4 ms·

Haven't read the article because of paywall but it's likely a requirement of the outer space treaty where the government is required to ensure conformity to the

by kirrent 10y ago

Haven't read the article because of paywall but it's likely a requirement of the outer space treaty where the government is required to ensure conformity to the articles of the treaty by private entities. Specifically, article VI requires - "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" Interestingly I don't know of any established processes for monitoring the activities of companies in outer space apart from getting approval from the FAA. It's not really ever been a problem up 'til now.

hirsin 10y ago
Who is the appropriate State Party if, e.g. SpaceX decides to start launching off of Of Course I Still Love You out in the ocean, in international waters? Do they go with the country where the launch platform is registered? Where the owing corporation is registered? Each of these seem to fall apart once you register a shell corp and launch platform in a non-space-faring nation like... Monaco ?
- greglindahl 10y ago
  ITAR makes that illegal.
  - hirsin 10y ago
    An interesting notion - it would be an interesting case to see if exporting rocket components to "not a country" would violate ITAR. That hasn't stopped Iran from getting launching satellites into orbit though, and misses that e.g. ULA buys their rocket engines from Russia where ITAR obviously isn't a problem.
    - jonknee 10y ago
      If by interesting you mean certain Federal prison time, sure I guess that would be interesting.
    - snowwrestler 10y ago
      It seems like it would be very difficult to export to "not a country." Every dry rock in the world is claimed by some nation, and ships and platforms on the open ocean are flagged and/or operated by citizens of some existing nation. Many U.S. laws apply to U.S. citizens no matter where they are in the world.
- detaro 10y ago
  Seems like the Sea Launch project, which had multinational partners and started rockets from a floating platform outside of all 200 mile zones, is the closest thing you can look at for comparison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch). Here it seems everybody just sort-of agreed that the rules are not entirely clear and that the US as the closest nation invested in the project should do the oversight. I found this old article that mentions some of it, but isn't terribly detailed when it comes to regulations either: https://web.archive.org/web/20120730201527/http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/archive/Sea%20Launch%20notes.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120730201527/http://isanet.cci...
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > Who is the appropriate State Party if, e.g. SpaceX decides to start launching off of Of Course I Still Love You out in the ocean, in international waters? A tangible way to explore this is to ask "What if a craft, launched by SpaceX from international waters, fell on country X?" If X is Canada, the resolution process seems straightforward. American and Canadian courts and law enforcement are sufficiently cross-linked to allow the latter to pursue SpaceX's assets and personnel. But what if X is Iran, or Venezuela or North Korea? We would have to consider diplomatic and geopolitical factors. That looks much more like the anarchic environment of international relations rather than a sovereign-corporate dispute.
- kirrent 10y ago
  SpaceX is still an American company and they'd be launching from an American registered ship. I think an argument could certainly be made that the US would remain the appropriate state party to regulate such a launch but finding ways to legislate that within its jurisdiction could be amusing.
gnu8 10y ago
In other words, the United States and the Soviet Union along with a few insignificant states to lend a plurality got together and granted a monopoly on space exploration to nation-states.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > the United States and the Soviet Union along with a few insignificant states to lend a plurality got together and granted a monopoly on space exploration to nation-states. International conventions require ships in international waters be flagged. This comes in handy when e.g. a ship needs help or causes trouble. I don't see the extension of this principle to spaceflight as being unreasonable. If Bezos's bird comes down on my house, I'd prefer there exist a venue in which to sue him.
  - shirro 10y ago
    It would be amusing if a Liberian flagged space ship was the first to land people on Mars.
    - function_seven 10y ago
      Doubly-so, if they used feet, inches, °F, and pounds to do so! It would prove the superiority of our great measurement units :)
      - cromulent 10y ago
        I don't think they are "yours", but more so an anachronism from your colonial days ;)
        function_seven 10y ago
        Well shit, nobody else seems to want 'em, so they're "ours" now.
    - pcrh 10y ago

by kirrent 10y ago

hirsin 10y ago

Who is the appropriate State Party if, e.g. SpaceX decides to start launching off of Of Course I Still Love You out in the ocean, in international waters? Do they go with the country where the launch platform is registered? Where the owing corporation is registered? Each of these seem to fall apart once you register a shell corp and launch platform in a non-space-faring nation like... Monaco ?

greglindahl 10y ago
ITAR makes that illegal.
- hirsin 10y ago
  An interesting notion - it would be an interesting case to see if exporting rocket components to "not a country" would violate ITAR. That hasn't stopped Iran from getting launching satellites into orbit though, and misses that e.g. ULA buys their rocket engines from Russia where ITAR obviously isn't a problem.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    If by interesting you mean certain Federal prison time, sure I guess that would be interesting.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    It seems like it would be very difficult to export to "not a country." Every dry rock in the world is claimed by some nation, and ships and platforms on the open ocean are flagged and/or operated by citizens of some existing nation. Many U.S. laws apply to U.S. citizens no matter where they are in the world.
detaro 10y ago
Seems like the Sea Launch project, which had multinational partners and started rockets from a floating platform outside of all 200 mile zones, is the closest thing you can look at for comparison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch). Here it seems everybody just sort-of agreed that the rules are not entirely clear and that the US as the closest nation invested in the project should do the oversight. I found this old article that mentions some of it, but isn't terribly detailed when it comes to regulations either: https://web.archive.org/web/20120730201527/http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/archive/Sea%20Launch%20notes.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120730201527/http://isanet.cci...
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> Who is the appropriate State Party if, e.g. SpaceX decides to start launching off of Of Course I Still Love You out in the ocean, in international waters? A tangible way to explore this is to ask "What if a craft, launched by SpaceX from international waters, fell on country X?" If X is Canada, the resolution process seems straightforward. American and Canadian courts and law enforcement are sufficiently cross-linked to allow the latter to pursue SpaceX's assets and personnel. But what if X is Iran, or Venezuela or North Korea? We would have to consider diplomatic and geopolitical factors. That looks much more like the anarchic environment of international relations rather than a sovereign-corporate dispute.
kirrent 10y ago
SpaceX is still an American company and they'd be launching from an American registered ship. I think an argument could certainly be made that the US would remain the appropriate state party to regulate such a launch but finding ways to legislate that within its jurisdiction could be amusing.

gnu8 10y ago

In other words, the United States and the Soviet Union along with a few insignificant states to lend a plurality got together and granted a monopoly on space exploration to nation-states.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> the United States and the Soviet Union along with a few insignificant states to lend a plurality got together and granted a monopoly on space exploration to nation-states. International conventions require ships in international waters be flagged. This comes in handy when e.g. a ship needs help or causes trouble. I don't see the extension of this principle to spaceflight as being unreasonable. If Bezos's bird comes down on my house, I'd prefer there exist a venue in which to sue him.
- shirro 10y ago
  It would be amusing if a Liberian flagged space ship was the first to land people on Mars.
  - function_seven 10y ago
    Doubly-so, if they used feet, inches, °F, and pounds to do so! It would prove the superiority of our great measurement units :)
    - cromulent 10y ago
      I don't think they are "yours", but more so an anachronism from your colonial days ;)
      - function_seven 10y ago
        Well shit, nobody else seems to want 'em, so they're "ours" now.
  - pcrh 10y ago