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?
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.
Quote from: envy887 on 05/19/2020 04:20 pmMy 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. :-)
