Allan Wasser in an essay in Space Review says that Johnson proposed the Outer Space Treaty to slow down the Space Race and save money and blames it for stopping lunar development. I have no argument that the Outer Space Treaty took away incentive for the space race and for government competition on the Moon. I don't blame it for lack of commercial development.
If the Russians still wanted to race after the Moon Landing, it probably would have meant a race to Mars, which was beyond everyones budget and technology, and still is. So offering a graceful truce was probably in everyone's interests. Unfortunately when NASA traded in the Saturn 5 for the Space Shuttle there was no longer a way to get to the Moon so all lunar activity stopped.
The Outer Space Treaty is not really an obstacle for commercial development. No one has sovereignty over the electromagnetic spectrum but the airways have been developed and are a multibillion sector of the economy. The key is the International Telecommunications Union. If we use it as a model for granting right of use to lunar territory, then the Outer Space Treaty will no be an obstacle to lunar development.
No business really cares if they actually own the land, as long as no one else bothers them on it. The beauty of the ITU model is we only need to negotiate right of use with those nations that can actually get to the Moon. Which means instead of dealing with over a hundred nations, we only need to negotiate with a few.


Recent Comments