[Shuttle Shucker]

I heard that one of the Lunar Embassy’s ambassadors (in China) got into some hot water, legally speaking. But are you sure that so adversely affects U.S. companies potentially setting up shop on the Moon? Even in the USA, different federal jurisdictions are often in disagreement, and that leads the Supreme Court to step in when an appeal is filed. A Communist country (which refused to sign onto the socialist Moon Treaty, significantly enough) has spoken out against property rights. What provision in the OST makes that legally binding on U.S. companies? I’ve not read over the OST in years, so I’m not denying that you could be right. I appreciate your insights and dedication to the important property rights cause in fact.

[RightWhale]

The court decision was done under the Treaty. The only way private business will ever get into space development now is if one of the signatories withdraws from the Treaty and recognizes private property and claims in outer space.

It will be very difficult to get investment funding without having title to the resources. If you have your own private funding, fine, but neither Bigelow nor Musk are in that league.

[PapaBear3625]

But are you sure that so adversely affects U.S. companies potentially setting up shop on the Moon?

You need enforcible and defensible private property rights in order to operate on the moon.

Example: you spend $XXX to locate an area of ore that is worth mining. As soon as you start extracting ore, a robotic mining operation crawls over to where you are and starts mining without having to spend any money to find anything other than just following you around

For private enterprise to operate, it needs property rights and a predictable system of laws governing claims and enforcement