157 Worse, it would
force unqualified judges to legislate in haste from the bench, possibly producing very bad rules. Reinstein says, "A legal
system that is unclear as to the rights of developers in the land they develop is almost as prohibitive of positive
development as a system forbidding development altogether." n158Antitrust and Trade Regulation lawyer David Everett
Marko adds, "Free enterprise institutions simply cannot make significant investments in space while they are under the
threat of lawsuits over the meaning of treaty terms ... ." n159 Therefore, it is not at all surprising that, without the incentive
that advanced legal certainty would provide, space settlement is not currently happening, and it probably never will. A few
space lawyers like Jim Dunstan argue that firm property rights are unnecessary for space development, n160 although this
belies the fact that space settlement seems no closer today than it did twenty years ago when David Anderman said the
same thing. That is why Lunar land claims recognition legislation is needed now, in order to create an incentive to make
space settlement happen at all.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
54
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Solvency—Privatization
Private lunar endeavors and national involvement can be separate.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, University of Tennesse Law Professor, 6-1-2008, Popular Mechanics Magazine, “Who Owns the
Moon? The Case for Lunar Property Rights” http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/4264325
Various theoretical discussions followed,with some scholars arguing that the moon had to be treated differently than
earthbound properties and others claiming that property laws in space shouldn't differ from those on Earth. With the space
race in full flower, though, the real worry was national sovereignty. Both the United States and the Soviet Union wanted to
reach the moon first but, in fact, each was more worried about what would happen if they arrived second. Fears that the
competition might trigger World War III led to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which was eventually ratified by 62 countries.
According to article II of the treaty, "Outer Space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national
appropriation by claim of soverÂ-eignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." So national appropriation
was out, along with fortifications, weapons and military installations. But what about private property rights--personal and
corporate? Some scholars argue that property rights can exist only under a nation's dominion, but most believe that property
rights and sovereignty can be distinct. In something of an admission that this is the case, nations that thought the Outer
Space Treaty didn't go far enough proposed a new agreement, the Moon Treaty, in 1979. It explicitly barred private
property rights on the moon. It also provided that any development, extraction and management of resources would take
place under the supervision of an international authority that would divert a share of the profits, if any, to developing
countries. The Carter administration liked the Moon Treaty, but space activists, fearful that the sharing requirement would
subjugate American mineral claims to international partners, pressured the Senate, ensuring that the United States didn't
ratify it.
Congress can pass a law allowing private industries to mine on the moon.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, University of Tennesse Law Professor, 6-1-2008, Popular Mechanics Magazine, “Who Owns the
Moon? The Case for Lunar Property Rights” http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/4264325
In maritime salvage law, which also deals with property rights beyond national territory, actually being there is key: Those
who reach a wreck first and secure the property are generally entitled to a percentage of what they recover. There's even
some case law allowing that presence to be robotic rather than human. Traditionally, claims to unclaimed property require
long-term presence, effective control and some degree of improvement. Those aren't bad rules for lunar property, either.
But who would recognize such titles? Individual nations might. In the 1980 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, the
United States recognized deep-sea mining rights outside its own territory without claiming sovereignty over the seabed.
There's nothing to stop Congress from passing a similar law relating to the moon. For that matter, there's nothing to stop
other nations from doing the same.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
55
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Private companies and investors are the best actor for space industry development.
Henry Gass, Writer for the Ecologist, 7-11-11, The Ecologist, “Plans to strip mine the moon may soon be more than just
science-fiction”,
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/962678/plans_to_strip_mine_the_moon_may_soon_be_more_than_just_scienc
efiction.html
. Tietz says ‘there’s a great deal of interest out there’ from potential investors. ‘This will not be funded by any government
or any federal agency like NASA. This is all going to be – if it ever happens – it will all be private investment,’ continues
Tietz. In a June 2009 article in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers magazine Spectrum, Shackleton founder
Bill Stone wrote that lunar prospecting could cost as much as $20 billion over a decade. ‘At the moment, no country seems
eager to foot the bill,’ writes Stone. ‘Where governments fail to act on au vitally important opportunity, the private sector
can and should step in.’ Stone outlined that, to save $1 billion during the initial staging of the lunar mining base, the first
human team would only take enough fuel to land and establish the base—not enough for a return trip to Earth. ‘This may
sound radical, but the human crew who will undertake this mission will do so knowing that their success and survival
depend on in situ fuel generation for the return. Should they fail, theirs will be a one-way trip; the risk is theirs to take,’
writes Stone. ‘For government-sponsored space agencies, such a concept is unthinkable; they cannot tolerate the political
risk of failure. Yet it is the only viable business choice. Centuries of explorers made the same hard choice in pushing the
limits on land, sea, and air. It’s time to carry it forward into space.’ According to Tietz, governments are at present neither
politically inclined nor financially able to carry out prospecting missions in space. Tietz says governments have different
priorities – most research-oriented – they have to fund with limited budgets. ‘Private enterprise, we believe, can move very
quickly – almost like our internet companies – if they have the right funding and the right regulatory environment to go do
what they want to do they can go do it very fast and effectively, privately, and are basically only beholden to their Board of
Directors and investors,’ continues Tietz. ‘Governments would then be the beneficiaries of the products that we would
produce if we were then successful,’ says Tietz. ‘It’s openly sourced to all of humanity, first-come-first-serve.’
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
56
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Solvency—Government-initiated Privatization
Gangale and Dudley-Rowley 2005 (Thomas Gangale and Marilyn Dudley-Rowley, Executive Director, OPS-Alaska, 2262
Magnolia Avenue, Petaluma, CA, AIAA Student Member and Chief Executive Officer, OPS-Alaska, 2262 Magnolia Avenue,
Petaluma, CA, AIAA Professional Member, “To Build Bifrost: Developing Space Property Rights and Infrastructure,” American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics http://www.astrosociology.com/Library/PDF/Submissions/To%20Build%20Bifrost.pdf)
The libertarian mantra that “government is the problem” is nonsensical. Neither is government the entire solution, but it is a
necessary partner in the solution--on land and on sea, in the air and in space. Building a transplanetary infrastructure is not
something that private enterprise is going to accomplish... ever. First must come the political vision to build rainbow
bridges to the heavens, then will come the economic incentive to travel them. What makes libertarian rhetoric so seductive
is that government seems to have dropped the ball. The Golden Age of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo is long gone. During
that time, anything seemed possible. It was anticipated that there would be a fully reusable launch system, a space station, a
Moon base, and human expeditions to Mars, all by the early 1980s. The technology for all of this was either in hand or
within reach, but there was no political necessity, and there certainly was no economic rationale. Clearly, if government
were the problem, private enterprise failed to provide a solution. Private enterprise never built a space station or a Moon
base, or sent humans to Mars. Is it likely to in the near future? Government has been getting an increasingly bad rap in the
space advocacy community since the end of the Apollo era, but in truth the mad dash to the Moon was unsustainable, and
measuring subsequent progress against the Apollo standard reflects unrealistically high expectations. Apollo was a Cold
War anomaly that has not been repeated, and that may have no analog in the future. Again, the central problem is
infrastructure. When the Apollo program ended, it left some ground infrastructure (assembly and launch facilities later used
by the Space Shuttle program) but no space infrastructure, and in that respect it was a developmental dead end. Political
motivation for government to build lasting infrastructure is generated by private sector anticipation of colonizing a new
human ecology in which it can produce profit. This is the common thread in all of the aforementioned government
infrastructure projects. In contrast, no government has bothered to build a tunnel under the Bering Strait; there are no roads
on either side, and so there is little prospect of a sustainable human ecology there. This is not to say that there will never be
a Bering Tunnel, just not any time soon. This may sound like a chicken-and-egg problem. Private enterprise is illpositioned to develop infrastructure that it requires to thrive. Technocracy--government-directed technological
development--has its limits, and may be politically motivated to develop capabilities that have little or no economic utility.
A case in point is the depopulation of Siberia that has been occurring since the collapse of communism. The Soviet Union
built infrastructure and forcibly moved population in a massive effort to colonize Siberia and extract its natural resources.
Under a command economy, it was not clear that this was an uneconomical project, but as Russia has transitioned to a
market economy, an increasing number of people have found that they cannot make a decent living in Siberia despite its
vast natural wealth. There are enormous costs associated with extracting those resources in the extreme environment, and
furthermore, there are considerable costs attached to transporting goods out of this remote region of the Earth to market. So,
millions of Russians are abandoning the frontier to return to the bosom of Mother Russia’s European heartland. Now,
Siberia is paradise next door compared to the distant and forbidding Moon and Mars, yet here private enterprise is
retreating from an ecology that government established. Private enterprise only recently duplicated Alan Shepard’s 1961
suborbital flight. How credible is it that private enterprise is going to blaze trails to the planets in our lifetime? It is about as
credible as the hype about living on the Moon that baby boomers read in the Weekly Reader 40 years ago, or the grand
vision of solar power satellite constellations 30 years ago, or a fleet of commercially owned and operated Space Shuttles 20
years ago, or the Iridium mobile telephone satellite constellation 10 years ago. It seems like every time you turn around,
space endeavors are being oversold, whether they are governmental or commercial. However, developing a spacefaring
civilization is not an insoluble chicken-and-egg conundrum. It is more subtle than that, and there are solutions--not in all
cases, but on the margins. Obviously, progress does occur, and while the pace of progress is not immutable, it does have
constraints. The key conceptualization is of government and private enterprise in a push-pull relationship. When private
interest becomes curious about what lies over the five-year return-on-investment horizon, it nudges government to stand
straight and see further over that horizon. If the vista is promising, private interest encourages government to build the
rainbow bridge to the pot of gold. Government then gets its piece of the action by taxing that pot of gold.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
57
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Solvency—Unilateral Action => International Co-op
EXTEND THIS CARD, Don’t read it
Twibell 1997 (Ty S. Twibell, J.D. Candidate 1998, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, B.S, Public Administration,
Southwest Missouri State University, “NOTE & COMMENT: CIRCUMNAVIGATING INTERNATIONAL SPACE LAW,” ILSA
Journal of International & Comparative Law, p. 259, Fall 1997)
Unlike Congress and state legislatures, the United Nations does not have an analogous lobbying structure to implement
legislative change. People are not salaried solely for the purpose of wining and dining United Nations ambassadors to have their views affect United
Nations decision making. United Nations lobbyists are the states themselves (although they may be acting on behalf of internal or domestic lobbying
interests). The United States could be a lobbyist for the space and property right cause by promoting its own space industry
and preparing to do so. Such maneuvers of the world's largest economic and technological giant would not go unnoticed, rather, it
would send a message of an impending need for a new international space regime. Other nations would observe the United
States preparing for massive space ventures that could question the 1967 Space Treaty's no-sovereignty provision. They
would then be extremely motivated to act upon their concerns and address property right issues before the United States
foreseeably quashes their opportunities perceptively to them anyway. Further, other nations would necessarily and
inevitably work in conjunction with the United States in its space endeavors, paving the path further or international legal
change.
More
Thomas 2005 (Jonothan Thomas, Qualified Legal Analyst for the International Law and Management Review,
“PRIVATIZATION OF SPACE VENTURES: PROPOSING A PROVEN REGULATORY THEORY FOR FUTURE
EXTRATERRESTRIAL APPROPRIATION” International Law and Management Review Volume 1, Spring 2005)
In addition to a change in fundamental circumstances, other mechanisms may induce the abandonment of the Outer Space
Treaty. As previously discussed, the first mechanism for abandonment would simply involve developed and developing
states mutually consenting to terminate the Outer Space Treaty.0t0 As an alternative to mutual consent, these states may
also abandon the treaty in practice by simply appropriating extraterrestrial lands unilaterally, based on their reservations and
interpretations of the Outer Space Treaty. If determined to be customary international law, the Outer Space Treaty may not
permit these actions, but unilateral action may jumpstart extraterrestrial appropriation by other states. If enough states join
in the appropriation, adverse adjudication may prove unlikely.
Metaphor-heavy card about amending/unilateral aciton
Twibell 1997 (Ty S. Twibell, J.D. Candidate 1998, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, B.S, Public Administration,
Southwest Missouri State University, “NOTE & COMMENT: CIRCUMNAVIGATING INTERNATIONAL SPACE LAW,” ILSA
Journal of International & Comparative Law, p. 259, Fall 1997)
When the early space explorers dreamed of traveling from one side of the globe to the other, they envisioned vast riches
and short navigable routes to reach those riches. Christopher Columbus sought a shortcut to India, only to have found the
longest route to what was really India. Magellan took a route through the Straits of Magellan and the Pacific Ocean only to
find the Pacific Ocean was eighty percent larger than he thought, resulting in Magellan practically circumnavigating the
globe.141 Captain Cook's voyages took him around the world and he took no shortcuts.149 He was a great navigator and
knew the oceans well. His voyages were very profitable.1'1 In this paper, shortcuts were sought as well in finding the best
direct route to needed legal change in international space law. Similarly to the early explorers, the best route was the direct
route often requiring a long path, or rather, circumnavigation of the world. Some of the shortcuts, as the shortcuts sought by
the ancient ocean explorers, may really be the longest route to the desired destination. Amendment of the 1967 Space
Treaty may take us the long way around the world, but it is the most direct route. Albeit the route is long and hard, it is the
best route for instituting needed legal change in the international corpus juris spatialis. Further, it will be strong United
States policy that persuades Queen Isabella to fund and make the long voyage a reality - a voyage that will not only
bring economic and humanitarian prosperity to Portugal or Europe, but to all the world.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
58
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Solvency—Abandoning Treaties: Spillover
Abandoning the treaty
Thomas 2005 (Jonothan Thomas, Qualified Legal Analyst for the International Law and Management Review,
“PRIVATIZATION OF SPACE VENTURES: PROPOSING A PROVEN REGULATORY THEORY FOR FUTURE
EXTRATERRESTRIAL APPROPRIATION” International Law and Management Review Volume 1, Spring 2005)
The Outer Space Treaty should be abandoned. Some signatory states may attempt to impose the obligations of the Outer
Space Treaty on all states under the argument that it has become customary international law. The Outer Space Treaty's
obligations, however, may be avoided in two ways. First, the Outer Space treaty could be nullified by demonstrating a
fundamental change of circumstances that has arisen since the treaty's signing. Second, unilateral appropriation against the
Outer Space Treaty's provisions may encourage widespread abandonment or consent to abandonment.
Thomas 2005 (Jonothan Thomas, Qualified Legal Analyst for the International Law and Management Review,
“PRIVATIZATION OF SPACE VENTURES: PROPOSING A PROVEN REGULATORY THEORY FOR FUTURE
EXTRATERRESTRIAL APPROPRIATION” International Law and Management Review Volume 1, Spring 2005)
Current approaches attempt to reform the existing corpus juris spatialis by either working within the confines of a res
communis framework or by creating entirely new bodies of regulatory authority. These approaches are insufficient because
they do not provide enough compensation or incentive to private enterprises and states. Despite the laudable and widely
discussed attempts at reform within the existing framework of CHM principles, theorists are unable to provide effective
solutions that compensate for market pressures and human self-interest. Thus, states should abandon the Outer Space Treaty
and Moon Treaty in favor of a free-market approach based on traditional property jurisprudence which acknowledges and
utilizes the capitalistic nature of modem economies.102 This jurisprudence is the most practicable solution because it has
guided human acquisition of property for millennia. Traditional property jurisprudence would allow all states to actively
participate in an outer space market by grant of charter. Laws basing the acquisition of extraterrestrial property on (1)
discovery; (2) claim; and (3) possession would best facilitate and encourage outer space appropriation and exploration.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
59
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Solvency—Unilateralism
Unilateral Action card
Bilder 2009 (Richard B. Bilder, Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School, 2009 ,“A Legal Regime for
the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options,” Fordham International Law Journal Volume 33, Issue 2 Article 1)
As indicated, there does not at present appear to be any legal barrier to the United States engaging in lunar mining,
save for the very general limitations imposed by the Outer Space Treaty and broader international law. 113 Moreover, as a
practical matter, no other nation is likely in the near future to be in a position to prevent the United States from
establishing a lunar base and conducting activities on the Moon as it wishes. 114 Consequently, the United States
could presumably proceed with an He-3-based fusion energy program on the assumption that it could mine and bring
to Earth lunar He-3 without any need for seeking further internationdal approval. Under this approach, the United
States could develop an appropriate legal regime of its own, consistent with its own needs and principles, rather than
having to reach compromises with other countries. There is precedent for unilateral U.S. action of this kind-the
United States Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act,115 which, following U.S. rejection of the 1982 LOSC, continues
to govern the commercial recovery of deep seabed minerals by U.S. companies. 116 Subsequent to its enactment, the
United States concluded international agreements with several other states in 1982 and 1984 (Belgium, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) to resolve overlapping claims with respect to H3/Lunar Resources
Unilateral Zoning Solves
White 1998 (Wayne N. White , Jr. Attorney at Law, whose work was presented at the International Institute of Space Law's 40th
Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, “Real Property Rights in Outer Space,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/research_library/WayneWhite98-2.pdf, 1998)
Imre Csabafi's proposed "designated zones" of functional jurisdiction would permit unilateral action in outer space, just as
the aforementioned statutes allow unilateral action with respect to the seabed. In his book THE CONCEPT OF STATE
JURISDICTION IN INTERNATIONAL SPACE LAW, Csabafi suggests that an international agreement is necessary
"which would define certain specific cases when a state, being able to show a 'particular and distinctive interest,' may claim
the right to exercise functional jurisdiction in a designated zone of outer space or on a celestial body." States would then
create "designated areas" of functional sovereignty through unilateral legislation. Csabafi analogizes to the regime on the
continental shelf, and to the functional sovereignty which some nations exercise over pearl and sedentary fisheries on the
seabed.[24] Unfortunately, the zones which Csabafi describes are ill-suited to the complex interactions which will occur
when industry and habitation become routinized.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
60
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Treaties—A2: Moon Treaty/Common Heritage/Res Communis
Gruner 2004 (Brandon C. Gruner, associate based in the New York office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. He is a member of its
Corporate Department and its Intellectual Property Practice Group with experience in the areas of the intersection of intellectual
property rights, and trademark. “A New Hope for Ineternational Space Law: Incorporating Nineteenth Century First Possession
Principles into the 1967 Space treaty for the Colonization of Outer Space in the Twenty-First Century,” Seton Hall Law Review Vol.
35:299, p., 2004)
Furthermore, those nations that promote and accept the Common Heritage version of the res communis principle have a
more difficult burden in that they must persuade the international community to accept this concept of property rights.318
Since the Common Heritage of Mankind is an alternative system of governance, the burden is on undeveloped nations to
prove the principle's superiority over the historically successful system of sovereignty.319 Thus far, however, arguments
for the implementation of this socio-economic policy have been met with hostility.:20 Although undeveloped nations have
aligned themselves with the Common Heritage of Mankind concept,321 developed nations have failed to acknowledge its
legitimacy and legality because the principle does not comply with the three prerequisites that must be fulfilled for it to be
accepted as a rule of modern international law. For any principle to be accepted by the international community, it first
must be clear and well-defined so that the international community may integrate the concept into international law.323
Next, nations must abide by the principle and widely agree on its authority in international law.324 Finally, customary
recognition of the concept must be manifested by States or, at a minimum, be supported worldwide to verify its broad
acceptance.32, Applying this framework, the first problem with international acceptance of the Common Heritage principle
has been that States have been unable to develop a homogeneous interpretation of the Common Heritage concept-and thus
the principle is not clear and well-defined.326 It is uncertain, for example, whether the 1979 Moon Treaty requires an
equitable distribution of space resources, since the concept of sharing is inapplicable to other commons areas, like the deep
seabed.327 Furthermore, the Common Heritage principle is entirely declaratory and imprecise due to its open
interpretations of humanity's rights in outer space.32 If mankind truly is an heir to 329 outer space --and the concept of
heritage clearly suggests that common areas should be treated as inheritances transmitted from 330* ancestors to future
generations -then mankind should not only have the right to acquire its inheritance free from resource waste and
environmental abuse, but mankind should have the right to exploit its inheritance as well, "because an heir is entitled to
both."33' The concept of sharing inherent in the Common Heritage principle, however, seemingly puts a limit on
exploitation of space resources because the area must be preserved for future generations.332 This ambiguity differs vastly
from the legal certainty of sovereignty, which States uniformly recognize as allowing a property rights scheme of the
sovereign's choice.33
Gruner 2004 (Brandon C. Gruner, associate based in the New York office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. He is a member of its
Corporate Department and its Intellectual Property Practice Group with experience in the areas of the intersection of intellectual
property rights, and trademark. “A New Hope for Ineternational Space Law: Incorporating Nineteenth Century First Possession
Principles into the 1967 Space treaty for the Colonization of Outer Space in the Twenty-First Century,” Seton Hall Law Review Vol.
35:299, p., 2004)PS
Originally, the United States supported the Common Heritage concept, but its support soon eroded in wake of the
expectations of Third World nations.22 When the United States changed its position, it instead supported the view that
Common Heritage only meant that access to common territory would be available to all.23 The United States' primary
concern was that the incorporation of Common Heritage principles in the 1979 Moon Treaty, if ratified and accepted by a
majority of nations, would discourage development by United States government agencies or private companies, since
developers of resources would lose control over those resources to an international 231 regime after that developer spent
money harvesting the resources. Moreover, the 1979 Moon Treaty's "rational management" and "equitable sharing"
provisions232 furthered the view that the Treaty directed a transmission of wealth, political power, and technology from the
space-faring nations to the Third World countries.233Thus, the 1979 Moon Treaty has met with enormous international
hostility by the very governments who are needed to ratify the agreement. To date, only ten countries have signed the
treaty: 23 Australia, Austria, Chile, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Pakistan, the Philippines, and
Uruguay.235 Specifically included 7in the group of countries that have refused to ratify the 1979 Moon Treaty are the
United States, all but one of the modern nations that belonged to the former Soviet Union, the European Union, and dozens
of developing countries. Notably, the 1979 Moon Treaty is only binding on those nations that have ratified it,238 239 and
no space-faring nation has done so.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
61
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Treaties—A2: Ratify Moon Treaty
Moon treaty kills commercial investment in the moon
Ty S. Twibell, J.D. Candidate, 1998, University of Missouri- Kansas City School of Law, B.S., Public Administration, Southwest
Missouri State University 1994, 1997, “PACE LAW: LEGAL RESTRAINTS ON COMMERCIALIZATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF OUTER SPACE”, Lexis.
If the space powers begin to sign the Moon Treaty, commercial investment will be significantly inhibited more than it is
under existing space law. Any present ambiguity allowing some degree of property rights in space would be removed.
Further, under the existing law, it is possible to interpret the proposition that non-state entities may be allowed to
appropriate space property to themselves. Intellectual property rights are also possible under existing law. However, the
Moon Treaty prevents ownership even "'by the means' of utilizing non-state entities to accomplish their goals." Intellectual
property rights would also be threatened and "such innovations would be the property of all mankind, and not of any
particular person or nation." "[I]f stripped of any exclusivity for their outer space discoveries, companies are unlikely to
invest resources in making such discoveries." Moreover, times have changed since the advent of the 1979 Moon Treaty in
regard to the ancient superpower threat and the then third-world disadvantages. Professor Glenn H. Reynolds describes the
basis of the legal scheme of the Moon Treaty as reflecting the Cold War in regards to maximizing the legal structure to
support space commercialization. Today, space is not the sole preserve of the United States and the Soviet Union (or its
successor states). A potent European space program now exists, Japan has a rapidly growing program, and Third- World
opinion leaders like China, India, and Brazil have important space programs, too. Nor are these states the only ones.
Although the programs of the United States and the former Soviet Union retain significant leads, those leads no longer look
unassailable. When significant exploitation of space resources begins, many nations will be participating.
Moon Treaty kills cooperation
Ty S. Twibell, J.D. Candidate, 1998, University of Missouri- Kansas City School of Law, B.S., Public Administration, Southwest
Missouri State University 1994, 1997, “PACE LAW: LEGAL RESTRAINTS ON COMMERCIALIZATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF OUTER SPACE”, Lexis.
Quite interestingly, implementation of the Moon Treaty would thwart the third-world goals that developed it. Promotion of
commercial ventures in space would aid third-world nations in space investment significantly more than the major space
powers. The United States and Russia have enormous economies and military infrastructure available to support space
ventures. Smaller countries do not have these characteristics and therefore would be more sensitive to the negative effects
of international law on their investment opportunities. The end result of the Moon Treaty's implementation would be less
reward and incentive for the major space powers and perhaps little or no reward for third-world nations. The Moon Treaty
was designed to implement the theory of "Common Heritage of Mankind," yet the "great irony" is that it "is the very barrier
to its ratification by the major space powers."
Moon treaty wrecks the profitability of lunar mining
Bilder 2009 (Richard B. Bilder, Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School, 2009 ,“A Legal Regime for
the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options,” Fordham International Law Journal Volume 33, Issue 2 Article 1)
It is true, of course, that U.S. accession to the Moon Agreement would involve risks – including those raised in the 1980
Hearings and elsewhere based on a pessimistic prediction of the likely outcome of any eventual Article 11 and 18
negotiation. Thus, U.S. accession might well encourage wider participation in the Agreement by many non-space powers
and developing states – countries which might have a different ideology and approach to the exploitation of lunar resources
from that of the U.S. Conceivably, if these nations constituted a majority of parties to the Agreement, they might succeed in
imposing a resource regime unacceptable to the U.S. in any future Article 11 and 18 negotiations. In this event, U.S.
accession to the Moon Agreement could result in embedding and legitimating a lunar resource regime embodying
principles contrary to U.S. interests. Moreover, U.S. accession might in this case effectively preclude its pursuit of
alternative, more hopeful strategies; while it is true that under the Agreement the U.S. is not legally obliged to agree to any
eventual international regime it doesn’t like, it might by that time be impractical for the U.S. to either “go it alone” or seek
some other agreement.
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
62
Lunar Mining Aff
DDI 2011
1
Treaties—A2: Outer Space Treaty
OST doesn’t regulate property rights of private companies—no violation
Henry Gass, Journalist for the Global Research Article, July 7, 2011, “Plans to Strip Mine the Moon May Soon be More Than
Just Science-Fiction”, Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25542.
In January 2004, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao officially launched phase one of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Programme
(CLEP), a three-phase programme aiming to send rovers to the Moon to collect lunar soil by 2017. In 2002, CLEP chief
scientist Ouyang Ziyuan said: ‘Our long-term goal is to set up a base on the moon and mine its riches for the benefit of
humanity.’ Regulation over resource extraction in space remains ambiguous, however. The UN’s 1967 Outer Space Treaty
(OST) doesn’t ban the extraction of resources from space so long as mining stations don’t constitute de facto ‘occupation’
of a part of outer space. The OST, however, doesn’t mention who would own any resources retrieved in space. Tietz says
that Shackleton’s operation will not attempt to ‘claim land’ on the Moon, and that the OST ‘does appear on the surface to
give private enterprise an opportunity to go to the moon and do mineral extraction.’ Once they are finished mining,
Shackleton say the land will be regraded to near-original condition. The UN’s 1984 Moon Treaty sought to clarify space
mining rights, stating: ‘The Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind’ and that use of the moon
‘shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries.’ The Moon Treaty was not ratified – the only outer
space treaty to fail to be – with the US and Russia both voting against it, and the OST’s clause on space resource extraction
remains unclarified.
OST doesn’t solve private investment
Gruner 2004 (Brandon C. Gruner, associate based in the New York office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. He is a member of its
Corporate Department and its Intellectual Property Practice Group with experience in the areas of the intersection of intellectual
property rights, and trademark. “A New Hope for Ineternational Space Law: Incorporating Nineteenth Century First Possession
Principles into the 1967 Space treaty for the Colonization of Outer Space in the Twenty-First Century,” Seton Hall Law Review Vol.
35:299, p. 342, 2004)PS
Hence, with dozens of countries possessing space technology,52 the incentive to acquire the abundant resources available
in space S 53 due to the Earth's ongoing resource depletion, and the ability to implement the publicly available plan to
travel to Mars cheaply,54 the day will soon be upon us where one or more nations colonize the celestial bodies closest to
Earth. Treaties do exist as to how the law of outer space should be governed.55 These treaties rest in large part on the
principle that outer space is res communis and not subject to national appropriation.56 While this approach is laudable in
theory, it is problematic in application, as it fails to create an adequate incentive for space exploration and colonization.
Furthermore, the existing legal scheme provides no legal certainty to resolving property issues that will arise 5 because it
overturns centuries of international law by rejecting the longstanding principle of national sovereignty; the space treaties
have widely varying interpretations that differ from the original intentions of their authors;-8 and today some nations view
the treaties only as a roadmap for future treaties-not as law themselves.59
Last printed 2/15/2016 10:54:00 PM
63