Any country bound by that treaty can withdraw from the treaty with a notice of one year, considerably shorter time frame than necessary for terraforming Mars, I suppose. If the US won't withdraw, then other countries would. And there are already nations that haven't signed it.
Also, Spacex is not a party to the treaty. The treaty binds the countries, not their citizens or companies. I don't know if there are internal US laws banning sale of land.
Finally, the ban in many state laws on selling cars directly to consumers didn't hold back Tesla. I doubt a treaty from 1967 would hold back SpaceX
I know, and I didn't say it was. Only nations can ratify treaties. However, the OST states that "States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities" [1].
> I doubt a treaty from 1967 would hold back SpaceX.
SpaceX is a US corporation and is subject to US law. If maintaining the OST is in the interests of the US then SpaceX would absolutely be held back.
I think of the OST as a sort of Nash equilibrium. Given the current situation (no terraforming on the horizon), it is arguably the best place for everyone to be. If the rules change in the future them some different set of controls would come into play.
The legitimacy of a company or individual is derived from the country they belong to - the country who signed the treaty would have to enforce it against their citizens.
The Outer Space Treaty will be repealed as soon as practical colonization and commercial resource extraction is viable and profitable.
Also, Spacex is not a party to the treaty. The treaty binds the countries, not their citizens or companies. I don't know if there are internal US laws banning sale of land.
Finally, the ban in many state laws on selling cars directly to consumers didn't hold back Tesla. I doubt a treaty from 1967 would hold back SpaceX