Scaled Composite also constructed the X-38 for NASA in 1996.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-038-DFRC.html

Scaled Composite does a lot of contract work for NASA, DOD and aerospace firms. Basically they are the aerospace firm you go to for a composite spacecraft aeroshells.

If Burt does an orbital design it will probably have more in common with NASA’s X-38 then t/Space’s capsule system.

BTW if you were at ISDC 2005 you would have gotten to tour the mock-up for the capsule, not just pictures. I expect t/Space may come together to pitch it to NASA for COTS D. I don’t see them succeeding.

“So your saying a company lands on the moon and occupies it, they can then CLAIM it?”

Yes and I’m not asking you to take my word for it so I referenced you to those pages of that paper (the pdf) in which people far more knowledgeable than me repeatedly make the point.

Vladislaw wrote:

“So HOW MUCH do you get to claim? 500.000 acres? 5000 acres?”

As much as you occupy or use.

Vladislaw wrote:

“Can you have every member of the expedition make their own individual claims?”

If they individually occupy and use land then yes. If they do it collectively then not unless they make internal arrangements for it.

Vladislaw wrote:

“How much can they claim or can only the company?”

Same as the earlier answer on how much and the answer above.

Vladislaw wrote:

“Who is the authorized registration agent?”

It’s de facto self-authorized by their actions according to the existing international legal system because of the Outer Space Treaty. When it comes to non-Earth property they are sovereigns in the original and uncomplicated sense of the word. If they deem it fit to have an authorized registration agent they are free to create one for their land (and over time that will likely happen in some way).

Vladislaw wrote:

“What country do you need to file your claim in?”

None but the Outer Space Treaty does not prohibit Earth governments from recognizing claims.

Vladislaw wrote:

“How much is the filing fees for a lunar claim?”

Zero in the way that there is no filing fee as such. Millions, billions, or more in the way of current launch and operation costs which are required to occupy and/or use non-Earth land which is the only way to obtain a legal claim.

Vladislaw wrote:

“Do you have to have the claim assessed for tax purposes?”

If an owner is a citizen of an Earth country then such details will have to be worked out between the respective parties. It’s an interesting question in several ways because among other things Earth governments are not allowed to for example appropriate it in any way but these issues will be worked out as they happen just as continually happens with issues big and small, they’re not insurmountable in any way.

Vladislaw wrote:

“I am talking about an clear ownership chain, not what many believe the treaty might mean.”

It’s not belief but what amounts to international juridical consensus on the correct interpretation of a treaty and the clear ownership claim is proving that one is occupying and/or using the land. If the details of that are in question it will be argued in court (just as happens quite frequently with Earth land and property when disagreements arise).

Vladislaw wrote:

“The US did not sign the moon treaty that would have banned private ownership that is not then a legal endorsement that private property rights are going to be INFORCED.”

The Moon Treaty is completely irrelevant unless you’re a citizen of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, or Uruguay.

Under the Outer Space Treaty Earth nations can recognize non-Earth claims but they can not enforce them in the way you seem to be calling for because they do not have jurisdiction. I think that’s a very good approach with few disadvantages (if any) compared to the benefits.

It’s not a new situation in that respect as sovereigns on Earth (nations) do not have jurisdiction over/within each other except as by agreements. Same thing.

Under the Outer Space Treaty any owner would be a sovereign in respect to such land. That ought to be viewed as a tremendous boon. As for the challenges of being a sovereign human history is mostly nothing much but a very long description of just that ^_^

Vladislaw wrote:

“You land on the moon and find a rock that sparkles, bring it back to earth and another company, hearing of your find lands there and starts digging your gemstones,………. so you say that would be illegal because you were there first, but you were WHERE first, if a claim does not have parameters and borders how could you have claimed it?”

Defend yourself by any means available that you see fit, no sovereign has ever existed for any substantial period of time that didn’t. No guarantees even so.

Vladislaw wrote:

“One of our greatest achievements is our law codes and the shedding of lexus talonus “The Law of the Claw””

You’re looking at that from the point of a citizen but the law of the claw is in full effect between sovereigns, always has been, always will be unless something unfortunate like a world dictatorship came about (and we’re hopefully a long way away from that as everybody is spying on everybody and looking after their own best self-interest).

Vladislaw wrote:

“We have a century of mining law, why not take our law with us and have the mechanisms in place, clear cut and dried. Not a jumble of various interpretations.”

This part simply doesn’t bear any resemblance to reality, there isn’t “one single law” in our world and we should be thankful there isn’t. Even so what most closely approaches such a warped (in my opinion) ideal has decided that one shouldn’t do such a copy-paste maneuver and prohibits Earth nations from doing it –not exactly a jumble of various interpretations.

### Switching topic

Someone wrote:

“Instead we are now stuck with capsules until when and if Burt Rutan does an orbital system.”

Ok so you haven’t seen Burt Rutan’s (well not just his) orbital system; it’s a pleasure to inform you that it’s a capsule based on the Corona shape ^_^

That’s his and Scaled Composites influence on t/Space and their CXV, he might not be the only reason (I don’t know such details myself but I wouldn’t be the least surprised if Rand Simberg does) but I read Burt Rutan thinks highly of the solution (no link at the ready but I’m sure it must be somewhere here, if not then the t/Space pages or a Wired interview are good bets).

You assume, without basis, that SSTO is the key to CRATS. But it may be a very long time before SSTO is lower cost to operate than a well-designed TSTO. Proving out technologies for it is all fine and good, but X-33 bit off much more than it could chew, putting several risky technologies in a single vehicle, which is a very poor approach to technology development, since it ended up proving none of them.

Commercial space firms would no longer have to argue that SSTO was possible when pursuing investment, merely that they could do it cheaper.

Very few firms argue that SSTO is possible when pursuing investment. Very few firms are proposing SSTO at all.

Yes, XCor is a dark horse in the race, but it will need to really get a lot more DOD funding to move forward. Perhaps even an “evil” cost plus contract

That’s your (uninformed) opinion. It doesn’t correspond to reality. They have private investment funds with which to move forward. When the vehicle gets built, they’ll have revenue from it to move forward from there.

Even if VentureStar failed to achieve its cost goals its mere existence would have proven that SSTO was possible which means we would have been much further along the path to CRATS. Commercial space firms would no longer have to argue that SSTO was possible when pursuing investment, merely that they could do it cheaper.

Instead we are now stuck with capsules until when and if Burt Rutan does an orbital system. Given his delays in just building SpaceShipTwo, despite adaquate funding, one wonders when that will be.

Yes, XCor is a dark horse in the race, but it will need to really get a lot more DOD funding to move forward. Perhaps even an “evil” cost plus contract

No, it wouldn’t have been. It would have been a working example of SSTM (Single-Stage To Montana). It was not an orbital vehicle. And if Venture Star had been built, people would have pointed to it as proof that SSTO wasn’t cost effective. And illogically extrapolated from that false conclusion that reusable vehicles aren’t either. In fact, that has been the effect of X-33.

But I guess NASA will never do anything right in your eyes, except maybe give New Space firms money.

NASA does many things right. But not much in manned space. It’s not allowed to, politically.

So you don’t think the engineers at the Skunkworks would have been able to make it work? Interesting.

As for its impact, even if it costs were more then the $1000/lb goal it would have been a working example of a SSTO. Surely that would have made rasing capital for New Space RLVs easier. In any case it would have been a much better follow-on to the Shuttle then the capsules we are not stuck with.

But I guess NASA will never do anything right in your eyes, except maybe give New Space firms money.

You would be taxed on the profits, if you sold it at cost or a loss then no taxes.

“as long as you do not represent an Earth nation and as long as you make use of and/or occupy the land then you can claim it as yours. ”

So your saying a company lands on the moon and occupies it, they can then CLAIM it? .. So HOW MUCH do you get to claim? 500.000 acres? 5000 acres? Can you have every member of the expedition make their own individual claims? How much can they claim or can only the company?
Who is the authorized registration agent? What country do you need to file your claim in? How much is the filing fees for a lunar claim? Do you have to have the claim assessed for tax purposes? et cetera et cetera et cetera….

I am talking about an clear ownership chain, not what many believe the treaty might mean. The US did not sign the moon treaty that would have banned private ownership that is not then a legal endorsement that private property rights are going to be INFORCED.

You land on the moon and find a rock that sparkles, bring it back to earth and another company, hearing of your find lands there and starts digging your gemstones,………. so you say that would be illegal because you were there first, but you were WHERE first, if a claim does not have parameters and borders how could you have claimed it?

One of our greatest achievements is our law codes and the shedding of lexus talonus “The Law of the Claw”

We have a century of mining law, why not take our law with us and have the mechanisms in place, clear cut and dried. Not a jumble of various interpretations.

Even assuming that is true (it’s nonsense–it would have died politically anyway, and technologically, it was highly unlikely to pay off), so what? It would have been another unaffordable white elephant, like the Shuttle.

But I guess if NASA does it, it’s wonderful, according to koolaid drinkers like you.