Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Businesses Moon

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!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Do You Need a Permit to Land on the Moon?

Comments Filter:
  • Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QMalcolm ( 1094433 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @02:23AM (#20708827)
    Any journey to the moon starts on Earth, and I can understand why governments would be suspicious of rockets launching without warning.
  • by AHumbleOpinion ( 546848 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @02:33AM (#20708859) Homepage
    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.'

    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. :-)
    • by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @04:24AM (#20709293) Homepage
      And so the seeds of space piracy and "independent traders" are sown...

      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]

      • by afabbro ( 33948 )
        Example: http://www.boeing.com/special/sea-launch/why_sea_launch.htm [boeing.com] [boeing.com].

        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...

        • by arivanov ( 12034 )
          Bullshit.

          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.
      • by BiggerBoat ( 690886 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @10:43AM (#20711149)
        Just make sure to renounce your U.S. citizenship (if you're American) and become a citizen of that tiny Pacific nation. Because no matter where you launch on Earth, if you're still a U.S. citizen, the AST (launch permit branch of the FAA) still governs you. This is because as a U.S. citizen, the U.S. will be responsible for what you lob into space.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by BiggerBoat ( 690886 )
          ...and the relevant federal code for those interested (my emphasis added)

          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
    • by Teancum ( 67324 )
      And what happens once you have large numbers of individuals "up there" in space that choose to live there permanently? That is a completely different question to what it takes for somebody from the Earth getting there in the first place.

      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
      • I don't see how any government is really going to be able to control what people are going to do once they "get up there".

        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)

      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. :-)
      Science fiction. The historical colonial revolutions started when the colonists were mis-managed by their parent company. The English and Spanish "new world" colonies had a few generations of poor management, and where possible they attempted to have their government air grievances.

  • Extradition (Score:3, Funny)

    by Damocles the Elder ( 1133333 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @02:37AM (#20708885)
    My question is, once you're there, who's going to come up to arrest you?
    • Re:Extradition (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AHumbleOpinion ( 546848 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @02:59AM (#20708981) Homepage
      My question is, once you're there, who's going to come up to arrest you?

      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.
    • by donaldm ( 919619 )
      I don't think anyone would arrest you on the moon but it would be interesting to see what happens assuming you return to Earth. Anyway as far as space flight goes the astronaut is really only along for the ride and it is up to the country or consortium to fill out the requisite paperwork. I can't see the US, China, Russia, India or Europe arresting anyone if the person concerned takes an "unlicensed" space craft and blasts off to the moon (aka Star Wars) since this is not like hopping in a light aircraft an
    • after you land there, if somebody decides to come along and take your goods or life, who will stop them? In particular, I believe that American private enterprise will be on the moon by 2015 building a base. They will go after the poles. If they own both poles before anybody else (i.e. all the prime real estate), what happens if a country decides to take it from them? In particular, I would not be surprised to see China claim that they are owed a chunk of one of the poles (or even the whole pole).
      • by h4rm0ny ( 722443 )

        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.
        • Solar system, yes. But the moon may be a different matter. The poles are the only places with near 100% sunlight. As such, whoever gets there first will want to build solar cell system very quickly, and arrange to capture sunlight as fast as possible. I would suspect that within 5 years there will be a major operation to have the poles covered in cells. From there, they can then beam power to portable facilities and perhaps sats. As to the not hogging, well, that is nice and good to say. Where exactly on th
  • by weighn ( 578357 ) <weighn@gmailOPENBSD.com minus bsd> on Saturday September 22, 2007 @02:41AM (#20708897) Homepage
    Is this the same treaty that bans the militarisation of space? The same treaty that White House spokesmen described as antiquated last year? Why is it that what is ok for Big Government and Big Business doesn't necessarily translate to hobbyists? just a thought
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ultranova ( 717540 )

      Why is it that what is ok for Big Government and Big Business doesn't necessarily translate to hobbyists?

      Because might makes right, or at least makes right irrelevant.

    • Certainly part of the reason we've essentially gone backwards in our exploration of space over the last 30 years. The sooner it's broken the better.

       
    • "Why is it that what is ok for Big Government and Big Business doesn't necessarily translate to hobbyists? "

      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.
    • Think about it. The largest coffers are governments, followed by large businesses. I guess they want space to be the new country club or something.
  • by fyrie ( 604735 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @02:42AM (#20708905)
    I need a permit to build a fence in my yard (in the US), so I can only extrapolate that legal requirement to landing on the moon.
  • No you don't (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mrjb ( 547783 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @02:44AM (#20708915)
    Even aside from the fact that someone can only require a moon-visitor a permit if they *own* the moon (a right that AFAIK most if not all governments signed away).

    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.

  • If there are 91 countries that signed that treaty, find a country that did not sign it, and launch from there.

    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
    • Just be prepared to renounce U.S. citizenship and become a citizen of that country that did not sign the treaty. See CFR 14 part 413.3; the AST (launch licensing branch of the FAA) governs launches by U.S. citizens regardless of where they launch on Earth.
  • 1. Buy/rent that little floating oil platform/sovereign nation (forget the name, sea something?)
    2. launch from there
    3. profit!

    I Filled in the ???s!
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by argiedot ( 1035754 )
      Sealand, ha ha. The whole thing would fall apart if you used a tiny firework on it. Not really, but the image that conjure amuses me.
  • A treaty is not law (Score:5, Informative)

    by thsths ( 31372 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @02:58AM (#20708977)
    How is a treaty relevant here? It is an agreement between nations, protection one nation from other nations. However, the question of take-off is internal to one country. So unless this treaty has been ratified (put into national law, which I very much doubt), it is not actually applicable.

    Of course, IANAL, so if you want to go to the moon, GYOL (get your own laywer).
    • by flieghund ( 31725 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @03:41AM (#20709145) Homepage
      Assuming you're debating this in the United States of America, in our Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2 includes this tidbit (with added emphasis):

      This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

      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.
      • 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.

        The same passage you cited includes laws passed by Congress, yet the Constitution trumps those laws. Why would this not also be the ca
      • Be careful how you read this. THis specifically states that yes, all these things are the supreme law of the land, by which it is meant that the laws codified therein supercede any State or other laws, and Judges in each State are bound by the supreme laws before those of their respective States. This does not suggest specifically that Treaties are superior or equivalent to the Constitution, or that Laws made by Congress are equal in weight to the Constitution itself. To determine that requires reading S
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by GroeFaZ ( 850443 )
      (get your own laywer)

      And while you're at it, after you have been granted permission, do the world a favor and send him along for the ride.
    • And more important, while it *MAY* bind the U.S. Government which signed it, I'm *pretty sure* that *I* am a Sovereign Entity unto myself, and therefore not binding upon me, or my privately owned property, and not some slave to be told what I am PERMITTED to do with property not-my-own...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Teancum ( 67324 )
        Even assuming a nearly pure libertarian viewpoint that you seem to be espousing here, you haven't answered a key question regarding rocketry:

        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
    • by Teancum ( 67324 )
      You are forgetting that the issue here is about what happens if the rocket leaves the territorial "airspace" of that country... or even might leave the country due to a malfunction.

      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
  • by Myself ( 57572 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @03:14AM (#20709043) Journal
    Ham radio operators have been launching amateur satellites [amsat.org] for decades. The rules of space operation are out there for anyone who wants to dig into them.
  • 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.
    If they make a problem, just launch from a nation that hasn't ratified (or even signed) this thing.
  • permit shmermit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FranTaylor ( 164577 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @03:44AM (#20709153)
    If you don't need a permit in Iraq, why would you need one on the moon?
  • How about using a sea launch platform from international waters... might put a spanner in the works of that treaty :)
  • by Plutonite ( 999141 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @03:54AM (#20709187)
    ..you SUCKERS! If I want to launch myself into orbital demise from my own private property then I will, fascists.

    • by pla ( 258480 )
      If I want to launch myself into orbital demise from my own private property then I will, fascists.

      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)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @04:03AM (#20709223)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sydneyfong ( 410107 )
      > Just saying you are not allowed to do that isn't enough. There should, I asume, also some punishment declared.

      Uh, the problem with most international treaties is that there is no efficient mechanism for enforcement.
  • by kestasjk ( 933987 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @04:09AM (#20709249) Homepage
    My first reaction was "This is a strange question for Ask Slashdot"
  • There are idiots around claiming to own parts of the moon and those ones will be seeking landing fees. It's not likely they will get them but I guess a law suit or two will be held.
  • Article 8 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mbone ( 558574 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @05:40AM (#20709485)
    The way around this is in Article 8 :

    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.
  • Well, aside from getting to the moon; ignoring any real launch issues; skipping the radiation issues/solar winds/asteroids/space dust/the temperature gradients/space junk; landing on the moon AND apparently getting permission from the local gatekeepers. Even assuming you land successfully on the moon/metal carrying meteor/celestial body. What are we going to do for food?

    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)

    by morari ( 1080535 )
    I bought a very handsomely sized lot on the moon some seven years ago from a nice man on the internet. The guy was practically giving them away at the price he was asking! Besides, if American history has taught us anything, all you need to do to own land is plant a flag on it, regardless of whether or not someone already lives there. I've been thinking of maybe claiming England in the name of the Ojibwe Nation, actually...
  • Just take off from a ship out at sea outside any territorial limits.

    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.
    • by Teancum ( 67324 )
      One huge problem with this line of thinking is that increasingly it is difficult to find "sea outside of any territorial limits". Yes, I know it still exists, but the expansion of "Economic Zones" and even blatant territorial claims of many countries keep expanding to the point that in less than 100 years it seems likely that all of the oceans will have formal territorial claims of some sort or another. As evidenced by what is happening in the Arctic... particularly by Russia... there will be no internati
  • by Stiletto ( 12066 ) on Saturday September 22, 2007 @09:27AM (#20710581)

    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.
  • 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.

  • by Efialtis ( 777851 )
    This is why some of the newest launch platforms are being built and deployed into international waters. You don't have to get permission to leave the planet from there, and you can go anywhere you want after that...just don't infringe on "national airspace" on the way up, or you could get shot down.
  • I first thought they meant this story:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destination_Moon_(Tintin) [wikipedia.org]

    Must have been a popular topic to write about in 1950.

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Working...