A Viral Joke, a Real Legal Gap
By: Yaries Mahardika Putro
Source: AI Generated Image
In June 2025, a humorous yet oddly provocative letter surfaced online, a British entrepreneur, Matthew Thomson, demanded NASA pay £136,899.44 in “parking fines” for its Mars Perseverance Rover, allegedly parked illegally on land he claimed to own in Jezero Crater. Citing a certificate of ownership he bought online and over 1,500 Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), Thomson argued that NASA’s presence was unauthorised on what he described as “privately owned land.”
NASA’s reply? A politely firm rejection referencing the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), clarifying that celestial bodies are not subject to national or private appropriation by any means and with a wink of sarcasm, NASA declined to remove the rover, nicknamed “Temu Wall-E” from obstructing Thomson’s landscaping plans to plant “two shrubberies.”
Funny? Absolutely. Legally absurd? Maybe. But it also reveals a growing problem, the serious lack of clear, enforceable legal norms for private ownership and commercial activities in outer space.
From Eros to Mars: The Nemitz Precedent
This wasn’t the first time someone billed NASA for landing on a celestial body. In 2003, Gregory W. Nemitz claimed ownership of asteroid 433 Eros and sent NASA an invoice for US$20 after the NEAR Shoemaker probe landed there. His claim, filed under the so-called Lunar Embassy, was dismissed by U.S. federal courts (Nemitz v. United States, 2004) for lacking legal basis.
Both Nemitz and Thomson’s cases might seem like publicity stunts, but they reflect real cracks in the legal regime governing outer space. As private actors prepare to mine asteroids and colonise the Moon or Mars, the question arises: Can private ownership exist beyond Earth?
What the Law Actually Says
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 which ratified by 114 countries states in Article II that outer space and celestial bodies are “not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” While the Outer Space Treaty does not expressly prohibit private actors in space, Article VI does acknowledge the existence of non-governmental entities engaging in outer space activities. It further states that these activities require authorisation and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party. This marks a foundational recognition of private actors in space.
the UNCOPUOS meeting 1967
Source: https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/tos/tos.html
However, the treaty stops short of establishing a comprehensive and concrete regulatory framework to govern how such private entities may conduct operations, particularly regarding resource extraction, claims, and liability. This normative ambiguity has led to legal uncertainty, exploited by various national laws. Countries such as The United States (U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, 2015), Luxembourg (Space Resources Act, 2017), United Arab Emirates (UAE Federal Law No. 12 of 2019 on the Regulation of the Space Sector) have passed national legislation allowing private resource extraction in space.
They claim that this does not violate the OST since they don’t assert sovereignty, only commercial rights. But critics argue that it’s a semantic trick, a way to privatise the commons under the guise of legality.
The current regime fails to answer basic questions, such as Who regulates private activities in space? Can companies own what they mine on asteroids or Mars? And Who resolves disputes when two entities claim the same lunar territory?.
This ambiguity creates legal risks not only for space companies but for international peace. Imagine a scenario where multiple countries back rival claims over a resource-rich asteroid. In the absence of clear global rules, such disputes could escalate rapidly.
A Commons Without Governance?
Some attempt was made with the Moon Agreement of 1979, which designated celestial resources as the “common heritage of mankind” and proposed an international regime to govern their use. But major spacefaring nations like the U.S., Russia, China never signed it. Today, it remains largely irrelevant. What we have now is a space “Wild West,” where those with rockets write the rules. If this continues, access to outer space may soon reflect terrestrial inequalities where a handful of wealthy nations and corporations dominate resources meant for all humankind.
Academic Efforts: A Seed, Not Yet Law
An effort to fill this gap emerged in 2019, with the publication of the Building Blocks for the Development of an International Framework on Space Resource Activities by the Hague International Space Resources Governance Working Group. This document outlines voluntary, non-binding principles that could inform future international norms on space resource utilisation.
The first face-to-face meeting of the Working Group
Yet it is essential to note that this remains an academic initiative, not a formal legal instrument. While it may serve as fertile ground for future treaty-making, it currently holds no binding legal power, and its implementation depends entirely on political will and multilateral consensus.
What Needs to Happen Next?
- International Dialogue: It’s time for serious diplomatic engagement to update the OST or create a new global instrument specific to space resource governance.
- Licensing Framework: An international licensing and dispute resolution body, perhaps under the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) could coordinate claims and prevent conflict.
- Include the Global South: Space must not become another arena where only rich nations benefit. Emerging space nations must have a seat at the table to shape a fair and inclusive future.
The Real Joke Isn’t the Fine, It’s Our Lack of Policy
While Matthew Thomson’s Mars parking fine is fictional, the legal confusion it satirises is very real. These viral moments should be seen not just as jokes, but as warning signs. As billionaire entrepreneurs plan Mars colonies and deep-space mining missions, the world is still stuck with treaties from the Cold War era, written before the iPhone existed. Outer space is not just science fiction anymore, it’s commercial reality. It’s time our laws caught up.
Author :
Yaries Mahardika Putro
Deputy Director Centre for Air and Space Policy and Lecturer of Law, Universitas Surabaya