Author Topic: Artemis Accords  (Read 128930 times)

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2712
  • Liked: 1196
  • Likes Given: 54
« Last Edit: 05/15/2020 03:13 pm by hektor »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17310
  • Liked: 7137
  • Likes Given: 3068
« Last Edit: 06/14/2020 05:12 pm by yg1968 »

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2712
  • Liked: 1196
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Artemis Accords
« Reply #2 on: 05/15/2020 04:38 pm »
I am wondering how it works with International partners which are not a country, i.e. ESA. Will NASA deal with each European country individually or with ESA as a whole ?

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2541
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 684
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Artemis Accords
« Reply #3 on: 05/15/2020 04:56 pm »
Not exactly impressed by these 'Accords', but I suppose it could count as a first small step in reinterpreting the Outer Space Treaty in a 21st century context.

It is good to declare openness and a "peace for all mankind", but a more stoic country or company is going to come along, barge in, and just openly declare something like "We're claiming Kepler Crater because no one else on the Moon can."  Paperwork that handles stuff like that would be more practical.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17310
  • Liked: 7137
  • Likes Given: 3068

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17310
  • Liked: 7137
  • Likes Given: 3068
Re: Artemis Accords
« Reply #5 on: 05/15/2020 06:01 pm »
This tweet about China and the Artemis Accords is interesting:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1261303386613469185

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17310
  • Liked: 7137
  • Likes Given: 3068
Re: Artemis Accords
« Reply #6 on: 05/15/2020 06:09 pm »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17310
  • Liked: 7137
  • Likes Given: 3068
Re: Artemis Accords
« Reply #7 on: 05/15/2020 10:06 pm »
Artemis Accords document attached.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2020 10:06 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Artemis Accords
« Reply #8 on: 05/16/2020 02:31 am »
It was like a week or two ago, and JB was talking about going fast, not having a 1000 requirements, stepping out of the way.

Then all of the sudden, a discussion about Naval protocol as it applies to international space operations, interoperability and contamination standards limiting microbes, disposal strategery, and inserting the term “international partnerships” by using a Canadarm.

I now know what the Artemis Accords are and maybe how to use them.

Does JB have a twin?  Is this what happens when you return from a trip to Huntsville?
He's an ex congressman. That tells you all you need to know about him...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17310
  • Liked: 7137
  • Likes Given: 3068
« Last Edit: 05/16/2020 03:22 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17310
  • Liked: 7137
  • Likes Given: 3068
Re: Artemis Accords
« Reply #10 on: 05/16/2020 03:32 am »
I believe that the Artemis Accords are important. The IGA worked well for the ISS. The Artemis Accords should play a similar role for Artemis. Mike Gold has been doing a good job pushing for a more certain and predictable legal framework in space. Things haven't evolved much since 1967 but if we are going to stay on the Moon and Mars, the legal framework has to evolve. Legal certainty is good for everyone, so any steps that improves legal certainty, such as these accords, should be applauded.
« Last Edit: 09/05/2020 11:44 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17310
  • Liked: 7137
  • Likes Given: 3068
Re: Artemis Accords
« Reply #11 on: 05/16/2020 03:36 am »
One thing that was interesting is that Administrator Bridenstine mentioned Australia, the UAE and Luxembourg (in addition to ISS countries) as countries that may interested in partnering on the Artemis program.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17310
  • Liked: 7137
  • Likes Given: 3068
Re: Artemis Accords
« Reply #12 on: 05/16/2020 03:57 am »
Another article (which was retweeted by Administrator Bridenstine):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/15/moon-rules-nasa-artemis/

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Liked: 4700
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Artemis Accords
« Reply #13 on: 05/16/2020 04:29 am »
Nothing wrong with the Artemis Accords.  They fill in gaps left by the Outer Space Treaty, sidestep flaws in the Moon Treaty, and set the right tone for careless actors, like the debris that landed in Africa from the recent LM-5B core stage reentry or the large orbital debris field from the 2007 ASAT test that targeted FY-1C.

But in terms of justification for the Artemis Program, the Accords are arguably a self-licking ice cream cone, i.e., we need to spend billions of dollars on a cislunar space program so we can set international policy and law for activities in cislunar space.  The tie between the Accords and Program is important and necessary, but the Accords are not necessarily a sufficient rationale for all the tens of billions of dollars in planned total Artemis Program spending.

I’m more interested in what impact, if any, the Artemis Program and Accords can have on geopolitics on Earth.  To the extent the only Artemis players are the usual, already closely allied, post-WWII civil space actors — the US, ESA and its member states, Japan, and Canada — I think an opportunity will be missed.

The success of Apollo arguably had an influence on the decision making of various former colonial states regarding what political and economic systems they adopted during the Cold War.  Democratic and capitalist or autocratic and communist?

Not terribly dissimilar calculations are being made around the periphery of the South China Sea and in Eastern Europe today.  If the Artemis Program and Accords can involve new partners like India, South Korea, Australia, Ukraine, Poland, Turkey, etc. — and help advance, even in a small way, Western liberal democratic norms in those regions and/or resist alliances with the major anti-Western powers there — then the Artemis Program will go much farther in terms of justifying its budgetary existence.

I hope effort is made to link Artemis not just to norms of behavior in space, but to US and Western geopolitical interests on Earth as well.  Cold War geopolitics was the rationale and driver of the Apollo Program from its inception, but similar considerations from this era’s post-Cold War world have yet to substantially enter the discourse on NASA’s lunar return efforts dating all the way back to the VSE in 2004 and earlier.  It’s well past time to fix that.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17310
  • Liked: 7137
  • Likes Given: 3068
« Last Edit: 09/02/2022 12:14 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17310
  • Liked: 7137
  • Likes Given: 3068
Re: Artemis Accords
« Reply #15 on: 05/19/2020 04:37 am »

Offline helixdq

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Artemis Accords
« Reply #16 on: 05/19/2020 09:18 am »
I think it's going to be really interesting how this plays out in the next decade or so.

The Outer Space Treaty bans claiming sovereign territory on the Moon and celestial bodies, but also requires that states have free access to all areas of the Moon and celestial bodies and requires that exploration and use of celestial bodies be done for the benefit and in the interest of all countries irrespective of their degree of economic and scientific development.

It seems like the Artemis accords, while mentioning the Outer Space Treaty and not explicitely denouncing it, in practice aim to promote some form of claim over moon resources, and there may be some pushback from the Russians and Chinese if they aren't adequately compensated or included.

Because economic activities on the Moon will mainly be done at the poles, and in very specific areas (nearly-permanent sun for bases, perpetual darkness for water), the likelyhood that the US, Russia and China areas of interest will overlap is actually worryingly high.

The mention of "safety zones" in the "Deconfliction of Activities" section can be seen as a means of effectively claiming territory for the first nation to land at the best sites, while not challenging the Space Treaty outright.
There's also the section on resource extraction with no mention to the provisions of Article I.

Oh and Article XII of the OST requires that NASA and private US firms give Chinese astronauts acccess to bases, space vehicles and equipment on the Moon and Mars, as long as the Chinese reciprocate. Can't wait to see how the administration plans to handle that awkward requirement.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8148
  • Liked: 6810
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Artemis Accords
« Reply #17 on: 05/19/2020 04:20 pm »
I think it's going to be really interesting how this plays out in the next decade or so.

The Outer Space Treaty bans claiming sovereign territory on the Moon and celestial bodies, but also requires that states have free access to all areas of the Moon and celestial bodies and requires that exploration and use of celestial bodies be done for the benefit and in the interest of all countries irrespective of their degree of economic and scientific development.

It seems like the Artemis accords, while mentioning the Outer Space Treaty and not explicitely denouncing it, in practice aim to promote some form of claim over moon resources, and there may be some pushback from the Russians and Chinese if they aren't adequately compensated or included.

Because economic activities on the Moon will mainly be done at the poles, and in very specific areas (nearly-permanent sun for bases, perpetual darkness for water), the likelyhood that the US, Russia and China areas of interest will overlap is actually worryingly high.

The mention of "safety zones" in the "Deconfliction of Activities" section can be seen as a means of effectively claiming territory for the first nation to land at the best sites, while not challenging the Space Treaty outright.
There's also the section on resource extraction with no mention to the provisions of Article I.

Oh and Article XII of the OST requires that NASA and private US firms give Chinese astronauts acccess to bases, space vehicles and equipment on the Moon and Mars, as long as the Chinese reciprocate. Can't wait to see how the administration plans to handle that awkward requirement.

My read is that the safety zones would set a spatial definition for what NASA thinks could (but not necessarily will) constitute "harmful interference" which under the OST would trigger a requirement for "consultation" before proceeding. But declaring safety zones does not give national jurisdiction over that zone because of the OST prohibition on sovereign claims to territory.

And the reciprocal access under Article 12 already applies to ISS, but doesn't seem to have been all that awkward so far.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2020 04:20 pm by envy887 »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39306
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32880
  • Likes Given: 8375
Re: Artemis Accords
« Reply #18 on: 05/21/2020 09:24 am »
My read is that the safety zones would set a spatial definition for what NASA thinks could (but not necessarily will) constitute "harmful interference" which under the OST would trigger a requirement for "consultation" before proceeding. But declaring safety zones does not give national jurisdiction over that zone because of the OST prohibition on sovereign claims to territory.

Great! I'll have my little rovers be in each ice filled crater and then fence the whole crater to prevent "harmful interference". Too bad for you for not getting there first. :-)
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
Re: Artemis Accords
« Reply #19 on: 05/21/2020 10:01 am »
My read is that the safety zones would set a spatial definition for what NASA thinks could (but not necessarily will) constitute "harmful interference" which under the OST would trigger a requirement for "consultation" before proceeding. But declaring safety zones does not give national jurisdiction over that zone because of the OST prohibition on sovereign claims to territory.

Great! I'll have my little rovers be in each ice filled crater and then fence the whole crater to prevent "harmful interference". Too bad for you for not getting there first. :-)

If you can fence off a crater then you deserve to keep it.

People would eventually get upset at a landgrab scenario but it would also greatly advance lunar exploration so I'm all for it.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0