I agree completely, which is why I prefaced my comment with the words “If there are riches to be made with lunar material …”. The discussion about property rights is, in that respect, an academic one. Given that there may well not be riches to be made in this way, one has to wonder about why fences might be erected on the Moon anyway. I suppose if someone has a habitat on the Moon where astronauts are deployed to twiddle their thumbs, one might like to have a fence to protect their view.

“As per Constellation, it’s pretty clear that the best places to harvest polar volatiles, places that are near power-friendly sites of nearly continuous sunlight, are HIGHLY limited. We’re talking dozens of acres. Things could well get pretty congested in places like that.”

Scarcity does not in itself create a need. Until there is a need for what is on the Moon, then talk about demand is premature.

For instance, water is cheap here on Earth, and as launch prices continue to fall the cost of acquisition for lunar sources has to fall too to stay competitive. Local lunar demand/use is likely the first place that will drive the need for harvesting lunar water, but until we have a substantial human presence on the Moon, shipments from Earth are actually less expensive initially.

I hope that we eventually do have enough people on the Moon someday to merit the discussion of who has the rights to mineral extraction, but no government on Earth has shown significant enough interest so far in supporting enough activity to merit serious discussion.

I have to wonder if that congestion is forseeable sooner, rather than later. If there are riches to be made with lunar material, it stands to reason that some places are much better than others to do that. As per Constellation, it’s pretty clear that the best places to harvest polar volatiles, places that are near power-friendly sites of nearly continuous sunlight, are HIGHLY limited. We’re talking dozens of acres. Things could well get pretty congested in places like that.

One wonders when we’re going to see the first fence erected around a high point on the rim of Shackleton crater.

The Moon does not have the same congestion issues as spectrum allocation (at least not for the forseable future) so there’s no need for an ITU-like structure.

It comes down to nation states licensing outer space activity within the constraints of the existing treaties. No need for a new treaty or an abolishing of the existing treaties to enable commercial activities on the Moon.

The same can work for the Moon. The key is, as Andrew points out, a set of property rights that fall short of full-on sovereignty but are enough to reduce uncertainty and create value.

All it requires is the US to develop a licensing scheme for private sector exploitation of the Moon under the existing legal framework, just as they did for commercial communications satellites and remote sensing in Earth orbit.

That won’t satisfy the libertarian idealists who want space to be the first domain free of government interference, but it will open the door to the private sector. And of course it won’t please the CHM crowd who insist commercial exploitation is evil, but that is just as big a pipe dream as zero government interference.

That’s true. Without Constellation the United States will not land its first crew back on the moon in the year 2035. Nor will land only two four-man crews on the moon for a one-week stay every year thereafter with no money for lunar habitats, manned rovers, EML stations, or deep-space habs.

Considering the commercial market that will develop over the next 22 years, I doubt many people are losing sleep over Constellation.