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.
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.
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).
There's no prison on the moon. Wait, don't give them ideas for a Guantanamo 2...
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!
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
..you SUCKERS! If I want to launch myself into orbital demise from my own private property then I will, fascists.
My first reaction was "This is a strange question for Ask Slashdot"
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
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).
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.
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.