Who Owns the Moon? Lawyers, Investors, and the Rules Shaping the Commercial Space Economy
At spaceNEXT 2026, a candid and fast-moving conversation on legal frameworks pulled back the curtain on one of the most misunderstood pillars of the new space economy: the law.
On stage were Pallabi Saboo (Harmonia Holdings) moderating, alongside Paul Stimers (Holland & Knight) and Ryan Kelley (Greenberg Traurig)—two attorneys who operate at the intersection of venture capital, regulatory policy, government contracting, and international space law.
The takeaway? Space law isn’t a monolith. It’s evolving. And the legal architecture being built today will determine how capital, competition, and commercial opportunity scale over the next decade.
Space Law Is Not What Most People Think
One of the first misconceptions the panel tackled was the idea that “space law” is some rigid, standalone body of rules governing everything space companies do.
“It’s not a monolith,” Kelley explained. “There are layers of laws that apply depending on where you are and what you’re doing. And those layers are evolving constantly.”
Stimers added another reality check: most space lawyers aren’t actually practicing “space law” most of the time.
“If you’re general counsel at a space company, you’re dealing with HR, leases, contracts, IP, government contracting. Space law is actually a small slice of the total picture.”
In other words: much of the commercial space economy runs on corporate law, tax law, export controls, and procurement rules—not just the Outer Space Treaty.
The Regulatory Bottleneck: Certainty vs. Delay
If there was one theme that surfaced repeatedly, it was timing.
Companies are not necessarily overestimating regulatory risk. They’re underestimating regulatory delay.
“The biggest risk,” Stimers noted, “is how long it takes to get answers.”
Launch windows, spectrum approvals, remote sensing licenses, and export classifications operate on clocks. Miss one regulatory step by a week, and a company may miss an entire launch cycle.
Panelists pointed to current efforts to streamline approvals—particularly proposals for shot clocks and presumptive approvals if agencies miss deadlines—as potentially transformative for private capital.
Certainty unlocks investment. Ambiguity slows it.
The Outer Space Treaty: Still Relevant—But Under Pressure
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty remains the foundation of international space law. But is it outdated?
The panel urged caution.
Non-appropriation—the principle that nations cannot claim territory in space—remains foundational and durable. So does the prohibition on weapons of mass destruction in orbit.
But tension is emerging around demilitarization, lunar operations, and competing national interests as more actors expand activity in cislunar space.
Stimers warned against casually reopening the treaty.
“If you open it up, everything becomes fair game,” he said. “We may regret starting with a clean sheet of paper.”
Instead, much of today’s policy innovation is happening within the treaty’s framework—including through bilateral agreements like the Artemis Accords.
Property Rights in Space: What’s Actually Allowed?
One of the most consequential legal developments discussed was the 2015 Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act.
That law established that U.S. entities can own, use, and sell resources they extract from celestial bodies—so long as they do not claim sovereignty over territory itself.
“You can’t plant a flag and claim the land,” Stimers explained. “But if you pick up a rock, you can own the rock.”
For investors, that distinction matters.
Possession and first-mover advantage may provide practical protection—particularly under principles like “due regard,” which prevent interference with another actor’s activities.
For now, the risk calculus for capital providers hinges less on ownership disputes and more on regulatory timelines and execution capability.
The Hidden Complexity: Export Controls and Government Contracting
The conversation also highlighted an often-overlooked compliance burden: export controls.
If a foreign national receives technical information inside a U.S. facility, that can legally constitute an export—even if nothing physically leaves the building.
Add to that federal acquisition regulations (FAR), defense acquisition rules (DFARS), classified information handling, SBA certifications, and secure facilities—and the compliance environment becomes complex quickly.
But the panel stressed that none of this is insurmountable.
With proper planning and early counsel, regulatory frameworks can function as guardrails—not roadblocks.
The Next Big Legal Questions
Looking ahead, several emerging areas could reshape the legal landscape:
FDA approval for pharmaceuticals developed in microgravity
Insurance and liability structures for private astronauts
Unified mission authorization across federal agencies
Public market infrastructure for space IPOs
Incentives to accelerate private capital flows
Kelley offered a provocative “magic wand” suggestion:
“No tax on space investments, gains, or income—at least temporarily. Let’s flood the sector with capital.”
While partly tongue-in-cheek, the point underscored a serious reality: fiscal and regulatory incentives will influence how quickly space matures into a full-fledged asset class.
Infrastructure First, Opportunity Next
Perhaps the most important insight of the session was structural.
The first generation of space entrepreneurs focused on infrastructure—lower launch costs, greater energy access, expanded bandwidth.
Now, that foundation is enabling a second generation.
“We’re unlocking an infrastructure layer,” Stimers said. “And that’s what allows the next space company to start in a dorm room instead of needing billions in capital.”
Legal frameworks—property rights, regulatory timelines, export controls, mission authorization—form part of that infrastructure.
They are invisible until they fail. But when they work, they enable scale.
The Bottom Line
The commercial space economy is not waiting for perfect legal clarity. It is evolving inside existing frameworks—testing them, stretching them, and refining them.
Capital is flowing.
Entrepreneurs are building.
Governments are recalibrating.
The question is no longer whether space will commercialize.
It’s whether the legal architecture will scale fast enough to support it.
And as spaceNEXT made clear, that work is already underway.
