![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Space manufacturing is an expectation since the rise of the space age. Because of shifts in both national and global space policies, along with accidents and loss of human life in space missions, the idea of space manufacturing was postponed. Today, it is viable due to the maturity of efficient reusable launch technologies and an emergent space renaissance in the commercialization and privatization of space activities. Manufacturing in space carries a promise of new products and improved articles of manufacture. At the same time, there are legal problems to address prior to capital investment in space manufacturing. The problems stem from the lack of proper regulation, and the duality of the two legal systems of international space law and patent law. Both systems are crucial to the development of a framework for space manufacturing operations, which are currently in an early experimental phase. The author argues that international space law requires the creation of new doctrines that aligns with patent law, ensuring proper recognition of products manufactured and traded in outer space, especially those that are manufactured using space resources.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. A. C. Clarke. “Extra-Terrestrial Relays,” Wireless World, October (1945) 51 (10): 305–08.
2. A. G. Haley, “Space Law and Government”, (1963): 413.
3. E. Fasan, Relations with Alien Intelligences: The Scientific Basis of Metalaw (Berlin: Berlin Verlag, 1970), 39.
4. R. A. Freitas, “Metalaw and Interstellar Relations,” Mercury 6 (1977):15–7.
5. A. Górbiel, Międzynarodowe prawo kosmiczne (Warszawa, 1985), 130: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
6. J. Machowski, Paragrafy dla Kosmosu (Warszawa: PWN, 1965), 2.
7. The Princeton series titled Space Manufacturing, sometimes the Space Manufacturing Facilities.
8. K. E. Tsiolkovsky, Outside the Earth (Athena Books, 2004), 73: Barcelona-Singapore.
9. Although we are not certain about finding carbon-based lifeforms in the subglacial oceans of Europa or Enceladus, we shall not take those speculations into major account.
10. G. H. Stine, The Third Industrial Revolution (Putnam, 1975), IX, New York: G P Putnam's Sons.
12. NASA, “Space Experiments Survive,” https://www.nasa.gov/missions/shuttle/experiment.html.
13. J. Bauer, W. C. Hymer, D. R. Morrison, H. Kobayashi, C. V.F. Seaman and G. Weber, “Chapter 6 Electrophoresis in Space,” in Advances in Space Biology and Medicine, ed. Sjoerd L. Bontinc, vol. 7 (1999), 163–212.
14. M. Ott, W. Thomas and F. Larocca, “Optical Fiber Assemblies for Space Flight from the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center” (NASA Goddard Report, 2014), 6, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228632286_Optical_Fiber_Assemblies_for_Space_Flight_from_the_NASA_Goddard_Space_Flight_Center_Photonics_Group/citations.
15. H.F. Wuenscher, “Unique Manufacturing Processes in Space Environment,” The Space Congress Proceedings (1970): 7.
16. Outer space should not be considered pure vacuum, but a hard one, as there are still molecules and atoms present. “It averages roughly 1 atom per cubic centimeter, but density as great as 1000 atoms/cm3 and as small as 0.1 atom/cm3 have been found.” Chaisson, Eric and Steve McMillan, Astronomy Today (New York: Prentice Hall, 1993), 418.
17. G. K. O’Neill, “Space Settlements and Space Resources” (NASA, 1977), 50, Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information Branch .
18. D. M. Cole, “Social and Political Implications of the Ultimate Human Society,” The American Astronautical Society 18 (1961): 8.
19. D. M. Cole, “Extraterrestrial Colonies”; Navigation 7 (1960): 83–98.
20. F. J. Tipler, “Extraterrestrial intelligent beings do not exist,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 21, (1980): 267–81.
21. J. Benford, “Looking for Lurkers,” https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.09582.
22. R. A. Freitas, “A Self-Reproducing Interstellar Probe,” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 33, (1980): 251–64.
23. R. A. Feitas and W. Zachary, “A Self-Replicating, Growing Lunar Factory,” Space manufacturing 4, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, (1981): 109–19.
24. W. P. Gilbreath and R. A. Freitas, Advanced Automation for Space Missions (California, 1980) National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information Branch, Santa Clara.
25. N. Labeaga-Martínez, S. Rivo, M. Díaz-Álvarez and J.Martínez-Frías, “Additive Manufacturing for a Moon village,” Procedia Manufacturing 13 (2017): 794–801.
26. See: J. Helder et al., “International Trade Aspects of Outer Space Activities,” Outer Space Law: Legal Policy and Practice (2017): 290–91; Virgiliu Pop, Who owns the Moon?: Extraterrestrial aspects of Land and Mineral Resources Ownership (Springer Science & Business Media, 2008) Heidelberg; Ricky LEE, Law and regulation of commercial mining of minerals in outer space (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)Heidelberg: Springer; K. Muzyka, “The Problems with an International Legal Framework for Asteroid Mining,” Deep Space Commodities (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 123–40; K. Szocik, K. Lysenko-Ryba, S. Banaś and S. Mazur, “Political and legal challenges in a Mars colony,” Space Policy 38 (2016): 27–9. https://www.globelawandbusiness.com/books/outer-space-law-legal-policy-and-practice
27. According to Pinto, “The common heritage of mankind is the common property of mankind. The commonness of the ‘common heritage’ is a commonness of ownership and benefit.” see, M. C. W. Pinto, “Emerging Concepts of the Law of the Sea: Some Social and Cultural Aspects,” UNESCO, Impact of Science and Technology 4 (1984): 335–45; Ben Bova, The High Road (Houghton Mifflin, 1981), 269.
28. Article 11 of Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies; http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/moon-agreement.html.
29. E. Galloway, “Space Manufacturing and the Proposed Agreement Governing The Activities Of States On The Moon And Other Celestial Bodies,” Space Manufacturing 4 (New York: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1981): 55–9.
30. H.R.2262 – U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act; https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262/text.
31. The Law of 2017 on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources; http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2017/07/20/a674/jo.
32. J. I. Gabrynowicz, “The ‘Province’ and ‘Heritage’ of Mankind Reconsidered: A New Beginning,” NASA, Johnson Space Center, 2nd Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century 2 (1988): 691–92, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930004830.
34. https://fomsinc.com/.
38. The Hague Space Resources Governance Working Group, “Draft Building Blocks For The Development Of An International Framework On Space Resource Activities,” https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/rechtsgeleerdheid/instituut-voor-publiekrecht/lucht–en-ruimterecht/space-resources/draft-building-blocks.pdf.
39. Draft Building Blocks … point 2.5.
40. Draft Building Blocks … point 2.5 footnote 5.
41. Draft Building Blocks … point 5.3.
42. I. Cozmuta, D. J. Rasky, “Exotic Optical Fibers and Glasses: Innovative Material Processing Opportunities in Earth’s Orbit,” New Space 5, no. 3 (September 1, 2017): 121–40; Also: NASA – Scientific Samples Make the Journey Back to Earth aboard SpaceX’s Dragon; https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/SpX18-Dragon-sample-return.
43. This to prevent the blast from a space launch to raise regolith or rocks, which can cause serious damage to surface equipment.
44. R. A. Freitas, “A Self-Reproducing Interstellar Probe,” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 33 (1980): 251–64.
45. W. P. McCray, The Visioneers: How a Group of Elite Scientists Pursued Space Colonies, Nanotechnologies and a Limitless Future (Princeton University Press, 2013), 157.
46. Unless a specific act would state otherwise.
47. In the case of modular machines based on soft nanotechnology or xenobiology or even an intermediary solution.
48. R. S. Jakhu, B. Jasani and J. McDowell, “Critical issues related to registration of space objects and transparency of space activities,” Acta Astronautica 143 (February, 2018): 406–20.
49. J. Foust, “Industry worried about regulatory backlash after unauthorized cubesat launch,” Spacenews, March 13, 2018, https://spacenews.com/industry-worried-about-regulatory-backlash-after-unauthorized-cubesat-launch/; M. Harris, “FCC Accuses Stealthy Startup of Launching Rogue Satellites,” IEEE Spectrum, March 08, 2018, https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/fcc-accuses-stealthy-startup-of-launching-rogue-satellites.
50. B. Preston, D. J. Johnson, S. J. A. Edwards, M. D. Miller, and C. Shipbaugh, Space Weapons, Earth Wars (Santa Monica: RAND, 2002), 34.
51. U. Dasgupta, On-Orbit Transfer Of Satellites Between States: Legal Issues With Special Emphasis On Liability And Registration (McGill University Libraries, 2014), 69, Montreal.
52. D.W. Bowett, “Jurisdiction: Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources,” (1982): 53.
53. I. Słomczyńska, Europejska Polityka Kosmiczna (Lublin: UMCS, 2017), 109.
54. Ibid.
55. Law of the Russian Federation, “About Space Activity,” Decree No. 5663-1 of the Russian House of Soviets, August 08, 1993(Rus.), http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/nationalspacelaw/russian_ federation/decree_5663- 1_E.html.
56. Microfilm scans available online at https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002755825.
57. 35 U.S. Code § 105. Inventions in outer space, sub paragraph (a) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/105.
58. Article 2 of The Law of 2017 on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources; http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2017/07/20/a674/joTh.
59. H.R.3610 – American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2019.
60. H.R.2809 – American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017.
61. § 80101. Definitions, (11) Space Object.
62. Ҥ 80102. Certification authority, (e) Coverage of Certification.
63. M. Rothblatt, “A Legal Charter for Non-Governmental Space Industrialization,” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences 53 (1983): 229.
64. L. Łukaszuk, “Ochrona własności przemysłowej w przestrzeni kosmicznej,”; K. Kostrzewa- Myszona, Kosmos w prawie i polityce, prawo i polityka w kosmosie (Scholar, 2017), 96, Warszawa.
65. T. Leepuengtham, The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Outer Space Activities (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017), 20, Cheltenham.
66. W. R. Kramer, “Outer Space, Alien Life and Intellectual Property Protocols: An Opportunity to Rethink Life Patents,” Matthew David, Debora Halbert, in The SAGE Handbook of Intellectual Property (London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2015), 708–726, Sage.
67. A. Tingkang, “These aren’t the asteroids you are looking for: classifying asteroids in space as chattels, not land,” Seattle University Law Review (2012) 35: 2.
68. V. Pop, “A Celestial Body is a Celestial Body is a Celestial Body …,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, (2001) http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_celestial_body_is_a_celestial_body_is_a_celestial_body.shtml.
69. Pop, Who Owns the Moon?.
70. R.W. Bussard, “Galactic Matter and Interstellar Flight,” Astronautica Acta 6 (1960): 179–95.
71. M. Urbanczyk, “Solar Sails-A Realistic Propulsion for Space Craft,” (NASA-TM-X-60560, RSIC-694, Technical Report, NASA, 1965); R. L. Forward, “Statite: Spacecraft That Utilizes Light Pressure and Method of Use,” U.S. Patent 5,183,225, issued 1993-02-02; G. L Matloff, Deep Space Probes (New York: Springer, 2005), 57.
72. R. M. Zubrin, D. G. Andrews, “Magnetic sails and interplanetary travel,” Journal of Rockets and Propulsion 28 (1991):197–203.
73. Although Gallowey notes that there were some concerns over including solar radiation into this cathegory, in the context of Space Power Satellites; E. Galloway, “Space Manufacturing And The Proposed Agreement” … : 58.
74. D. Yarn, “The Transfer of Technology and UNCLOSIII,” Georgia journal of International and Comparative Law 14 (1984): 121–53.
75. “ … to make available to the enterprise on fair and reasonable commercial terms and conditions, whenever the authority so requests, the technology which he uses in carrying out activities in the area under the contract, which the contractor is legally entitled to transfer. This shall be done by means of licenses or other appropriate arrangements which the contractor shall negotiate with the enterprise and which shall be set forth in a specific agreement supplementary to the contract. This undertaking may be invoked only if the enterprise finds that it is unable to obtain the same or equally efficient and useful technology on the open market on fair and reasonable commercial terms and conditions”. Annex III Article 5 of UNCLOS, 1984.
76. Final Report (A/AC.105/1122). http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/lsc/2017/index.html.
77. Draft Building Blocks.
78. Ibid.
79. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
80. Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012).
81. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013).
82. Molniya orbit satellite systems, apparatus, and methods; US7840180.
83. Intellectual Property Office Guidance: Examining patent applications relating to chemical inventions https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/examining-patent-applications-relating-to-chemical-inventions/examining-patent-applications-relating-to-chemical-inventions-may-2017; also Intellectual Property Office Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications relating to Biotechnological Inventions in the Intellectual Property Office https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/512614/Guidelines-for-Patent-Applications-Biotech.pdf.
84. R. Zubrin, R. Wagner, The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must (New York: Free Press, 1996), 147.
85. J.C. Lai, “The Exhaustion of Patent Rights v The Implied License Approach: Untangling the Web of Patent Rights,” Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property 8, no. 3 (2018): 209–30.
86. Including synthetic biology and xenobiology.
87. Inseparable blend of soft robotics and biological organisms, see F.J. Dyson, Infinite in all Directions (Harper & Row, 1988): 196–20.
88. W. Brees, “Protecting Innocent Infringers of Naturally Reproducing Patented Organisms,” Stetson J. Advoc. & L. (2015) 2:179.
89. 35 U.S. Code § 112 (f).
90. T. R. Holbrook, “Extraterritoriality in U.S. Patent Law,” 49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2119 (2008), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol49/iss6/5.
91. As established in NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd, No. 03-1615 (Fed. Cir. December 14, 2004 and Decca ltd v USA, 640 F2d 1156, 1167 (Ct. Cl. 1980).
92. Hughes Aircraft Company, Plaintiff, V. United States Of America, Defendant. No. 426-73 United States Court Of Federal Claims 29 Fed. Cl. 197 August 16, 1993, Decided; http://www.spacelaw.olemiss.edu/library/space/US/Judicial/Federal/CtFedCl/29%20Fed%20Cl%20197%20-%20Hughes%20v%20US.pdf.
93. Article 5ter of the Paris convention.
94. 35 U.S. Code § 272. Temporary presence in the United States.
95. Sub par (j) reads: Objects Intended for Launch, Launched, or Assembled in Outer Space. – Any object intended for launch, launched, or assembled in outer space shall be considered a vehicle for the purpose of section 272 of title 35.