A system of property rights in space is needed. But it's crucial to approach the issue intelligently, lest legal entanglements and a public backlash threaten the development of such a system.

We at Applied Space Resources (ASR) agree that property rights are necessary for the efficient development of space resources. But we think Becerra and others are being dangerously naïve when they assume that either legal courts or the court of public opinion will readily recognize such claims.

In fact, we believe the single most damaging action a private space company could take in the near future would be to make a unilateral territorial claim on a celestial body. As such, ASR has declared we will not claim the landing site (in the moon's Nectaris Basin) of our Lunar Retriever, planned for launch in 2002.

Resistance to the concept of space property rights, based on various rationales, is out there for all to see. Some people fear a "Yosemite Sam, Inc.-monster" ravaging the resources of space. Some equate space property with "corporate welfare" -- the rich getting richer by manipulating governments into handing them the resources of entire worlds.

Others, pointing to orbital debris, envision commercial operations despoiling a pristine environment of space. Some think the United Nations Moon Treaty's language that outer space is "the common heritage of mankind" means its riches should be distributed to all or touched by none.

Combined, these sentiments might push courts and legislatures to interpret the U.N.'s Outer Space Treaty as forbidding private entities, not just nations, from making territorial claims in space -- or encourage more governments to ratify the Moon Treaty (currently ratified by fewer than a dozen).

Either result would damage the industry, either by banning resource development missions outright or by clouding title to space resources that a private company might discover and develop.

The more fear we generate as an industry, the more we risk boycotts and other types of consumer backlash -- not to mention opposition to useful measures such as "zero gravity/zero tax" laws and mandates for NASA to resupply the International Space Station using private company launches.

Some people downplay the risk of negative public opinion, especially when that public is located in non-spacefaring countries. But a private corporation planning a space mission will see things very differently.

First, these countries contain customers. For example, Australia, a Moon Treaty signatory, has a $400 billion economy and represents a sizable potential market for space products. Were the Australian government to set up barriers against companies that ignore the treaty (especially if other countries follow suit), the space-development industry’s growth would certainly be damaged.

Resistance to the concept of space property rights, based on various rationales, is out there for all to see.
     

Second, logo placements and similar mission-related revenue streams have likely customers in multinational businesses. These companies are eager to expand business in non-spacefaring countries, and will not be enthusiastic about missions that offend the public and leaders of such countries.

Third, while none of the problems identified above are certain, they are factors which could give concerned investors ample reason to avoid commercial space-development projects. Space-development companies, as an industry, can hardly say we have so many investors that it doesn’t matter if a few get frightened off. We must give priority to what suits our investors' needs, not our personal whims.

The nascent space-development industry has neither the clout nor the resources to fight protracted legal or public-relations battles. We must demonstrate to the public the benefits of commercial space activity, and display good corporate citizenship.

When Yosemite Sam blasts away with both six-guns, with no regard to what is around him, he usually ends up shooting himself in the foot. In a cartoon, all is fine by the next scene. But a Yosemite Sam, Inc. in space could cripple not just itself, but an entire industry with a wound that may never fully heal.