Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Legal Advice Or Loopholes Needed For Manned Space Program
Kristian vonBengtson writes "A DIY, manned space program like Copenhagen Suborbitals is kept alive by keeping total independence, cutting the red tape and simply just doing it all in a garage. We basically try to stay below the radar at all time and are reluctant in engagements leading to signing papers or do things (too much) by the books. But now there might be trouble ahead. (Saul Goodman! We need you...) During the last 5 years we have encountered many weird legal cases which does not make much sense and no one can explain their origin. If we were to fix up a batch of regular black gunpowder (which we use for igniters) we are entitled for serving time in jail. Even a few grams. But no one give a hoot about building a rocket fueled with 12 tonnes of liquid oxygen and alcohol. Thats is perfectly legal. If Copenhagen Suborbitals fly a rocket into space for the first time there are likely legal action that must be dealt with. At my time at the International Space University we had lectures and exams in space law and I remember the Outer Space Treaty which is the most ratified space treaty with over 100 countries including Denmark and U.S. And here is the matter – in which I seek some kind of advice or what you may call it: Outer Space Treaty, Article 6 states: '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.' Does this mean that Denmark (or any other country for that matter – if it was your project) suddenly have to approve what we are doing and will be kept responsible for our mission, if we launch into space?"
von Bengston adds a related article about the organization's testing process. They had originally intended to burn Nitrocellulose as a way to open lids and deploy parachutes. It worked fine in the garage, but upon testing in low-pressure situations, they found that the chemical reaction slowed too much to be useful. The article includes videos of their tests.
How do you guys plan to get into space and also stay under the radar?
Let me get this straight...you're asking a bunch of predominantly non-lawyers about obscure legal issues that depend on both a knowledge of Danish law and an equally obscure international treaty? And your expecting advice that is a) helpful and b) actually correct?
You need to talk to an actual lawyer. Barring that, from whatever law you can find, figure out who would be the one to decide to arrest you and start asking them questions. Any answers you get here, even if they are 100% correct, are useless if someone in a position of authority to act against you comes to a different conclusion.
If you have the resources to put somebody in space, you can afford to pay a lawyer to answer this question....
Slashdot for legal advice on an extremely complex topic?
Yes, the country of origin would be responsible. You will need their permission and follow regulations.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Just do it. You'll probably kill yourself before anyone gets around to prosecuting you. Life's too short to be afraid of bureaucrats, especially in your case.
If you have the resources to put somebody in space, you can afford to pay a lawyer to answer this question....
If you have the resources to put somebody into space, but not the resources to get them back, then the lawyer you need is quite expensive...
OK, let me get this right. Buddy wants to work with high explosives in his garage, and can't understand why the people in his neighbourhood might think that "red tape" like zoning, safety, and fire regulations might be a good thing?
I grew up on Robert Heinlein and stuff like "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel," and really, really love projects like Spaceship One, but this guy frightens me.
Three Squirrels
I mean, if black powder is illegal, use something else that ignites easily, like gun cotton...
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Don't quote me on this... I don't know this for certain, but I would guess that this restriction is in there so that countries who may want to put stuff into space that they suspect others wouldn't like very much (use your imagination), they can't just say that some independent upstart in their country did it without government support, and they have no idea what was launched, since they will still be held directly responsible anyways.
Of course, IANAL. But why the fuck are you asking this kind of question on slashdot anyways?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" means "whichever country whose jurisdiction you are operating in". If that country hasn't signed the treaty, then you don't care about it anyway.
Generally, though, there will be actual domestic legislation forming the actual implementation of a treaty in US law, so you might still need to find the exact wording of *that* law, not just the international treaty's text.
Good luck!
You don't even necessarily need to go that far, you just need to know whether the signatory state you are launching from gives a damn or not. The treaty doesn't specify that they have to be hardasses about 'authorization and continuing supervision', just that that has to exist.
Given that any spaceflight is going to carry you through the slice of atmosphere where manned aviation is sort of a big deal, it's not as though some largely-theoretical UN treaty is the only reason that you'll be having a chat with the feds before launch...
In practice, also, I suspect that you don't really want to get clever looking for 'loopholes'; because that rarely causes the opposing party to slap their foreheads and admit defeat: In a sense, the inverse of 'loopholes' are all the laws and regulations that are either largely unenforced or simply have almost no resources devoted to looking for violators. They are still there if Officer Hardass wants to use them, though. Do you think that somebody is launching a nontrivial rocket while complying with all Danish and EU laws and regulations concerning health, safety, threat to aviation, storage of hazardous and/or flammable materials, land use zoning, pollution emissions restrictions, etc, etc, etc? I'm guessing that the answer is "not entirely". Do you want to give someone a reason to check?
Yup, they do a have a web site. I guess what with the big Facebook outage the Slashdot eds couldn't track it down.
Three Squirrels
If you have the resources to put somebody in space, you can afford to pay a lawyer to answer this question....
If you have the resources to put somebody into space, but not the resources to get them back, then the lawyer you need is quite expensive...
If you have the resources to put somebody into space, but not the resources to get them back, then make sure it's a lawyer.
The advice "don't get your legal advice from random commentators on slashdot" is sound.
However, with the preface that the best advice is to not take advice from me: the treaty is something that your government follows. You merely have to follow the laws put forth by your government; it is up the them to put in place whatever such laws are required to make them compliant with the treaty.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Why would lawyers be any different?
"Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost." ~ V.I. Lenin
Yes you would need Danish permits. Even going to another country to do it might get you into trouble in Denmark. As their citizen you are their responsibility, and if you make everyone look like idiots by putting the entire world on Defcon 3 with a do-it-yourself launch they probably won't respond by appointing you Greve af Stjernerne. It won't matter if you do it from Mozambique or Copenhagen.
As an American with an iffy grasp of American law I'm not a great authority on Danish space law. So if you think there's a possibility you will actually get enough fuel to get of the ground you should start talking to a lawyer today. If you don't have a plan to get that fuel then you should probably be focused on the fuel, not the permit.
ianal, but...
It just means that a State Party (government) is still responsible for the activities of organizations within their international jurisdiction. If someone in Alberta, CA manages to fire a rocket rocket into orbit without the knowledge of the Canadian government, for example, the government would still be considered liable for any damages done. Not to mention having not disclosed the launch in the first place, which could create a nice bit of tension when other countries see something randomly getting launched into orbit...
So yes, Denmark would be held responsible for your mission, including any and all political fallout. Shit rolls downhill, so if you decided to do something like this without legal authorization for Denmark, I wouldn't be surprised to see the lot of you jailed or fined out the ass.
There is no case law, which means they will have to go in court (sued by or suing the government), do learn what they can and cannot do. Save money for that time!
This has got to be the most bizarre Ask /. question I have ever seen posted.
A Danish amateur space/rocketeer is looking for legal advice on a primarily American site. Wow. Is it April 1st already?
Also, if you are an organization that gets a ton of press, you can probably get some pro bono legal advice through a more reliable channel than posting on Slashdot. Plenty of Danish lawyers would like to be able to put Copenhagen Suborbitals on their resume.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
A few countries would have post ww2 US/UK/Soviet rocket test site. Vast open spaces that can still be offered as safe debris collection zones :) Jobs for local staff, tracking by universities and all the supporting entrepreneurs with legal mil/aviation laws still in place :)
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Lawyers? Fuck that.
You're about to strap yourself on top of a home-built rocket filled with 12T of LOX and Alcohol, and initiate it with homemade black powder. In the world of probabilities, I say go for it and screw the lawyer talk. Your chances of surviving to face the authorities are so small as to be laughable. And, in the unbelievable chance you actually fly high enough to violate an international treaty, there's a good chance you'll be so God-damned famous you won't care - and you'll end up a hero with a 7 figure movie deal. Or at least a 6 figure RedBull attempt at a full orbit.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You don't need a passport to enter. There is no "appropriate State Party" controlling the continent. Just be sure to take your garbage with you when you leave, not to spill anything, and not to disturb any animals.
Also, it's about the worst spot on the planet from which to launch.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
We basically try to stay below the radar
Well, somehow your geocities-like and wtf-player is that for video, you've managed to stave off any kind of /.'ing so far - you're doing something right!
I say go for it, and don't ask the public about their opinions about something "below the radar" - suddenly, the wrong concerned citizen hears about it and now your government, wherever you are, really cares about it - get to space while you can!
good grief man, that stuff is unstable, don't use it. There are plenty of ways to ignite LOX and alchohol without explosives. some of the "big boys" use hydrogen and oxygen gases with electrical sparker.
I'm with everyone else - if your spacecraft project is just now figuring out that there is law regulating spaceflight, you are in deep trouble.
I am a damn lawyer, but - I am not your damn lawyer and I have no experience in space law. Oh, and I don't know anything about non-US law.
But, reading the treaty with a lawyer's eye - you have a problem.
Article VI of the treaty says a couple of things you conveniently glossed over:
"States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. 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. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization."
Lets look at the first sentence: "States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty."
I read the first sentence to mean:
A) The nation in which you build your spacecraft "bears international responsibility" for what you do. So, if your spacecraft explodes above my house raining down toxic waste - your home country will have something to say about it. Because it has agreed to this treaty to be responsible.
B) The nation in which you build your spacecraft has the right to regulate your operations to ensure compliance with the Treaty generally.
Now, lets think about the second sentence: "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."
The second sentence says pretty much the same sort of thing as the first sentence. A nation which has ratified the treaty has a duty under the treaty to make you comply with the Treaty and to supervise your space operations.
The treaty is only part of your problem. In fact, the treaty isn't really your problem. Your homebrew spaceflight organization is not a party to the treaty. But - treaty or no, your home nation has the right to regulate spaceflight, just like it already regulates aircraft.
If you nation has national law regulating spaceflight, you have to comply with that. I'd guess that even if your nation has no national law specifically aimed at spacecraft, it has law governing aircraft - you'd better worry about that too.
Plus, in my home country of the US - the export (such as to a launch site in another country) of spacecraft is a dicey proposition - requiring careful compliance with law related to international arms trafficking. Screwing that up can land you in jail, or at the least on the receiving end of ruinous fines.
So - yes. You'd jolly well better figure out what the law is and start complying with it. Otherwise the penalties for unlicensed possession of blackpowder will look mild in comparison.
Do not assume that because your nation hasn't complained so far that you are OK. That is a fool's hope. If you were required to get a license to fly the thing, you are required to get a license to fly the thing. Even if your project has been all over the internet for years. You could easily end up with a spacecraft but no wa
In the US, the regulations on "experimental" aircraft are quite lenient. The main limitation is that you can't operate an experimental aircraft in a densely populated area or major airway without special permission. Permission is usually granted after successful flight tests.
The main place for testing unusual civilian aircraft and rockets in the US is Mojave Air and Space Port. They're authorized as both a launch site and an airport. SpaceShip One, the Voyager, and the EZ-Rocket first flew there. There's plenty of room over the desert in case things go wrong.
"You want to test a rocket engine? This is a place where you can do that." - Mojave Air and Space Port Board of Directors
If you have the resources to put somebody in space, you can afford to pay a lawyer to answer this question....
Really?
Perhaps we should avoid the whole put someone in space concept here, and think about your typical redneck engineers who simply want to launch a piece of scrap metal (a.k.a. our awesome homemade satellite) into fucking orbit, just because they did the math, and happen to be wealthy and stupid. Not saying that's the case here, but they're certainly a catalyst for the next-gen YouTubers who need to find a way to one-up Jackass stupidity.
Unfortunately, due to the massive shitstorm of debris we're currently tracking in orbit, movies like Gravity are more fact than fiction. Much like on earth, we don't clean up after ourselves worth a shit. And the majority of the debris we are currently tracking is actually the result of collisions in space.
Only a matter of time before money feeding stupidity reaches orbit. Best to not try and assume the legal or mental capacity of those operating out of a garage, regardless of the mission at hand, and when a softball-sized object can take wipe out satellite-fed communications for entire regions, it's kind of important to know when and where something (read: anything) is going into orbit.
I can't see how '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.' is in any way unclear.
Really? Seems rather vague to me. What is "the appropriate state party"? The country from which the vehicle was launched? The country in which the vehicle was made? The country where the pilot comes from? Or the mission commander? Perhaps it is the country over which the moon happens to be when they land on it. Perhaps it is the UN? Is the appropriate state party for the Moon the same one as for Phobos? Perhaps the appropriate state party is the spacecraft's mission commander, or perhaps a duly elected officer of the crew of the spacecraft.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
You don't need a passport to enter.
There is no "appropriate State Party" controlling the continent.
Just be sure to take your garbage with you when you leave, not to spill anything, and not to disturb any animals.
It's not that easy. "appropriate State Party to the Treaty" refers to the non-governmental entity doing the launch, not the location of the launch. So you don't get lob stuff into space on a whim because you are outside of territorial waters on a ship, on a private island, etc.
This was hashed out at length on the various rocketry boards when the CATS prize and XPrize were announced.
Every time someone flies across the planet in a jetliner it's a "manned suborbital space program"
Incorrect, Anonymous Coward. "Suborbital space flight" is a defined term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-orbital_spaceflight
A sub-orbital space flight is a spaceflight in which the spacecraft reaches space, but its trajectory intersects the atmosphere or surface of the gravitating body from which it was launched, so that it does not complete one orbital revolution. For example, the path of an object launched from Earth that reaches 100 km (62 mi) above sea level, and then falls back to Earth, is considered a sub-orbital spaceflight.
Commercial jetliners sure as heck don't reach 62 miles up.
Let's start by observing the inevitable. Large rocket launches even when they aren't orbital are heavily regulated. You can't escape it even if you're doing covert launches out of a third world wilderness. The Man gets real uptight over unauthorized rocket launches and that's that.
I have indirect experience with US regulation for launching rockets and other things via my work for JP Aerospace. There are a bunch of things to consider here. First, regulators love a good track record. That means among other things you need to have a record of regulation-compliant launches before you try anything big or urgent.
Doing that gives you cover in a number of ways. If they decide you did something wrong, you have the good faith defense that you did this way in the past few launches without incident.
Similarly, if someone tries to block your activity via bogus regulatory or safety concern (the aerospace industry has long been notorious for using such techniques to harass competitors), then you have the means to contest these obstacles (by pointing out successful launches in the past). If you want to have access to multiple sites, you need a good track record for each site and its bureaucratic requirements. Finally, you can push the regulatory envelop and try (legally and safely of course) new technologies or techniques in order to establish a history for those.
So a track record is good.
Second, take this regulation seriously and come up with ways to do it efficiently rather than bypass it illegally. For example, US regulators want you to fill out every form. So no photocopying the old launch paperwork even though the new one is exactly the same. Learn the quirks of each process you have to do.
I would also refrain from asking publicly about ways around regulation as you did above. That's huge fail right there should you end up in an audit or trial at some point.
Third, treat such paperwork as a launch requirement. You have to have this paperwork at such and such stage before launch or it's "no go". You should have a really good idea how many man-hours it takes to fill out the forms for a give location and level of regulatory compliance.
There's probably certain paperwork that some inspector can ask for that would nix your flight, if it comes up missing. Treat it like you would your rocket or your payload and never leave home without it and perhaps a copy or two.
If you have regulatory obstacles to a particular technology, like your gunpowder igniter, you can either get a waiver for that (which is a whole lot easier to obtain IMHO with a good track record) or develop an alternate technology that bypasses the regulation. Just do it, don't risk your flight, program, and personal freedom on cutting that particular corner.
Finally, you have some ability to shop around for launch sites. Always have backup sites scoped out in case you can't use the original site.
To summarize, don't play games with this stuff, make it a part of your launch process every time, and good luck.
To the contrary, he said he was puzzled why the red tape covers a few grams of gunpowder, which is pretty much harmless ...
It seems that they are asking for a loophole around their country's firearms regulations, the "red tape" for small quantities of black powder may be nothing more than a firearms permit?
A quick google shows that Denmark allows rifles and shotguns for hunting, a firearms permit is required. Such permits generally cover rifles. shotguns and their ammunition. Small quantities of black powder probably fall in the ammunition category, some people like to go old school and use black powder muskets.
Note, black powder and gun powder are not the same thing. The former is an explosive and the later a propellant.
Apparently you actually do need a passport and that has caused hassles for several scientists that thought otherwise.
Weird rules are far more annoying than you can imagine.
What is "the appropriate state party"?
At a given moment whose laws are you subject to? There may simultaneously be two such states. The state in whose territory you are within, and the state to which you are a citizen of or if it is being done by an organization then the state where the organization was created.
What is "the appropriate state party"?
Try "the one that will shoot you out of the sky if you missed dotting a single 'i' or greasing the right PAC's accounts".
Think shooting down a civilian rocket would result in public outrage? Try picturing the press release: "Terrorist cell comes dangerously close to success, only stopped after ballistic missile launch detected".
As noted it's not actually in space. And a suborbital trajectory is a free fall, zero acceleration trajectory which only a few aircraft fly.
Any sufficiently complex axiomatics system can not be both complete and consistant.
Rather it can't be provably consistent within the context of the axiom system. It can be consistent, you just can't prove it.
But we don't need to worry about consistency rearing its pretty head with respect to legislative sausage making.
that doesn't mean a thing to rocket hobbyists here.
As long as you are using it "for sporting, cultural or recreational purposes in antique firearms", you can purchase and possess up to 50 pounds of black powder, with no federal requirement as to proper storage, etc. 50 pounds of black powder is far more than enough to level a typical house, especially if it goes off in the basement.
If you want to use a few grams of the stuff for rocketry purposes (igniters, squibs, parachute ejection charges, etc.), you need to get a Low Explosives Users Permit (LEUP) from the BATFE, consent to regular government inspections, and provide secured storage, in an approved magazine. You also need to have a large enough piece of property to keep that few grams of powder at least 75 feet from your neighbors, get local fire marshal/police/neighbors signoff, etc, before the LEUP is issued.
Again, use it in a gun, do whatever you want more or less. Use it to deploy safety devices in a rocket, submit to a federal anal probe.
Yes, there are ways around this BS (using pyrodex or smokeless powder rather than real black powder), but those come with additional technical issues, which may make safe rocket recovery more difficult than it needs to be.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Move to a country not on that list.
If you are in space, then you are in nobody's territory.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Anyway, I bet there is many more legal issues to tackle than just usage of gun powder :) Based on your story, you might endanger other people, infrastructure, aviation safety etc. Also, that kind of activity can be quite easily interpreted as some kind of terrorist plot or something. Outer space treaty is the smallest issue in this case. Gun powder can be replaced to some other method so no problem there.
http://www.toebi.com/blog/
If destroying the Hubble telescope and ISS is the price we have to pay for George Clooney's death, I'll gladly pay it.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
best post I've read in a month...gravity's rainbow...boy what a slog...skimming the novel with wikipedia and a few well written online analysis of the book however is an enlightening way to spend a rainy afternoon
Thank you Dave Raggett
The first question is: which is the appropriate state?
Lets work through this.
The appropriate state is the state that has the ability to legislate to prohibit or permit the activity.
Since no one state has the ability to legislate over space or the moon or indeed anything extraterritorial, the legislation would have to prevent or permit the actual launch. (while it is on the ground, that is, within their jurisdiction)
This then means in Denmark it is the Danish government.
The second question is: is it illegal to launch because of the treaty?
Is the launch illegal just because Denmark has ratified the treaty (if they have indeed ratified it?), well perhaps.
Our local law here (Australia) is that the legislature must enact local laws that give effect to the treaty before the treaty itself has any effect.
The legal effect is not due to treaty ratification as that has no legal meaning, it is because local laws are enacted to give effect to the treaty that the activity might be prohibited or permitted. (Treaty ratification may give the legislature constitutional powers (under some circumstances) to enact local laws (as it does here). It's complicated.)
So the answers (I think) are that the Danish government is the only legislature that could prohibit the launch and that (if the legal precedent regarding treaties is similar then) unless there is a local law enacted to give effect to the treaty, the treaty is merely aspirational and not effective.
what about land / mining rights to the moon, mars and outer stuff out there that may end in court.
This is analogy. IANAL.
A kid has a hobby. The hobby has the ability to cause millions of dollars of consequential damages.
1) Is the parent responsible for the damage (if the kid doesn't have money or insurance to cover the potential damage)? Probably.
2) Does practicing the hobby at a friends house or in a public park change this? Unlikely, but they might make some other folks additionally responsible.
3) Does the kid have to ask for permission from the parents before practicing such a dangerous hobby? Only if you don't want to get in trouble with the parents or have plan to run away never to return if you get in trouble, although that probably won't get your parents off the hook.
It is not just about the evil government trying to oppress the free, enterprising spirit of good, talented people. Any device that is likely to reach even a low orbit, will be heavy, especially if it is supposed to carry any payload - and why else sped time and money on doing it? It will have to carry a lot of highly explosive fuel, and it will probably produce a significant amount of pollutants as well. These factors are just some of the reasons why you are required to ask permission - it is actually not easy to steer a rocket, for one thing, and unless you are bloody clever, it will most likely fail, in which case you have a large, heavy object falling out of the sky, so whoever launches it has to be able to ensure that it doesn't fall on a populated area. And so on. I mean, if some fool decides to shave with a combine harvester, the damage is probably limited to himself, but if you lob tens of tons of exploding rocket onto a local school, "Oops, sorry" isn't going to cut it, I can tell you that.
If you are in space, then you are in nobody's territory.
You are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction you launched from and/or the laws of the jurisdiction of your citizenship and/or the jurisdiction of the organization's legal registration.
If you have the tech to profitably mine off-planet, you can probably tell courts what to do or else. Alternatively, have your sysadmin start a revolution and start lobbing rocks at Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
If he wants to avoid red tape, his best bet is probably to relocate to one of the countries that hasn't ratified the treaty.
Or do it from international waters. He has a submarine, doesn't he? Make a floating launch platform, tow it to international waters, and launch there.
So make that "get them back in one piece".
Black powder is not an explosive it is purely a propellant. "Gun Powder" generally refers to smokeless powder which is basically nitrocellulose with a small amount of nitroglycerin (different ratios depending on double or triple base), so it is an actual no bullshit explosive.
Either that or you mixed up your uses of latter and former.
Making shit up again. One of my friends, who was a historical reenactor, had to get a black powder certificate so he could use a musket. That's a kind of gun if you didn't know.
Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The site in French Guyana was picked because it is close to the equator and you get an extra boost from the Earth's rotation there. Picking that site did not have anything to do with population density, though it would probably play a role if it was a problem.
Better to look at a site like ESRANGE in northern Sweden, this site was explicitly picked by the ESA because it was low on people.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
So it's slashfunding?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The club i was part of in NZ was just legal. It wasn't really that hard to do. We had to form a club and get insurance. Once that was done we find some land that is at last 5km from any dwelling and at least 50km from a built up area. That is easy in NZ perhaps not so much in Europe. Once that was all signed and done we then get permission from the local air traffic controllers. Basically they close a 20-40km radius area to all aircraft for us on launch days but we still need to run by VFR and hence need clear days for high altitude stuff. This was armature rockets not just the off the shelf ones, where some where black powder (over 400kg in one of em IIRC) and quite a few perchlorate ones where full vacuum forming was needed to avoid voids. Again all the paper work was done. I did some liquid fuel ones and only really did ground tests. That was much easier legally speaking as you don't need a bunker and its easier to transport the stuff.
Basically the rocket is far harder than the red tape. It takes a bit of time, but its easy enough to get through.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
If you have the resources to put somebody in space, you can afford to pay a lawyer to answer this question....
He will make you sign papers covering up his responsibilities and a fee you can't afford if his name is mentioned when things go wrong.
"Vunce ze rockets are up, who cares vere zey come down? "Zat's not mein department!" says Werner von Braun.
No left turn unstoned.
If you have the resources to put somebody in space, you can afford to pay a lawyer to answer this question....
Still, it's an interesting topic for discussion
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
Then posing it to slashdot was not your smartest move
It isn't even clear that they'd need to leave Denmark: It's not like the local authorities don't know about them, they aren't a low-profile organization, and so far the only issues they've had appear to be collisions with quirks of law written for other purposes entirely (some thing about parachutes, and the fact that dangerously energy-dense compounds with a history of use in firearms are regulated differently from rocket fuels); but nothing that suggests anybody with power and an axe to grind.
Assuming that that is in fact the case, the obligations of this UN treaty could presumably be satisfied just by having the Danish government find somebody to say "Yeah, sure, just don't crash into any expensive satellites or populated areas, ok?" and then sending the biggest rocketry enthusiast on the state payroll to go and geek out in the control center during the launch.
If they had the feds on their back, they probably would have learned that the hard way by now.
Does this mean that Denmark suddenly has to approve what we are doing, if we launch into space?
Yes.
Citation:
'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.'
I was thinking former Soviet Union, ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woomera_Test_Range in Australia
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I live in California and I don't need anything like that.
In fact, if you order a historical black powder firearm kit, it's not even considered a weapon, in spite of the fact that you can use it to kill a bear once assembled. Not until you put it together is it even a firearm — unlike the typical numbering and licensing requirements of anything with a rifled barrel.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Go to a country that didn't sign the treaty to launch.
Don't forget, before you launch this thing, you really ought to make sure you've notified the appropriate authorities. I'm not simply referring to your own government, but to all the appropriate air traffic commands and strategic military commands globally. These are both groups that do not like to be surprised, particularly by large, multi-stage, rocket-propelled devices of unknown origin. The commercial air traffic folks are to ensure that you have no aircraft (military, commercial and general aviation) that may accidentally stray into your flight path. On the more extreme side, strategic commands are not going to like seeing a missile-like object launching from the middle of the ocean, especially if that poor, bleary eyed operator mistakes it for a submarine launched ballistic missile.
If this same question came from a group in, say, Afghanistan or Iraq, would you be for or against some government taking a supervisory interest in their missle-building activities?
It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
You are launching something into the air... quite high up, in fact. Yes, you need to file appropriate paperwork with the local equivalent of the FAA. Space issues aside, there's plain old airspace regulation to contend with.
Making shit up again.
From the first line of your reference: "In American English, the term gunpowder also refers broadly to any gun propellant."
One of my friends, who was a historical reenactor, had to get a black powder certificate so he could use a musket. That's a kind of gun if you didn't know.
A friend has a replica Springfield muzzleloading black powder musket. When going to the range we stopped at a local gun store, he bought a small tin of black powder. The clerk asked him what it was for. My friend said it was for his muzzleloader. The sale proceeded, that was the extent of the "red tape", no special permit was required in our state. This was pre-9/11, I don't know what the state regulations are today.
Smokeless powder is the propellant (modern ammunition). Black powder the explosive (19th century muskets, etc).
"Vunce ze rockets are up, who cares vere zey come down? "Zat's not mein department!" says Werner von Braun.
Werner von Braun's autobiography is called "I Aim For the Stars" the unofficial sub title is "But Sometimes I Hit London"
Well they can both reach detonation that's for sure..
However smokeless will reach DDT in much smaller amounts..I've seen it myself.
Bullseye smokeless powder is 6 parts nitrocellulose to 4 parts nitroglycerin...
Enough unconfined smokeless wiil detonate
I've never seen unconfined BP detonate