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!"

Comments

Makes sense

[QMalcolm]

Any journey to the moon starts on Earth, and I can understand why governments would be suspicious of rockets launching without warning.

Re:Makes sense

[sam0vi]

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!

Re:Makes sense

[h4rm0ny]

You invent the technology, they'll invent the permits.

Space Age Colonialism

[AHumbleOpinion]

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. :-)

Re:Irrelevant.

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.

1967 space treaties

[weighn]

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

A treaty is "the supreme Law of the Land"

[flieghund]

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.