Do You Need a Permit to Land on the Moon? 223
Billosaur writes "With the recent announcement of Google's X-prize for a successful private landing of a robot on the Moon, someone has asked the Explainer at Slate.com if permission is required to land something on the Moon? Turns out that while there is no authority that regulates landing objects on another world, getting there does require the permission of the national government from where the launch takes place. This is in accordance with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, signed by 91 nations, which regulates the uses of outer space by the nations of Earth. Specifically, Article VI enjoins: 'The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty.' Start your paperwork!" J adds: The relevant quote from Destination Moon is "If we ask for permission, they'll find a way to block us. So we go now, as soon as we can!"
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
Old fishing joke (Score:5, Funny)
Astronaut: Thanks for the advice, but I think I'd be better off using a rocket.
Wrap your laughing gear around that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
You invent the technology, they'll invent the permits.
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Space Age Colonialism (Score:5, Insightful)
And so the seeds of colonialism are sown
It's a little strange when you can't quite figure out if a thought is the result of having read too much history or too much science fiction.
Re:Space Age Colonialism (Score:5, Interesting)
Recipe for telling the state go suck bricks through a thin straw sideways:
1. Buy an old oil platform
2. Refurbish
3. Reregister under the flag of a tiny pacific island which is not a signee to the treaty (optional)
4. Tow outside territorial waters (bonus points for launching from near the equator to save fuel).
5. Launch... And potentially Profit...
Example: http://www.boeing.com/special/sea-launch/why_sea_launch.htm [boeing.com]. Surprise who are the usual suspects - the darlings of the USA defence industry - Boeing and the darlings of the russian defence industry - Energia. Cousying in the same bed. Nicely and quietly while the USA and Russia politicians rattle the sabres in the name of a new Cold War.
Alternative recipe
1. Buy or hire an Il-76, An-124 or Mriya. The last is difficult, for the rest call this chap: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6991487.stm [bbc.co.uk]. He is rumoured to be good. Alternatively, get your hand on a White Swan or a Concorde (that may be quite difficult, but as our Bulgarian friends say "What cannot be bought with money can be bought with a A LOT of money").
2. Reregister it under a suitable nation in the middle of Africa or Oceania (optional).
3. Load a launch vehicle on it. Two under development - Shtil-3A and RIF-MA. Both are rumoured to work. To buy - call the same chap. Or build your own.
4. Fly outside the airspace of all nations signing the treaty (again - bonus points for equatorial launch)
5. Launch... and potentially Profit...
Example: http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvs/shtil3a.htm [friends-partners.org] and http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvs/rifma.htm [friends-partners.org]. Actually the last 5 on the right will all do nicely: http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/graphics/n/newlv640.jpg [friends-partners.org].
Alternatively (if you manage to get your hands on a White Swan or manage to get the French to sell you a Concnorde as a launch vehicle): http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/burlak.htm [astronautix.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sea Launch is not an oil platform, was not refurbished, and was never registered under any tiny Pacific island.
Typically, examples are supposed to reinforce the point you're making, but hey, do it your way...
Re: (Score:2)
It is a converted old North Sea drilling rig. Norwegian originally. This is also the reason why there is a Norwegian minority stake in the venture.
Granted Boeing and Energia have not reregistered it under a Vanuatu flag. Yet.
Re:Space Age Colonialism (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
14 CFR 413.3 Who must obtain a license.
(a) A person must obtain a license--
(1) To launch a launch vehicle from the United States;
(2) To operate a launch site within the United States;
(3) To reenter a reentry vehicle in the United States; or
(4) To operate a reentry site within the United States.
(b) An individual who is a U.S. citizen or an entity organized under the laws of the United States or any State must obta
Re: (Score:2)
Once private industries are established in space (even low-earth orbit) that extract local resources and have the capabilities of building other stuff in space, I don't see how any government is really going to be able to control what people are going to do once they "get u
Re: (Score:2)
The same way the USA controlled California and Alaska in the 19th century.
Sheesh. More history, less sci-fi. Wherever people go, they will want something that does the functions of a government -- enforce laws, build roads, organize defense, etc. All an Earth-based government needs to do is to make sure that the space-government has the backing of the earth-government, and finds benef
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a lot of "fuel" "in space". Oxygen, hydrogen, methane,
Extradition (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Extradition (Score:5, Interesting)
Myself and many others will doing everything we can to encourage the government to go and get you. We have to find some way to get NASA properly funded, perhaps the collection of fees and taxes will work.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the real question is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In such a case, it would make good sense for the US government (kicked by the US people if necessary) to say "maybe we shouldn't be hogging both ends of an enormous moon" and budge up a bit.
Really, the politics of scarcity have no place in the greater Solar system.
Re: (Score:2)
1967 space treaties (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because might makes right, or at least makes right irrelevant.
It's a DUMB treaty (Score:2)
For the same reason (Score:2)
For the same reason that the government runs the numbers racket, but you'll be thrown into jail for the rest of your life if you do the same thing.
It's done under the guise of protecting the family and children, if that's any consolation.
Because hobbyists don't pay enough (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt I could do this with $5,000, but do not dispute that someone else may be able to. (I'm pretty sure I could do it with $10,000 or slightly less though!- Donations an
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that what is ok for Big Government and Big Business doesn't necessarily translate to hobbyists?
For the same reason that government and big business can and will do things that would get you arrested and/or shot. When are you coming out of your egalitarian delusion?
Rather than ponder why 'the man' sees fit to regulate every nano-aspect of everything that happens everywhere with Treaties, Legislation and Permits (however legit that discussion may be), I was wondering why hobbyists, generally speaking, are slipping into a subcategory alongside the ever growing bogeyman 'security threat/tear-ist'. Just look at some of the wacko lobbying opposing OSS for a start.
Of Course You Do (Score:5, Funny)
To clarify... (Score:2, Informative)
No you don't (Score:3, Insightful)
Our freedom is restricted enough as it is. You don't *need* a permit to land on the moon any more than you *need* a passport to move between countries. A permit or passport serves no purpose to that end. Passports are just an invention of xenophobic bureaucrats.
The only reason that I can think of in favor of permits is to regulate who can go there. But for now the difficulty in getting there is sufficient regulation. X-prize apart, it is most likely that anyone getting there is a government, and governments will not give a damn about permits as soon as they find out a way to make lots and lots of money on the moon.
The answer is simple (Score:2)
I wonder if Sealand is large enough to be used as a launch platform.
Actually it is a little more complicated, if you want to use the equatorial slingshot to accelerate to the moon , then you need to find an equatorial country to launch from. You actually dont need that if your spacecraft has a different primary path, but you would be doing the cosmic equivalent of figure 8 racing with everyone else
Re: (Score:2)
3 step plan! (Score:2)
2. launch from there
3. profit!
I Filled in the ???s!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
A treaty is not law (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, IANAL, so if you want to go to the moon, GYOL (get your own laywer).
A treaty is "the supreme Law of the Land" (Score:5, Insightful)
A duly ratified treaty carries the same weight of law as the Constitution itself. That's why the U.S. gets so wiggy about signing on to treaties that would allow prosecution of military personnel for war crimes, because doing so would circumvent any supposed protections in the Constitution, including but not limited to the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination.
Re: (Score:2)
The same passage you cited includes laws passed by Congress, yet the Constitution trumps those laws. Why would this not also be the ca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And while you're at it, after you have been granted permission, do the world a favor and send him along for the ride.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens if your "property" goes and destroys somebody else's property?
We are talking huge amounts of energy that are released when a rocket is launched, where a major feature is to convert that energy into kinetic energy that can achieve orbital velocities.
Or to think about this in another point of view... the Space Shuttle, at the moment it is launched, contains
Re: (Score:2)
For example, what if you launched an Estes rocket deliberately from South Korea to North Korea (Don't try this at home, kids!)? It wouldn't be pretty. Even launching close to the U.S./Canadian border still requires international warnings and filing flight plans for even a little 5 ounce Mosquito rocket.
This issue apples doubly
Been there, done that. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Amateur Satellite Payloads (Score:2)
Take different country (Score:2)
permit shmermit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sea Launcher FTW (Score:2)
Catch me if you can.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
1) That philosophy, which I truly and unsarcastically applaud, works well - as long as you don't plan to come back. Though you did say "demise".
2) You can't even fly a kite [hawaii.edu] in your own backyard except at the whim of the FAA.
3) You really think that our nonfunctioning "missile defense" system, which has proven itself totally inadequate of hitting actual missiles broadcasting their location, exists to pro
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, the problem with most international treaties is that there is no efficient mechanism for enforcement.
My first reaction: (Score:5, Funny)
Expect (law suits over) landing fees (Score:2)
Article 8 (Score:3, Interesting)
A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth.
So, objects, such as spacecraft, that are not constructed on a celestial body are free of state control. So, find a metal asteroid (not hard, as there are a bunch), take material off of it, construct another spacecraft in space (also not in principle not hard, given the low gravity on any asteroid), and that ship is free of state control, at least according to the Outer Space Treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
The first thing is to build a space elevator. That is the only way to make any of this really cost effective, and (IMHO) where the
big bucks should really be going.
Real issue? (Score:2)
I have read a brief history on space food on the NASA site: there was nothing about sustainability. Perhaps we can launch space farms
Poppycock! (Score:2, Informative)
Simple.. (Score:2)
Also using a ship would allow you to travel to and take off from the best latitude (probably the equator) so you'd save spaceship fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Bureaucracy and lawyers (Score:4, Funny)
Just goes to show... For every person seeking to push the edge of human achievement, there will be 1000 bureaucrats and lawyers trying to stop it, or at least make the journey fraught with red tape and roadblocks.
If legal bureaucracy had been around in Biblical times, Moses would have needed to get a permit and do an environmental impact study to part the Red Sea.
Taxes (Score:2)
The relevant quote from Destination Moon is "If we ask for permission, they'll find a way to tax us.
There -- fixed that for you.
International Waters (Score:2, Insightful)
Destination Moon (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destination_Moon_(Tintin) [wikipedia.org]
Must have been a popular topic to write about in 1950.
Re:Irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
You were planning on returning? While the international treaty may not carry much weight the FAA (assuming US) regulations being violated surely will. You will lose your pilots license, the spaceport you launched from will probably lose it license, expect to be fined, expect your company to be fined (assuming your space venture is not purely a purely personal endeavor), etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are some sort of criminal charges the government could arrange as well for interfering with treaties, ignoring military authority (assuming they have to approve launches), etc.
Returning? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ronald Reagan was big about promoting commercial space exploration and a series of laws were passed under his administration. I think they make things rel
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hell I ain't returnin'. It's my god damn property, I found it, I built it up, I'm keepin' it.
And don't you try and send any spaceships with tea 'cause I'm gonna wreck 'em with my bare hands, you good for nothing imperialists!
Re: (Score:2)
Do you actually need a pilot's licence to fly a spaceship? How many hours on type do you need before you can carry commercial traffic?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
More to the point, I highly doubt they would let somebody without even a conventional aviation license fly a spacecraft. So far, every single "spacecraft pilot", Chinese, Russian, and American (both NASA and private spaceflight) has held an aviation license prior to "going up there". In fact, every American astronaut... even if a passenger... has held one as well. That may change.
I have no doubt that if commercial manned spaceflight becomes something
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Without the slides would you have received funding and brought the project to completion? For the want of a nail
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thinking this one through, you've told us essentially nothing. What is the relevance of being dubbed "leader" of the group? Why does it bother you? If all she did was logistics and slides, are you suggesting you'd rather deal with trivial administrative bullshit, or wou
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Irrelevant. (Score:5, Funny)
Otherwise known as.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Selling the technology later may very well prove profitable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
ITAR might still get you... (Score:2)
So if you're going to try the Guatemala option (or, more realistically, China, India, or Russia), you'd better get on friendly terms with your local Congressman - preferably a Republican o
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Irrelevant. (Score:4, Informative)
CFR 14 part 413.3: Who must obtain a launch license.
[snip]
An individual who is a U.S. citizen or an entity organized under the laws of the United States or any State must obtain a license--
(1) To launch a launch vehicle outside the United States;
[snip]
This is because, according to the Outer Space Treaty, the U.S. is responsible for what its citizens lob into space, regardless of where they launch it.
International waters makes it easier to stop you (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, being in international waters may make it easier to stop you. You are subject to maritime/admiralty/sea laws, and pretty much any warship has some authority over you.
Re:International waters makes it easier to stop yo (Score:3, Insightful)
The definition of authority here being a greater ability to shoot you down than you have to defend yourself.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you separate "what authority is" from "how it is enforced" when even your own definition of authority refers to the "need to obey" ? That need to obey is a factor of the ability to enforce only, not any recognition of their to be a need to follow an instruction. The latter is more properly called co-operation.
The right of countries (which are themselves a concept only) to restrict people's activities in Space, extends only so far as to protect the people itself (and even then only so far as that
Re:International waters makes it easier to stop yo (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:History repeats itself (Score:5, Funny)
So, instead of reaching the moon, they'll end up landing on some completely unknown stellar body in between the earth and the moon. There they'll meet the indigenous population and name them after the stellar body they think they've landed on. Moonians? Moonites?
Already been done. (Score:2)
Oops!, sorry for the late 1960-early 1970's flashback!
But I do get your good point about Columbus. I just could not pass up the Moonie reference.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As the article says, going to the Moon in particular doesn't need any kind of permission from anyone, but getting off Earth in the first place is subject to regulation by the appropriate nation - which will
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Far less difficult than getting there in the first place.
All the USA would need to do if they wanted to smack you down would be to send cruise-missile type device. Preferably one with a fancy multi-attack payload. No need to carry a heat shield, cargo containers, or even O2. They wouldn't even have to go nuclear.