Since 1980, Dennis Hope has sold more
than 611 million acres of the moon.
For $24.99 per acre, his company,
Lunar Embassy, will provide buyers
with the deeds to their property, a
map of where it is and a guide to
the covenants, codes and restric-
tions that govern it. According to
his website, Hope counts three
US presidents – Ronald Reagan,
Jimmy Carter and George HW
Bush – plus more than 675 “well-
known celebrities” among his
clientele. As the numbers above
suggest, it has been a lucrative
venture. Part of the appeal of what
he’s selling is the potential value
of a lunar lot. “Your moon property
comes with mineral rights,” the website
states. “In fact, did you know that the
moon is covered in helium-3? A possible
clean-burning energy source with no wasteful
by- product. Also, did you know its projected
value is $40,000 an ounce?”
All well and good, but a more pressing ques-
tion might be: what exactly gives Hope the
right to sell the moon? His argument is coun-
terintuitive but straightforward. The 1967
Outer Space Treaty – the most important of
five international space treaties – forbids gov-
ernments from owning extraterrestrial land,
but it says nothing about private individuals.
Hope believed that this meant he was per-
mitted to claim ownership of the entire lunar
surface since nobody had done so already.
He duly registered his claim with the San
Francisco County Seat – and it was accepted.
He then wrote to the General Assembly of
the United Nations and the Russian govern-
ment, informing them of his claim and nobody
objected. “So, with his claim and copyright
registration certificate from the US govern-
ment in hand,” reads Lunar Embassy’s site,
“Mr Hope became what is probably the largest
landowner on the planet today.”
Or at least that’s what he’s telling his cus-
tomers. “Any argument that the treaty does
not apply to anyone other than governments
is tenuous at best,” says Nick Hughes, a
partner at the international law firm HFW,
which has practices in space, aerospace and
mining. “It is questionable whether deedssold would hold up in court.” What is in
no doubt, however, is that lunar law is
demonstrably underdeveloped.
That may have to change. China’s space
programme is coming on leaps and bounds,
spending more on extraterrestrial ventures
than any other country bar the US. Earlier
this year, China’s Chang’e-4 lander success-
fully touched down on the dark side of the
moon – a first for humanity. The Yutu-2 rover,
which it was carrying, has now explored
more than 200 metres and sent back the first
photographs of this hitherto hidden region.
China’s plans don’t stop there. The China
National Space Administration announced
this year that it hopes to build a perma-
nent research base at the moon’s south pole
within the next decade. This isn’t discovery
for discovery’s sake. The Chinese State Council
Information Office released a space programme
white paper in 2016 that described its goal as
“economic and social development”. As Hope
rightly points out, the moon is indeed rich
in minerals. Tellingly, the Chang’e-4 mission
holds chemical analysis of lunar samples as a
key objective.
Fifty years on from the Apollo 11 moon
landing, this could be the start of a newStory by Charlie Burton Illustration by Fergs IllustrationsWith global superpowers and – potentially – private interests laying claim to lunar resources,
outdated Cold War treaties will be eclipsed by 21st-century geopoliticsWho owns the moon?Technologyspace race. Indeed, in January the European
Space Agency announced a contract with
rocket maker ArianeGroup to explore
the moon’s natural resources with a
view to establishing a lunar base.
The agency told the press at the
time, “As ESA and other agencies
prepare to send humans back
to the moon – this time to stay- technologies that make use
of materials available in space
(in-situ resource utilisation) are
seen as key to sustainability.”
And, it added, “In the longer
term, resources in space may
even be used on Earth.”
A
s lunar colonisation moves
from science fiction to science fact, prob-
lems are sure to arise. The 1967 treaty, which
has been ratified by 109 countries, states that
the moon cannot be owned by any nation.
It also makes clear that the moon must be
used exclusively for peaceful purposes.
“Although unlikely, it might also be the case
that some ‘rogue’ state that is not a party to
the treaty could find some way through
to space activities that other states would find
in contravention of the treaty provisions,”
says Hughes. “But the main issue is finding a
way to ensure that activities can be fostered
for the benefit of mankind and with all risks
duly managed, including liability aspects and,
of course, with due regard to space debris –
the ‘plastic’ of outer space.” There could also
be disputes, he notes, if one or more states
were to target the same assets in space.
Space law will clearly need to develop to
account for these new activities. But given
the current state of the world, is a new
Outer Space Treaty remotely likely? “Those
treaties were themselves done at a time of
great political tension,” says Hughes. “Also,
in practice, there has been great coopera-
tion between states, who otherwise have
great political differences, in the safety
and security of space missions.” What that
will mean for Dennis Hope and his legions
of lunar landowners, however, remains to
be seen. PhotographGetty ImagesChi
na’s(^) Yutu
- (^2) rover on
the dark^ side^
of^ the
mo
on
09-19DropTech.indd 134 10/07/2019 14:36
130 GQ.CO.UK SEPTEMBER 2019