Slashdot Mirror
Do You Need a Permit to Land on the Moon?
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!"
Any journey to the moon starts on Earth, and I can understand why governments would be suspicious of rockets launching without warning.
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?
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.
launch from international waters, it'd take a lot of work building the platform, but it would be worth it.
is public domain (no, not GFML[1]) :)
[1] GNU Free Moon License
My question is, once you're there, who's going to come up to arrest you?
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
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
Think of Columbus, ask the Indian goverment before launching.
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.
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.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
leaves a lot of states to launch from without the hassle
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.
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's satellites if you didn't.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
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!
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
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).
The definition of authority here being a greater ability to shoot you down than you have to defend yourself.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Ham radio operators have been launching amateur satellites for decades. The rules of space operation are out there for anyone who wants to dig into them.
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.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
That's why the faked the moon landings. They didn't want to do the paperwork.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
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.
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
If you don't need a permit in Iraq, why would you need one on the moon?
So what if I made a space station and had my little minions fly there first. Just to be sure, the space station would be in orbit around the Sun, not the Earth. Then, once on that space station, terrestrial laws no longer apply, right? From there one could launch a vehicle to the moon. Would that work?
Also, I didn't see any size or weight limits for the people traveling to the moon. So I presume genetic engineering is ok to win the prize. You see, I'm planning to breed people no taller than 18". Should drastically cut down on spacecraft size and weight, as well as fuel and launch expenses.
How about using a sea launch platform from international waters... might put a spanner in the works of that treaty :)
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
That's pretty much the definition of authority anywhere.
Ham operators have been designing Amateur Radio Satellites that were
launched, piggyback, on other peoples rockets that had a little extra
payload space.
Also, most of the AMSAT/OSCARs are smaller than the average toaster. The
modern Cubesats could be easily mistaken for a paperweight. So these things
are basically interactive space junk that double as vhf repeaters.
The combined budgets of all the AMSATs put together over the last 40 years,
wouldn't fund one Ariane or Dnepr launch.
..you SUCKERS! If I want to launch myself into orbital demise from my own private property then I will, fascists.
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.
Deleted
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
No, that's how authority is generally enforced, not what it is. Authority is an economical/social phenomenon.. a natural produce of the human ability to conduct daily affairs in a social context. It is conveyed as the recognition, by one party, of the need to obey the command of another.
My first reaction was "This is a strange question for Ask Slashdot"
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
but if you launch the mission from the sea, you only need Jack Sparrow's permission.
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.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
As if this will stop the likes of Hugo Drax!
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.
You obviously haven't watched James Bond enough. You just have to make the launch platform submersible!
Astronaut: Thanks for the advice, but I think I'd be better off using a rocket.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
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 (e.g. on the moon); put them in constant sunlight with compressed C02 which is converted into Oxygen. All of this requires water though, and maybe some advances in recycling and filtering.
Even better would be a star-trek replicator with an nuclear fission/fusion or anti-gravity source; this last line is half-hearted humour. Ultimately, I can't wait to be taking Space-Columbus' birthday off! Chocks away.
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).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
To clarify, it's not landing on the moon that requires the permit, it's launching the rocket from your fenced back yard that does.
Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
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 means the people who comprise it, not a government's power as an organisation). To that extent, restricting launches can make safety sense, and despoilment of a resource for all (the moon) could be argued. But the belief that one segment of humanity has the inherent right to restrict individual's efforts outside the borders of their society is abhorrent. The idea of permits [i]may[/i] be based on the need for safety and preservation of a shared resource, but it smacks more of the idea that people are owned by their governments and require permission for everything. And indeed, activity beyond a society's border is indeed a violation of that idea - the individual or organisation declares by doing this, that their government is [i]not[/i] needed. That realisation being the greatest crime that a government can envisage, in my experience.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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 one - before you go... :/
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Hmmmm.... only 91 nations signed, eh? It seems there's a rather large loophole in this here treaty.
To put it another way, "It's only murder when there are laws against it."
How do you kill that which has no life?
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...
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
GuantanaMOON
..........FULL STOP.
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.
"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.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
After escaping from the clutches of Earth's gravity well, anyone who has brought enough supplies and equipment to utilize in situ resources on the moon or an asteroid can essentially form their own independent little mini-nation. Free of Earth-bound rules, regulations and above all, taxes, such mini-states would be anathema to terrestrial nations. Given how difficult it would be to "launch fighters" and destroy or take over such settlements, it would be far easier to simply deny permission for them to take off. The dream of space settlement would be killed by paperwork first, then force thereafter if necessary (armed assaults on "unauthorized space facilities"). It's a tinfoil had notion, but I have to wonder if a US Government saboteur had something to do with the tragedy at Scaled Composites' facilities earlier this summer...
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.
What about launch from the nations not among those 91 ?
"If they're police, are we under arrest? Are we trespassing on the Moon or something?" (Martha, Smith and Jones)
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.
I've been personally involved in several amateur satellite payloads. As a secondary payload, there was no "permit" we had to obtain. If there was one, it was obtained by the Launch Provider as part of their service. However, we did have to meet a metric assload of materials, interface and operations requirements as dictated by the Launch Provider. Most of the restrictions centered around making sure the payload didn't present an unnecessary hazard to the flight. And by "unnecessary," I mean that propulsion systems carry triple-redundant safety structures to guarantee that the payload won't light-off prior to deployment, the RF section has redundant elements to prevent it from operating prior to deployment, etc. (I'm certain that you'd need a permit and gobs of oversight from the NRC if you were trying to launch a nuclear wessel, but that's a totally different animal.)
... I'd love to send something to the moon, even if I have to land at 11 km/s (aerobraking isn't an option.) However, getting from LEO (7.5 km/s) to escape velocity (11 km/s) has proven to be quite difficult, even for small spacecraft.
And that's my space junk, thankyouverymuch. I'm quite proud of having found a way to get some of my stuff off the planet
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.
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.
--E--
I first thought they meant this story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destination_Moon_(Tintin)
Must have been a popular topic to write about in 1950.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
By rocket to the moon
By airplane to the rocket
By taxi to the airport
By front door to the taxi
By throwing back the blanket hanging down the legs
What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
Nice to know that your government, without your consent, has decided for you that you are not allowed to go out and stake your claim anywhere in the Universe. Of course they know what's best for you.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
That isn't exactly true. A warship does not have authority to board and inspect cargo unless it is in their territorial waters or it is a ship of their "flag". Aka on their national ship registry.
There are "war zones" and other kinds of details that can come into play, but for the most part warship don't have a "legal" right to board your ship except as an act of war. That is why a "flag of convenience" is often sought, because that means the various navies of the world can't really mess with you. And such ships are usually falling apart and on their last leg of even being seaworthy.
On the other hand, if you are on the national registry of a large nation (like the USA), you have the option of calling upon the Navy of that country for assistance against pirates and other would be idiots. That is why most ships going through the Persian Gulf and shipping to America have American registry. The U.S. Navy will protect them. That is something the Liberian Navy simply doesn't have the budget or manpower to help out in doing.
I have no doubt the situation will be very similar once large numbers of people get into space: A "space navy" will be available to help out against agressors but also do routine inspections on spacecraft of its national registry. And there will be "flag of convenience" for spacecraft running on well established routes.
Impressive; I had two paragraphs typed out before I realized you were being sarcastic.
How do you kill that which has no life?
I've posted this before but it's worth mentioning again, more clearly. If you're outside the oppressive grip of greedy government, you're by definition outside the reach of any and all laws. Think about it. There are still hundreds of pirates operating right now, the international slave trade is still a massive operation not to mention natural disasters that could strike out of nowhere.
Plus, if someone wanted you gone, they could just shell you and let's face it; What you're building is basically an ICBM, You're thinking hidden space exploration platform but the world governments are thinking hidden missile launch site. Some of those governments are very direct and very paranoid.
How do you kill that which has no life?
It's the moon. Just go there.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
"That need to obey is a factor of the ability to enforce only"
No, if you elect someone to a position of command then you are signifying your will to "co-operate" and "comply" with (i.e obey) that authority for a significant length of time. If the non-cooperation of some individual is deemed negative to society, authority has to be enforced, because that's why it's there in the first place.
The recognition of the need to obey an authority's [position of]command is something that is bound by classification of that command (command over the flight of aircraft over some territory) and the duration for which that position of authority holds true. In a democracy, both get chosen by the population to begin with, by some weird mechanism, so the question of "enforcing" only comes into play if a small majority disregard that authority and violate its commands.
You're right that this law stinks of over-control, and we are by no means (in the US) living in an ideal democracy.. but that doesn't mean that we can't change the law if there is a majority of concerned voters who do not "recognize" the command of the governing authority over this matter. We do not have to face the guns to change our collectively chosen authorities in a democracy, the guns are there to protect our collective choice ONCE WE'VE MAE IT. At least I hope so.
Basically The Treaty mentioned gives Earth Governments total power and control over the entire Universe!
It's a ridiculous and worthless piece of paper written by arrogant power hungry and greedy humans who have the gumption to think that they have sovereign power and control who can go where and when and with whom. Then they tell everyone that they are "free" and we buy it.
Do as the fictional Astronaut Farmer did, ignore them. He tried it there way and they just tried to protect their interest of control over power and freedom of movement. Then he just went.
Ignore the Treaty, it's worthless. Go to the moon. Do it now. Go to Mars. Do it now.
What will they do? Shoot you down after you launch? There's a good chance of that, but, na, the worst they'll try to do is give you a ticket or want you to slap their silly NASA logo onto YOUR ship. Meanwhile the rest of the world will be cheering you all the way.
Freedom. True Freedom is freedom from the control of others. True Freedom and Power. Of course, with power comes responsibility... as Ben Parker says... and which current world governments and those with power fail to heed.
Do we really want our Sol Solar System run and controlled by the likes of those in power (pick any country in the world)? Not on your life. Most governments on Earth are anti-peace through their actions of killing people via their state sponsored terrorism.
"Even the most vile serial killers have nothing on the deadliest organizations on Earth - governments that encourage war and genocide." - Elliott Leyton.
See the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's excellent two part documentary series "The Man Who Studies Murder", part two is on State sponsored Murder - the largest killer of humans on the planet:
http://www.arts.mun.ca/anthropology/people/scau/leytonE.php
http://www.nfb.ca/collection/films/fiche/?id=51458
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourinterview/2007/04/anthropologist_and_author_elli.html
http://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=+%22the+man+who+studies+murder%22&btnG=Search&meta=
"The Man Who Studies Murder, Part 2: The Anthropology of Murder looks at the culture of killing and why some countries produce more killers than others. The murder rate in Canada is 1 in 100,000 while in the United States it is a remarkable 10 murders per 100,000, the highest rate of any western, developed nation. Leyton argues, using Newfoundland as an example, that this can be explained by cultural differences. Killing is rare in that province because the people there developed a peaceful means of preventing conflict and violence using ostracism, gossip and ridicule. In the United States, on the other hand, violence was instrumental in the creation of the country, and, as a result, became socially acceptable. It is an American's constitutional right to bear arms, and the United States is the only western nation to still use capital punishment."
"Leyton also argues that governments are the real serial killers by ordering their soldiers to go to war. While the politicians try to justify wars and make them legitimate with propaganda, they are still murder. Government complicity in mass murder is highlighted using the examples of genocide in Rwanda and the holocaust in Nazi Germany. The tape does not explain the cultural causes of those tragedies."
http://www.umanitoba.ca/cm/vol11/no11/themanwhostudiesmurder.html
One can also point to Iraq
When you launch into space I think it's only reasonable that governments at least try to setup some level of regulation to ensure you don't destroy their satellites and such, plus of course the fact that a space launch looks very similar to a nuclear strike.
However, beyond that space is an open frontier with very little laws or regulations, because, who is going to enforce the regulations anyway.
Comments on Slashdot never fail to amuse me.
"Why won't the government let me launch a rocket from my backyard without a permit?! OPPRESSION!! TYRANNY!!!"
I, for one, am glad that most governments are keeping track of home made rocketships.
There is a great article on the licensing issues involved with launching a rocket as a US citizen or entity here: http://colonyfund.com/Reading/papers/NH_rocket_contents.html.
In short, you will need a launch license from the FAA. They are the point agency, but you can be sure they will involve the State Department and the Department of Defense regarding approving your payload.
Doing stuff outside the US doesn't make it easier, it makes it even harder. For one thing, all the rules still apply to you. The FAA still assumes jurisdiction over your activities. On top of that, just about anything in a launch vehicle or spacecraft will contain items and technologies that fall under the ITAR controls for missile technologies. Not only can you not export any of the items, plans or data from the country, you can't even allow a non US citizen or permanent resident access to them.
One thing to remember about the Outer Space Treaty, is that the US government is responsible and liable for any activities undertaken by a US citizen. Between that and the ITAR regime, try to do an end-run and you'll find yourself extradited back to the US and in federal prison post-haste.
But if you have your own oil platform for launching space vehicles to the moon, you probably have a school of sharks with frickin laser beams.
If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
Only one solution...
Hijack the Starship!
The governments of the world can regulate access to space all they want. And they can effectively get away with it so long as one is sending humans into space. But once one has nanorobots at ones disposal that control ends. In that era they are going to have a piss poor time regulating space colonization. Rocket science is rocket science and I don't have to be an Astronaut Farmer if I'm launching nanorobots. And then, once I've got a few dozen asteroids under my control, the U.S. government (or any other government for that matter), can take their "global" treaties and make wall paper out of them.
The Mars Rovers have been running for ~3 years. They pale in comparison to what robust molecular nanotechnology could do. And that doesn't require a Delta 2 launch vehicle or NASA or a multi-hundred million dollar budget (or the permission of various governments) to get into space. Space is *ours* (humanitity's),and not the province of various self-interested elected (or non-elected) assemblies.
It is going to be done by someone anyway... and who in their right mind would demand permission from a government to do it, when in recent years those very governments have been inept at it?
It is easier to get absolution than permission. Just do it. Worry about "permission" later.
It is arguable that the Moon belongs to humanity anyway. Screw national governments.
Douglas Adams was a prophet. We should worry about keeping satellites from banging into each other first. Traffic management in orbit is a priority, the moon is currently an empty parking lot.
'Outer space' does not include captured or declared COLONIES.
/. 'karma' is "BAD, tho I have done nothing to merit it.
IF YOU BELIEVE the USA landed on the moon several times,
(and the A-naughts survived outside the Van Allen radiation shield)
and they planted the US flag on the MOON,
(and the Asstro-naughts survived outside the
Van Allen radiation shield), you must have
TREATY CONTRACT permission from the USA to
"TOUCH/land/dock" thereupon.
Otherwise, it is an ACT OF WAR!
RR
My
GO ON! Mod me down because I do not give a flying fxxk.
As far as I know there is a little region near Pacific Ocean in Antactica that is not claimed by any government. Perhaps you can do whatever you want there, without any legal authority limiting your actions. Perhaps not, however, as Antactica is managed by some international treaties. But I believe you could do many things from international waters without having to ask anyone.
Bring your own warship!
The main issue is that you first have to get to the moon with sufficient tools to construct a self-maintaining base, unless you want to have to abandon it when you run out of water or your irreplaceable technowidget component X breaks down.
Ideally, you'd be able to construct a self-improving base which would fairly rapidly become able to fabricate almost any Earth technology out of available lunar material. Presumably it would eventually need to be able to sustain human life (otherwise it's just a robofactory), defend itself against rabid earthbound policitians looking for a cheap way to scare the electorate with The Lunar Menace, and sufficient communication technology to be able to insult people over the internet.