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

Re:Extradition

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.

Re:Irrelevant.

[Propaganda13]

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.

Been there, done that.

[Myself]

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.

Signed by 91 countries?

[houghi]

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.

Re:Makes sense

[mastershake_phd]

You may not need a permit, but you better buy your landing plot before you get sued! http://www.lunarregistry.com/

Re:Space Age Colonialism

[arivanov]

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. 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. 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 and http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvs/rifma.htm. Actually the last 5 on the right will all do nicely: http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/graphics/n/newlv640.jpg.

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

Article 8

[mbone]

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.

Re:Makes sense

[polar red]

what do you want an extra arm and leg for ?