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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
That's pretty much the definition of authority anywhere.
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.
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--
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 more potential chemical energy than was released by the nuclear bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Do the math and prove me wrong if you think I'm talking out of my behind here.
If you are talking about a manned spaceflight going to the Moon, you are going to need a similar order of magnitude amount of energy in one place capable of sending somebody up there. So how do you make sure that energy stays contained and doesn't kill your neighbor in the process?
Nearly all of the FAA paperwork regarding spaceflight is to document that you can contain that energy, releasing it in a controlled manner that isn't going to kill somebody else. And that if you launch something that goes up, that either you are insured to pay for any homes or businesses you might accidentally destroy, or that you are performing the launch in a place where nothing can be damaged. Ever wonder why launch sites are either in the desert or on a sea coast? It isn't the awesome views.
You can launch your rocket however you want. But the moment it lands on my backyard I can scream, complain, sue, and tear you apart. I don't think even the most ardent libertarian thinks you have the right to destroy my home and kill my family because your are being stupid with an experimental rocket design.
That there are abuses of authority by the FAA and Dept. of Homeland Security, I agree. But to leave it to total anarchy is something else entirely.
> 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.
Don't quote me on this.
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?
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.
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 would you rather be doing robotics?
No matter what I angle I take, I just don't see any problems. Your thingamajig got funded and built, you didn't have to mess with paperwork, and you benefited from American funding without even being a citizen. Sounds like you came out nearly as well as if you could have done this back home, wherever that may be.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005