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!"
I went to the moon without leaving Earth, and it didn't require any permit. I think it did require some papers, though.
Official: Excuse me sir, but did you know that you need a permit to land on the moon?
Astronaut: Thanks for the advice, but I think I'd be better off using a rocket.
Just launch your rocket from some sunny third-world country that would give an arm and a leg for having an space port on its territory, and you are good to go!
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.:-)
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...
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]
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.
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.
Space exploration will remain in the control of politicians and bureaucrats forever unless a new means of propulsion is developed outside of their influence. The fuel if nothing else has to come from somewhere that is under governmental control.
There is a lot of "fuel" "in space". Oxygen, hydrogen, methane,...
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.
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
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
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
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).
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.
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
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.
That means that many did NOT sign it. Also what are the fines to pay if you did it withouth autoraisation. Are they are going to say "bad boy! Bad, bad boy!" and wave their finger angrily, or are they going to shoot you your famila and your goldfish dead?
Just saying you are not allowed to do that isn't enough. There should, I asume, also some punishment declared.
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.
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.
Anyone who has the technical capability to do a moon shot can safely ignore this. What are they going to say, that their launch doesn't count because it wasn't authorized?
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.
You don't have to worry about violating the treaty. It is not self-executing, so it has no direct effect. The treaty gives the government certain rights and commits other governments to certain obligations. It is, however, not a law you can violate until an implementation act is passed. The act that implemented this treaty did not implement this provision. 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
All she did for the project was deal with some logistics and prepare the powerpoint slides.
Without the slides would you have received funding and brought the project to completion? For the want of a nail... the kingdom was lost. If that's too antiquated, for the want of a telephone sanitizer... the planet was lost.;-)
I've recently finished work on a robotics project where of the four people in our group, one had to be the leader because she was the only US citizen. All she did for the project was deal with some logistics and prepare the powerpoint slides.
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
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
Guatemala didn't sign the Outer Space Treaty. I'm sure the US government wouldn't mind me building a rocket base in secret in Guatemala that has the capability of launching a payload into outer space(or any place below). There's definitely no need to get permission from the Guatemalan government either since they didn't sign the treaty. I'm sure nothing will happen and I can safely ignore getting permission.
Sure, just as long as you're willing to renounce U.S. citizenship and become a Guatemalan citizen:
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.
launch from international waters, it'd take a lot of work building the platform, but it would be worth it.
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.
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
Think of columbus? 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?
I've encountered Moonies in bus stations and airports since the 1970's, does that count? They were awesome...have you ever seen some shaved-headed dude dressed in a sheet play a tambourine full of money without either spilling any money or missing a beat? "Well I have." ( think Jimi Hendrix and the song 'Are You Experienced?')
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.
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Old fishing joke (Score:5, Funny)
Astronaut: Thanks for the advice, but I think I'd be better off using a rocket.
Parent
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
You invent the technology, they'll invent the permits.
Parent
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]
Parent
Re:Space Age Colonialism (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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: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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
1967 space treaties (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because might makes right, or at least makes right irrelevant.
Of Course You Do (Score:5, Funny)
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
3 step plan! (Score:2)
2. launch from there
3. profit!
I Filled in the ???s!
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.
Parent
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: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
Been there, done that. (Score:3, Interesting)
permit shmermit (Score:3, Insightful)
Catch me if you can.. (Score:5, Funny)
Signed by 91 countries? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just saying you are not allowed to do that isn't enough. There should, I asume, also some punishment declared.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Parent
Returning? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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:3, Informative)
Without the slides would you have received funding and brought the project to completion? For the want of a nail
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: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:2)
Re:Irrelevant. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Parent
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: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: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?
Parent
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.