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
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'
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.
Why would lawyers be any different?
"Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost." ~ V.I. Lenin
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
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.