It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


$2.00 parking fee please.

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:12 PM
I found this and found it to be hilarious. Its about the 433 Eros, an expected near earth asteroid that will come close in 2012. In an experimental legal case, Eros was claimed as property by Gregory W. Nemitz of OrbDev. According to the Homestead principle, Nemitz argued that he had the right to claim ownership of any celestial body that he made use of; he claimed he had designated Eros a spacecraft parking facility and wished to charge NASA a parking and storage fee of twenty cents per year for NEAR Shoemaker. Nemitz's case was dismissed and an appeal denied.

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:18 PM
reply to post by PontiacWarrior

Ah, this is but a shadow of things to come. There will soon need to be a court to decide the rights, to property and other items, for space exploration.

What constitutes ownership of an asteroid? Who can convey the mineral rights of a celestial body? What is the grounds, and who prosecutes, criminal activities in space?

This may be the first, but it certainly will not be the last, question of "space law".

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:28 PM
Well, Dennis Hope claims to own the moon and even sells property, and you believe this but he sells a lot of land. . .supposedly.

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:48 PM
Ok, this is funny, this site blasts on Dennis Hope for claiming to own the moon and selling its land, yet they are doing the same, only difference is they do not claim to own the moon. Has anyone here ever purchased land deeds on the moon before?

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 01:00 AM
Ah, capitalism at its finest; and stupidest.
How can one person own an asteroid?

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:07 AM
reply to post by jtb2008

Actually it's not stupid (nor is it capitalism). Mr. Nemitz is not trying to make money from this "Experimental Lawsuit" (he's only asking for $20 in rent, plus about $1100 in other expenses), but he is trying to make a point about private ownership, and the way existing laws are written.

Of course I'm not so jaded as to think Nemitz isn't hoping to eventually cash in on Eros. Nemitz (and the OrbDev Company) is hoping to eventually make a lot of money from Eros, but not directly through this lawsuit. Although he obviously is doing this to help validate his claim to Eros for his own future monetary gain.

But I see it as more than that...

The outcome of this lawsuit could help tighten up and define the question of ownership of celestial objects -- since someday, someone WILL land on an asteroid and claim it as their own. Who will decide who gets to profit from the Moon's or an Asteroid's resources?

This is not a silly question. If someone is allowed to own a a piece of land on Earth and make money from that land's resources, then why wouldn't those same laws of ownership apply to an asteroid? Back before the land in the United States was actually "owned" by anyone, people used the "Homestead Principle" to lay claim to previously unclaimed plots of land and the land's resources. Does the Homestead Principle apply to Eros? Nobody seems to have a good answer to that question, thus the lawsuit.

Nemitz claims ownership of Eros through the Homestaed Principle, and claims the U.S. government is NOT allowed to own the asteroid under the 'Outer Space Treaty' (of which the U.S. is a part). So if he owns it and the U.S. doesn't, then they should pay him rent for parking the NEAR spacecraft there.

By bringing this lawsuit, this may force governments to tighten the laws and treaties concerning ownership of celestial objects. This lawsuit proves that these laws and treaties certainly need some re-working.

Here's a wikipedia article about the Homestead Principle, the law by which Nemitz is claiming ownership of Eros. There is a paragraph about this particular case:
The Homestead Principle

Edit: spelling

[edit on 11/29/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:11 AM
space- the NEW wild west.

its gonna be interesting to see what happens

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:24 AM
reply to post by ghostryder21

Exactly --

Without laws governing ownership, whose to stop "range wars" and people with guns from forcing people off of land that they claimed as their own. But before a law can be enforced (i.e. a law stopping people from stealing another's property), those laws defining ownership need to be MADE.

Think of it this way. You build a spceship and fly to an asteroid. You find out that the asteroid is full of diamonds, so you invest A LOT of money to begin mining that asteroid. Then someone else comes along (with a big gun) and forces you off that asteroid, thus forcebly taking over your mining operation and leaving you penniless and in debt.

If there were no laws that said who owned that asteroid to begin with, then you have no legal claim to get your mining operation back. You Lose. However, if there was a law by which you COULD claim ownership, then the local "Space Sheriff" will be able to help you get your asteroid back.

Without ownership laws, it will be just like the old west we see in the movies.

Of course, this particular scenario won't be a problem until many decades from now, but the laws need to addressed very soon, before individuals begin to lay claim.

[edit on 11/29/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:51 AM
Just like in the old days where pirates ruled the oceans except now it will be in space.
I'm sure when the time is right and space flight becomes public transport we'll have galactic laws. Doe's the U.S. flag on the moon constitute U.S. property? Just wondering if that was why it was important to get there first.

[edit on 11/29/2007 by Solarskye]

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:22 AM
i don't think it was a claim to territory, just a symbol of accomplishment. we still don't own the moon.

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Good points. I agree that this is an area that needs to be addressed. Waiting will not make it easier, and could result in a great amount of fighting, in and out of the courts.

However, under the laws of salvage, there would be a precedent for ownership of "abandoned or otherwise derelict objects". We might see things return to some of the older laws of the high seas.

top topics


log in