1. The legal status of resources mined in space remains ambiguous; and while the market for asteroid minerals is currently nonexistent, this is likely to change as technical hurdles diminish.
2. Outer space is a commons, and all of it is open for exploration, however, space law developed in the 1950s and 60s is state-centric and arguably ill-suited to a commercial future.
3. Laws adopted by the US and Luxembourg are first steps, but they only protect firms from competing claims by their compatriots; a Chinese company will not be bound by US law.
4. Critics say the US is conferring rights that it has no authority to confer; Russia in particular has condemned this, citing the US’ disrespect for international law.
5. At issue now is commercial activity, as private firms—rather than nation states — look to space for profit.
4
Step-by-Step Solution
Key idea: This is a thematic scope shift question, recognisable because four sentences focus on the structural inadequacy of space law for emerging commercial activities, while one shifts to a specific geopolitical criticism.
Why it applies: Sentences 5, 2, 1, and 3 build a cohesive argument about how existing state-centric space laws are ill-equipped for private commercial ventures. Sentence 4 abruptly introduces a diplomatic dispute (Russia condemning the US), which is a tangential political detail rather than a structural analysis of space law.
Step 1: Identify the core theme. Sentence 5 introduces the shift to commercial activity by private firms seeking profit in space.
Step 2: Establish the problem. Sentence 2 states that existing space law from the 1950s/60s is state-centric and ill-suited for this commercial future.
Step 3: Develop the argument. Sentence 1 notes the current ambiguity of legal status for mined resources, anticipating future changes. Sentence 3 provides concrete examples of this inadequacy: US and Luxembourg laws only protect their own firms, leaving gaps for international actors like Chinese companies.
Step 4: Examine Sentence 4. It discusses critics and Russia condemning the US for disrespecting international law. This is a specific geopolitical reaction, not an analysis of the structural inadequacy of space law for commerce.
Step 5: Verify coherence. Sentences 5-2-1-3 form a tight logical chain about the mismatch between old space laws and new commercial realities. Sentence 4 is the outlier.
Answer: 4