Free On Mars Pathfinder (The Mike Lane Stories Book 1) by Jim Melanson

statement was correct.
    There is quite a bit about the treaty that makes sense; common sense, actually. It’s unfortunate that the world at the time was a place where they felt it was necessary to codify common sense in legalese but hey, we’re humans. If we didn’t have government and lawyers, we’d all sit around with too much money in our bank accounts, and not enough things to complain about.
    The Outer Space Treaty says that outer space is for the use and benefit of all. That makes sense. It says that States (Nation States) are responsible for any damage caused by their space junk. That also makes sense. It says that astronauts, of any state (Nation States), shall be considered envoys of mankind. Yes, still making perfect sense. It also says that States (Nation States) shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit, in space or on other celestial bodies. Ah-ha! Now we find the crux of the impetus to wrest control of that which is beyond our borders, which God created, and which we actually have no hold over. I think that the whole sentiment is wonderful, given the cold war stalemate of the day, but they should have left it at “in orbit”. Why would mankind not want the ability to defend itself against all enemies: foreign, domestic, interplanetary and exo-planetary? So while, as I said, it was a good sentiment, this wording doesn’t really make as much sense.
    Moving right along, we find that the treaty also says that outer space (which includes the moon and other celestial bodies), cannot be appropriated by means of claim, use, or occupation. That means that no nation can assert sovereignty over anything in outer space. So this is where the treaty stops making sense completely.
    If mankind cannot claim sovereignty, why would mankind want to expand to new uninhabited planets? If mankind were to set up bases on the moon or bases on Mars, would mankind not inherently have claim to at least a goodly portion of the surface around them? Would they not be able to say, “No, our base is already here, go build your new base over there.” Does that not make sense?
    If corporations were going to go into space, the most likely economic benefit would be production of low-g chemicals, medicines and building materials (asteroid ore mining, etc.). Granted, no one could tell them to “shove off”, as no one would have the sovereignty to. However, the corporation would not have any claim to not be shoved off by someone that wasn’t adhering to quite all of the sections of the treaty. Therefore, the treaty was, if I may be so bold, stupid.
    Within the aforementioned article in The Space Review , Mr. Hickman presents us with an understanding of the anticommons. The anticommons arises as a direct result of the treaty establishing that everything beyond Earth was res communis . By virtue of this assertion, the treaty had ensured that since it had, “eliminated the possibility that States could claim territory on the final frontier it also extinguished an important motivation for States and private firms to engage in exploration and development.”
    With this understanding of the Outer Space Treaty in mind, we can see that the Corporation, with Jayden at the head, had to do some work to actually get the mission off the ground (no pun intended). In 2016, with a 50 person lobby group, the Corporation, with the assistance of their host country, Sweden, had successfully introduced amendments to the Outer Space Treaty through the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. Specifically, the amendments were to Article 1 and Article 2.
    Article 1 of the treaty was amended from, “and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.”; to read, “and there shall be free access to all unclaimed areas of celestial bodies.”
    Article 2 was a bigger change, but took less arguing. Article 2 stated, “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national