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: 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.