Howdy, maybe we'll see a new periode of space pioneering in the next decades. But this time it is not driven by a global (cold) conflict, no.
A strange mixture of curiosity and greed (of course) seems to be the key for the today revealed goals, of the Corporation "Planetary Ressources".

Since a few hours, the Website Planetary Ressources is filled with some informations.

They are obviously not kidding. The Bad Astronomy Blogger has posted some additional informations.

I think we'll talk sometimes about that again in the next years. Maybe too about the thought of a Reallife Weyland-Yutani exploring space, and our concerns about that.
But today, its just very - exciting.

---

Hello Dennis,

What do you think the problem with that is? Do you really believe that "mining asteroids" is a possibility, let alone a problem, for the foreseeable future?

Faik
---
Member of the C@H Team!

The Problem:
Private companies are no demokratic institutions. They are intransparent and mostly profit-oriented. There is no police, no law and no judge in space.
Although i am truly happy about the fact that "Planetary Ressources" exists, i am not so naive to ignore the theoretical long term effects.

Look at Google. Google is an important part of todays society-infrastructure. Google is one of the fuels which keeps todays information age running.
But Google could decide to control which informations are revealed and which not. Google could make contracts for special favoured websites. You would never have heared of wikileaks, when Google would act like this.
Google could, theoretically, define in which paradigma of knowledge you live. And that's not a good situation.

Look at Microsoft. Although there are today good (even better) alternatives to Microsofts Software, Microsoft still rules the world market and can take every prize they want for their products.

These are potential threats, and we didn't even talk about the general principle of capitalacuumulation.

In the case when "Planetary Ressources" is sucessful, they will have build an entire infrastructure in space. Exclusive for their own purposes.
Of course they don't want to do us harm. But they could.

On the other hand, i am not blind. The people of the western nations are more interested in IPhones or TV or their personal wealth. We ain't got the UNO in space, because the citizens of the UNO had no interest for that.
Because of this fact, every moaning is useless. Later generations will have to fix the errors of todays society.

Foreseeable Future:
I think, the question if PR will be able to archieve their longterm goals, is not the relevant question for us. Their planned little middlesteps will be much more important for space-interested people.
I've taken a deeper look onto their public presentations. Actually, the launching of their telescopes, the development of their spaceship or their robotprobes, will have effects on technological advance and space traveling.
If they don't fail with their first launches (planned for End 2013), their attempts will be a kickstart for other people with money, will help developing cutting edge technologies and will raise the public interest in space.
They will begin to earn money, when they are sucessfull with producing H2O on asteroids, selling it to NASA in a significant Win-Win Situation.
Do you know how much it costs to bring one litre water to LEO? I've heard, ca. 20000 Dollar.

So, it isn't about the platinum actually. It is about building a spacetravel supporting infrastructure in space, and this will be benificial.
And maybe, but only MAYBE, all this will lead to a revival of public interest, and maybe, just MAYBE, this will help mankind to act a little bit more like a mankind. People will be inspired - it could lead to a bloom of civilisation.

Of course, it is correct to be sceptic. But i've read their promotional material carefully. And i have seen, which people are involved.
A bunch of adventuring billionairs, mixed with scientist, astronauts and technicians. I think, WHEN somebody is able today to achieve such goals, then this people.

Edit: best greetings from my wife. She said "Greet your Faik from me!"

---

Hello Dennis,

It appears that some legal experts share your concerns as well. I was wondering what you would think about this article.

Faik
---
Member of the C@H Team!

I think they miss the point. Or, okay, they talk about the only point which is vague for THEM.
You know, who is "the common"? No one. No one will go to a courtyard because no one will be legitimated to do it.
In the paradigma we live in - "democracy" & market economics - the only vague question for them is - to who has PR to pay licence fees?
They will handle space like water or air or other common (free) goods.

They won't bother with questions about the ownership of an african child at asteroid xyz - although, this partly ownership could be intented with "the common".

I don't think that PR will have to fear juristic questions. In their worst case, they have to pay some percents to someone, who is declared as "the common".

You can see the ownership on asteroids like the ownership of software - modern days turn the actual logic of ownership to absurdum, and "they" have to build workarounds. It becomes more and more obvious, that these new arrangments can not be fair to everyone.
But thats a general question, not only belonging to asteroids.

It is no coincidence that the future society of humans in Star Trek, has got much more common goods instead of private ownership. For Gene Roddenberry, our economics were not thinkable in future societies :)

---