SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/2/12275980/moon-express-private-mission-spaceflight-us-government
Private spaceflight company Moon Express will soon announce it has been granted regulatory approval by the US government to send a lunar lander to the surface of the Moon, according to a source familiar with the matter. If so, that means the company will be the first private company to have received permission from the government to send a vehicle beyond Earth orbit and on to another world.
Moon Express is a private spaceflight company with long-term hopes of mining the lunar surface. But in the short term, the company is focused on simply getting to the Moon first. The venture is developing the MX-1 — a 20-pound lunar lander designed to "hop" across the Moon's surface. MX-1 is in the Google Lunar X Prize competition, an international contest to send the first privately funded spacecraft to the Moon. In order to win that competition, Moon Express has to get its lander to the surface of the Moon before December 31st, 2017.
[...] Currently, there's no regulatory framework in place that allows the US government to oversee private missions beyond Earth orbit.
And that's a problem, since the US has to adhere to obligations set by the Outer Space Treaty — an international agreement that guides how nations conduct missions in space. Specifically, the US has to adequately oversee private missions to other planetary bodies, as well as ensure that companies don't violate planetary protection.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by frojack on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:34PM
The SJW rage about violating "planetary protection". All for a non-sample-return prospecting robot wandering a wasteland moon.
Governments are dredging channels, and drilling holes and zapping lasers and roasting soil all over Mars is OK.
But let some private company dream of making a buck selling information about the moon, (obtained at a huge loss of millions of bucks), and all of a sudden that't not OK.
The moon: Another object with no voice to reject SJW love.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @06:46PM
Annnd queue personal politics rant! Oh wait, I'm too late for the warning...
And that's a problem, since the US has to adhere to obligations set by the Outer Space Treaty — an international agreement that guides how nations conduct missions in space. Specifically, the US has to adequately oversee private missions to other planetary bodies, as well as ensure that companies don't violate planetary protection.
That covers a WHOLE lot more than your SJW theory, and it doesn't mention any SJW agenda at all. Get out of here with your tired rhetoric.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snow on Wednesday August 03 2016, @07:34PM
All the soil roasting and rock burning is completely sterile though.
As an aside, I don't know why we care so much about messing up other planets that are barren wastelands when we don't give a shit about polluting our own planet.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:08PM
This isn't some eco-nut concept of non-pollution. You guys are really too quick to hop on that boat.
"Planetary protection is the term given to the practice of protecting solar system bodies (i.e., planets, moons, comets, and asteroids) from contamination by Earth life, and protecting Earth from possible life forms that may be returned from other solar system bodies."
So, not introducing earth life that could be detrimental to any possible life we don't know about, but also quite importantly not bringing back alien microbes which would have an unknown effect when they reach Earth. Pretty basic safety precautions that will get toned down once we're more experienced at space exploration and dealing with contaminants, etc.
(Score: 3, Offtopic) by frojack on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:35PM
So, not introducing earth life that could be detrimental to any possible life we don't know about, but also quite importantly not bringing back alien microbes which would have an unknown effect when they reach Earth.
This isn't a sample return mission. Its a 20 pound lander ffs!
As for the US overseeing the decontamination, just what part of that can't be done as a condition of regulatory approval?
The protocols are already well established by NASA. (And probably ignored by the Russians and Chinese, and certainly violated by manned landings wearing space suits donned in a breathable atmosphere and not decontaminated for egress).
Where was the demand for oversight when whole rocket boosters from Apollo missions and the LCROSS mission were intentionally cratered on the moon without having been built in sterile environments.? Oh, government did that, so Ok then, never mind.
Yet here is an article demanding more "regulatory framework". Why?
The treaty already provides all the framework they need.
Its clear as hell this isn't about contamination. Any of you whining about contamination are so full of anti-corporate rage you can't determine your own motives.
This is about private enterprise. Evil Money. Evil big corp. etc.etc.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @10:00PM
You totally missed the first part of the quote, and as detailed in other posts there are a multitude of reasons to have regulation until we get the details sorted out. All your really doing is raging against possible government meddling, and tying that to an imaginary agenda by nature lovers or whatever.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday August 03 2016, @11:20PM
You totally missed the first part of the quote, and as detailed in other posts there are a multitude of reasons to have regulation until we get the details sorted out.
Sure he did. The calls for more regulation are absurd. There is nothing to regulate and the people calling for more regulation haven't a clue what regulation will actually be needed in the long run. Let's first have some problems that need regulation to fix, ok?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday August 04 2016, @12:04AM
The treaty already provides all the framework they need.
Article VI anticipated space travel by private parties:
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.
--https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty [wikisource.org]
As I understand it, treaties apply to the countries that sign them. They don't apply to companies or citizens. A treaty can be implemented in a country's laws which do apply to non-state actors. The article appears to be saying that the United States has not yet enacted internal law to enforce the Outer Space Treaty, but that Planet Express took the initiative and asked the United States to approve its project.
It[']s clear as hell this isn't about contamination.
The matter is addressed in Article IX of the treaty, which specifically mentions the Earth and the Moon:
States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose.
Recall that Article VI calls for "conformity with the provisions" of the treaty by non-state actors, so the obligation not to contaminate is supposed to apply to them. The article mentions it as an aside--"as well as ensure that companies don’t violate planetary protection"--and you were the first commenter here to mention it.
The guidelines [nasa.gov] of the Committee on Space Research (a group of scientists) regarding planetary protection seem to have been adopted by NASA. [nasa.gov] For the Moon they recommend:
Category II includes all types of missions to those target bodies where there is significant interest relative to the process of chemical evolution and the origin of life, but where there is only a remote chance that contamination carried by a spacecraft could jeopardize future exploration. The requirements are only for simple documentation. This documentation includes a short planetary protection plan is required for these missions, primarily to outline intended or potential impact targets; brief pre-launch and post-launch analyses detailing impact strategies; and a post-encounter and end-of-mission report providing the location of inadvertent impact, if such an event occurs. Solar system bodies considered to be classified as Category II are listed in the Appendix to this document.
It amounts to four reports per journey. It doesn't seem onerous, in the scheme of things.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:41PM
anti-corporate rage
Why is it assholes like you that can't even get basic facts right and rant about shit that's pure fucking speculation that only exists in your fucking skull, always go for the accusation that it must be the other guy who has some kind of irrational “rage?”
Obvious psychological projection is fucking obvious as hell.
Yeah, I'll always have some fucking rage to direct as dipshits like you. Keep on believing you're not the one with the problem.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:08PM
What…
Just…
But…
How?! How the actual fuck did you connect an international treaty that became effective October 10, 1967 [wikipedia.org] to SJWs? Surely you mean hippies!
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:15PM
Frojack is so completely demented from decades of mainlining his own flatulence that he doesn't know what he's saying anymore. He's 1 part Trump and 2 parts "your angry ol' grandpa with an oxygen tank." Sad thing is, he's younger than either.
Bullshit rots your brain!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday August 03 2016, @09:05PM
Governments are dredging channels, and drilling holes and zapping lasers and roasting soil all over Mars is OK
Generally speaking I'd agree with your sentiment but you need to actually read the treaty or even summaries of it.
The "battle" seems to be between people who think the debate is over the defenseless lunar dirt, whereas the legal people are wound up because property rights extend into space and the liability is theoretically infinite. There's some "oversight" stuff added to the treaty to basically ban willful ignorance as a defense.
So as a thought experiment first of all because the legally liable party is the government, if the government wants to zap lasers all day that has nothing to do with commercial activity. Governments are 100% liable for the actions of their citizens WRT this treaty. There's no space "pirates" allowed by definition. Technically maybe letters of marquee are possible, maybe. The govt is 100% liable for those lasers, if they want to fire them, I'm not seeing a problem.
So the second issue is as a thought experiment if the Fijians allow a private team of Fiji citizens to launch a moon lander and it (accidentally?) crushes our lander in the sea of tranquility, to make matters simple the government of Fiji is 100% liable for the actions of their citizens and has to pay us back for trashing the first lunar landing site. And it goes into some detail of extending maritime law to figure out how to run a trial etc. It doesn't matter if the Fijians sneak into international waters or launch from Cape Canaveral, if Fijian citizens destroy someones "stuff" out there in space, the government of Fiji is directly liable.
Now the government of Fiji can pursue action on its own to collect from its citizens or just write it off or go have a civil war or WTF but fundamentally whatever dollar value of damage those Fijians do comes from their .gov.
Its not a serious concern, probably, which is why oversight is pretty limited in 2016.
BTW this relates to stuff that falls from the sky so if a spacex re-entry goes really bad the USA federal gov will be the clearinghouse and pay for damages... what they'll do to spacex in retaliation is unclear. Not all that unrealistic, something like the Columbia disaster happens on re-entry and set some mexican corn farmer's field on fire, the USA fedgov pays directly. If spacex hits a Japanese comsat during a geosynch boost, the fedgov pays the Japanese civilians directly.
I'm a little fuzzy on this but I think its already happened legally with satellites hit by space junk. I'm not even sure what to google to research this.
As a practical matter I think this is reasonable and limits the number of jurisdictions to 300-something.
I would imagine there's completely landlocked countries in Asia or maybe Europe and I wonder how they "dig" maritime law.
You could propose a better treaty, but its not really that bad of one.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday August 03 2016, @11:01PM
Thanks for proving my point.
The treaty is already more than adequate for the task, and the claim that Currently, there's no regulatory framework in place is bullshit.
The Treaty has the force of law, it becomes on par with the constitution itself.
So once again, its not about contamination, its not about liability. Its about prvate companies in space and how that is held by some to be universally bad because: corporations!
Your entire argument points out how all these problems are already solved, and the angst written into TFA exists ONLY because a private company is involved.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @11:26PM
Sweet baby jesus, you just insert your own outrage into everything! The "angst" you mention is here:
"Currently, there’s no regulatory framework in place that allows the US government to oversee private missions beyond Earth orbit. And that’s a problem, since the US has to adhere to obligations set by the Outer Space Treaty — an international agreement that guides how nations conduct missions in space. Specifically, the US has to adequately oversee private missions to other planetary bodies, as well as ensure that companies don’t violate planetary protection. But right now, there is no way for the government to make sure that private missions going beyond Earth orbit don’t violate these portions of the treaty."
They're referring to the fact that the US has not had to deal with this situation before and has no legal documents to settle liability, etc. The company found a way around that problem, and "... Moon Express is expected to announce that its regulatory patch idea worked ..."
No one is mad that a private company is doing this, pretty sure everyone on this site is stoked about it, except for you. So angry about something so meaningless. You're too focused on your pointless rage that you refuse to acknowledge the various points that have been brought up.
Go smoke a joint already, might calm you down in the long run.
(Score: 2) by http on Wednesday August 03 2016, @11:28PM
A treaty is neither a regulatory framework nor a beauracracy (to rubber-stamp things via paperwork or bribes).
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday August 03 2016, @09:20PM
The SJW rage
Rage? Chill, froj! You immediately lose any credibility when you use the "S" acronym. And you must know they don't rage, since you write of "SJW love". Yes, they are the most recent version of DFHs!!
Besides, what we have here is a government trying to restrain space pirates, sort of like the "shores of Tripoli" action. And it is much better having treaties that require governments to control criminals, than to have criminals writing the treaties so they can ignore governments, like the TTP.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Adamsjas on Wednesday August 03 2016, @11:07PM
Actually there are a lot of us around here that see the whole social justice, anti-corporation, May-day riots, collectivist, fuck the constitution ranters as the same big ball of dung. Those that scoff like none of that exists are the ones that lose credibility.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday August 03 2016, @11:19PM
Five is not a lot. Anti-social Injustice Quibblers need to learn some maths, or at least counting and the "greater than" function.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:04PM
It's possible to recognize the harm SJWs cause and hate them for that without going full retard in the other direction. People who go full retard in the other direction are merely using the growing backlash against political correctness as a guise for their own bigotries.
I say that as a full-blown misogynist.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:20PM
This has to be an example of Poe's Law. It just has to be.