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.
My question is, once you're there, who's going to come up to arrest you?
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
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
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.
All she did for the project was deal with some logistics and prepare the powerpoint slides.
... the kingdom was lost. If that's too antiquated, for the want of a telephone sanitizer ... the planet was lost. ;-)
Without the slides would you have received funding and brought the project to completion? For the want of a nail
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.
There's no prison on the moon. Wait, don't give them ideas for a Guantanamo 2...
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.
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 don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
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.
That's why the faked the moon landings. They didn't want to do the paperwork.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Sealand, ha ha. The whole thing would fall apart if you used a tiny firework on it. Not really, but the image that conjure amuses me.
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.
..you SUCKERS! If I want to launch myself into orbital demise from my own private property then I will, fascists.
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.
My first reaction was "This is a strange question for Ask Slashdot"
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
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 relatively easy for you, but you do have to jump through quite a few FAA Office of Space Exploration hoops. (I think their main concern is safety -- if your rocket blows up or crashes or something.)
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 were planning on returning?
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!
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).
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.
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
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.
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--
Ask the FAA-AST. See http://ast.faa.gov/ for details.
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 significant that you may end up having the conventional aeronautical license be waved similar to how the Morse Code requirements are no longer being used for Ham Radio licenses. But at the moment you you have to meet the minimum requirements for a general commercial aviation license if you ever want to fly a commercial spacecraft.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
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.
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?
If they do that, I'm renouncing my US citizenship, moving to afghanistan, joining al aqeda, and surrendering to the nearest US army base. Free trip to the moon + free prayer rug = win.
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