ALBERT MEDINA: A POTENTIAL LUNAR MAKEOVER: BUILDING A GIANT SOLAR-PANELED "BELT" ON THE MOON'S SURFACE

It looks like the man in the moon could be getting a radical fashion upgrade in the years to come....in the form of an enormous "belt" consisting of millions of solar panels, that is. Such a colossal structure, one that the Japanese construction and engineering firm Shimuzu is actually proposing to start building by 2035, would ring around the moon's entire equator and, if completed, would even give the moon an appearance eerily similar to that of the "Death Star" from Star Wars. Seriously.

Science fiction references aside, the reason as to why Shimuzu came up with the farfetched idea of building a gigantic lunar belt of solar panels is derived from one of the Japanese firm's central principles, which is that "a shift from economical use of limited resources to the unlimited use of clean energy is the ultimate dream of all mankind." As such, the company firmly believes that "virtually inexhaustible, nonpolluting solar energy is the ultimate source of green energy" that could more or less fulfill all of Earth's energy needs.

To clarify, Shimuzu has released plans to someday cover the moon's equator with a 248-mile wide solar panel belt, one that Shimuzu calls the "Luna Ring." If constructed, the Luna Ring would, in effect, convert the moon into a miniature sun designed to supplement solar energy to a future Earth that will likely be in dire need of energy-based resources. According to Shimuzu, the Luna Ring would beam energy back to Earth and its inhabitants via massive antennae, each having a diameter of 12 whole miles. Shimuzu also states that the Luna Ring would have the ability to generate the gargantuan sum of 13,000 terawatts of energy; to put things in perspective, the United States generated a total of 4,500 terawatts in all of 2011. Shimuzu proposes constructing most of the Luna Ring with robots, as well as using existing lunar resources as much as possible in the building process. For instance, Shimuzu says that water can be produced from reducing lunar soil with hydrogen (imported from Earth of course), and that bricks, glass fibers and other such structural materials can be produced via the use of solar-heat treatments. For those of you who would like to see all of the details of Shimuzu's Luna Ring plans in their entirety, see the following link: http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/theme/dream/lunaring.html. 

Of course, despite Shimuzu's carefully-orchestrated plans for effectively constructing the Luna Ring as well as the Luna Ring's valuable potential for generating such massive amounts of precious energy, there are many predictable problems. Constructing and operating the Luna Ring in the manner Shimuzu proposes would be fantastically expensive, so much so that the energy that would have to be invested would likely never be recovered. Furthermore, it is undeniable that beaming power from space back to Earth in the way that the Luna Ring would do it would be a complex, expensive and mostly untested realm; the levels of risk would be enormous. Other obvious challenges to Shimuzu's proposed project would include maintenance and upkeep, a hostile space environment that would degrade solar panels much more quickly than what is experienced on Earth and the sheer cost of constructing the unavoidably-colossal infrastructure that would be required to transmit the energy in the first place. Bottom line: Shimuzu needs to come up with a more cost-effective plan of action that incorporates future advances in space-related technologies if it ever hopes to see the Luna Ring built one day.

That said, a less obvious issue that the hypothetical construction, and even mere existence, of the Luna Ring would bring about are the corresponding legal implications in the context of international space law; in particular, how the relevant system of ownership rights would actually be structured with respect to both a fully-operational Luna Ring as well as the moon itself.

First off, pursuant to the regime of international space law that is currently in force, not a single sovereign nation on Earth recognizes bare-bones human claims to extraterrestrial real estate; this includes "land" on the moon. Nevertheless, if an individual or entity had enough money to travel to the moon and desired to do so, there would be no aspect of international space law (as it presently exists) that would legally prevent that individual or entity from going to the moon and, say, constructing a lunar solar-paneled belt. That being said, the 1979 Moon Treaty specifically states that no one can own any part of outer space ever......but only 11 states have signed it. 

However, a grand total of 129 nations so far have signed and/or ratified the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which states in relevant part that outer space is not subject to national appropriation; at the same time, though, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty says nothing as to a private individual or company with respect to owning part of outer space. As such, it is still currently quite risky for individuals and corporations alike to attempt to claim and/or use extraterrestrial territory due to the fact that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty explicitly says that outer space is the "common heritage of mankind," meaning that outer space (as well as the "celestial bodies" that comprise it) belongs to all of us and only to all of us in a collective, non-individualistic sense. 

As for what national entities can actually "own" in outer space pursuant to current international space law, anything that a national entity launches into outer space and permanently places in outer space is deemed to be owned by that national entity. In particular, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty states in short that the items that national entities launch and permanently place out in outer space (i.e. such as the United States leaving behind its lunar rovers and other equipment on the moon from its various Apollo missions) remain the property of the original owner forever (meaning that the United States' leftover equipment and leftover lunar rovers on the moon remain the property of the United States and will remain as such forever).  

Thus, in the event of the construction and eventual implementation of the Luna Ring (and provided that current international space law regime remains constant), I am of the opinion that Japan (per Shimuzu as a Japan-based firm) would likely maintain national ownership of the Luna Ring provided that all robots and equipment would presumably be sent up into space and placed on the moon per Japan's own national space program. That said, if the transporting of the robots and equipment to the moon would ultimately end up involving various national space programs from different national entities, then this could definitely create a tremendous dilemma as to which national entity or entities, if any, would be deemed to be the true owner(s) of the Luna Ring.  

At the same time however, and once again assuming that the Luna-Ring-based circumstances above come to fruition, I am also of the opinion that no entity, national or private, could legitimately claim ownership of the entire moon itself due to the fact that outer space (including the celestial bodies that comprise it) is considered to be the "common heritage of mankind." Even though the 1967 Outer Space Treaty glaringly fails to discuss how outer space as a "common heritage of mankind" applies to private entities and their respective ownership rights, I do not think that the treaty drafters intended this to be a "loophole" that would indirectly allow private entities to be able to lay claim to certain aspects of outer space while national entities would simultaneously be barred from doing the same. To me, allowing private entities to do so would appear to fly in the face of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty's underlying principal of maintaining outer space as an international "commons" of sorts, one that no human and/or Earth-based entity can be excluded from accessing in any way by any other human and/or any other Earth-based entity. Nevertheless, the various provisions and principles regarding international space law are certainly subject to change, and in the year 2035 and beyond, who really knows what the system of international space law will have possibly evolved into by then.

I suppose that one of the main lessons to be learned from the foregoing discussion on the Luna Ring and outer-space ownership rights is that we as an international community still have not come to a concrete universal understanding of how extraterrestrial real estate (including lunar real estate) works or even ought to work with respect to national and private actors. That said, this absence presents a great opportunity for us space law enthusiasts to be a part of the solution for resolving this unsettled issue of international space law in the years to come.

Regardless, I for one think it would be pretty awesome for us to have the "Death Star" as our moon someday.

*If you would like to delve deeper in to this topic, then here are two great online videos that wonderfully outline Shimuzu's plans for the Luna Ring in much greater detail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUL_rDeKIeU / http://www.weather.com/video/they-want-to-put-what-on-the-moon-41862. 

ALBERT MEDINA: THE ELEPHANT IN EARTH'S ORBIT: OUR INTERNATIONAL SPACE DEBRIS CRISIS

Many of you may not be aware of this tremendous space-related issue, but here it is in a nutshell: There are now well over 21,000 pieces of man-made space debris (ie satellites/leftover rocket boosters/etc.) traveling tens of thousands of miles per hour in Earth's orbit. As more and more space debris inevitably crash into one another, or explode due to leftover fuel, current levels of space debris will exponentially increase over the next century or so. In fact, we've already passed a threshold such that even if nobody on Earth launched anything else into space for the rest of eternity, the current level of space debris would still dramatically increase over time.

So, if we don't actively start mitigating and/or reducing this exponentially-increasing number soon, then in one hundred or so years it may be next to impossible for mankind to safely leave Earth's atmosphere to explore the cosmos. To prevent this, the world basically has to implement a plan soon whereby large levels of both past and future space debris need to be consistently reentering the Earth's atmosphere and burning up as time goes on. This, of course, is obviously no easy task.

Fortunately for us though, there have already been plenty of plausible ideas and possible solutions floating around the international realm concerning effective "rendezvous and proximity operations" (RPO) and "on-orbit satellite servicing" (OOS) activities. To clarify, these RPO/OOS-based ideas and possible solutions are geared towards both "mitigation" (making sure all future space debris is designed to cause themselves to reenter Earth's atmosphere) and "reduction" (mankind actively causing old space debris to reenter Earth's atmosphere). Examples of such plausible methods can be found in the following two Youtube videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGfU2u1__OI / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aoow-t7qu7k.

Nevertheless, given this enormous predicament and the sheer magnitude of technology and resources necessary to even put a dent in it, there is simply no way that one space-faring state can address it on its own. That said, it is therefore imperative that the international community of states band together to come up with a long-term solution of space-debris mitigation and reduction; however, herein lies the problem.....a legal one at that.

As recently stated by the Secure World Foundation/Space Generation Advisory Council: "The current international space law framework is not even in a position to effectively deal with issue of space debris creation and mitigation. Moreover, space debris are not even mentioned in Article IX of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty), entered in force in 1967, which provides for protection of the space environment. The lack of definition makes it impossible to recognize which objects can be removed. However, even if we were able to make such a distinction, removal would have been complicated due to international regulations that apply to space objects. Art III of the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (Liability Convention), ratified in 1972, establishes that, '[i]n the event of damage being caused elsewhere than on the surface of the earth to a space object of one launching State or to persons or property on board such a space object by a space object of another launching State, the latter shall be liable only if the damage is due to its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is responsible.' Further analysis of the Liability Convention also helps to understand that there is no legal provision, which imposes any clear obligation upon the states to prevent space debris creation or to undertake mitigation measures."

If that wasn't enough to dampen your spirits, the Secure World Foundation/Space Generation Advisory Council also go on to clarify, based on current international space law, that: "[i]f during active debris removal (ADR) attempts any damage is caused to a third party, the launching state of the company carrying out the ADR will be held liable and will be required to pay a compensation to claimant state. This reimbursement is a condition of a license issued to private companies. ADR is risky because of the crowded environment and lack of space situational awareness as well as traffic management capabilities, therefore [the use of such a condition in these licenses] is highly discouraging. The present international space law conventions and instruments fail in creating a legal regime for ADR, and even the relatively new Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines fail in clearly providing for a legal regime, which would impose responsibility upon the states to undertake responsibility for the creation of space debris."

That said, here's the bottom line: Mankind absolutely needs to do something about the ever-increasing levels of space debris orbiting the Earth, but there is no international legal framework that can either meaningfully enforce, allow for or even encourage active debris removal on a global basis.

In spite of this, and on a slightly more positive note, there presently exist other international legal frameworks (such as the Law of the Sea) that could likely serve as a foundation/model from which to build up a new international space law regime. Nevertheless, this still doesn't change the main underlying problem: We still don't have such an international space-law framework set up, and it looks like we're a long way away from achieving that.

Thus, at least from a legal standpoint, I share the same opinion as that of the Secure World Foundation/Space Generation Advisory Council as to what has to specifically be done in the very near future. For one, the international community needs to agree on a shared legal definition of what "space debris" actually is. This has to be done for the sake of enabling space faring states and parties to proceed with the rapid uniform development of practices and technologies needed to conduct ADR. In addition, the international community needs to form a pro-active international legal regime geared towards envisaging a public private partnership method of responsibility sharing. This needs to be done for the purpose of reducing the current "chilling effect" that present international space law has with regard to ADR-based liability.

Lofty goals aside, the legal issues discussed above (and other equally-significant technical, economic and political hurdles) need to be effectively resolved before the international community can even begin to tackle our space debris crisis. If we as a global community fail to start this mission soon, however, then we could all be looking at an unsustainable orbital space environment in the years to come.

With that in mind, I emphatically believe that it's high time for us space law enthusiasts out there to really start stepping things up.

*If you would like to delve deeper into this topic, then here are two fantastic articles (both presented at the 64th International Astronautical Congress in Bejing, China by the Secure World Foundation/Space Generation Advisory Council in September 2013) that intricately outline the space-debris dilemma in its entirety, as well as the corresponding international legal implications, in much more detail: http://swfound.org/media/119601/IAC-13-E3.4.7-Paper.pdf / http://swfound.org/media/119724/IAC-13,A6,8,1,x18123_TC.pdf.