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, 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.