Asia Pacific Space Centre (Christmas Island launch site)

[Danderman]

This was a big deal some 15 years ago, with big plans to launch modernized Soyuz rockets from an island near Australia. Ultimately Soyuzes were launched from Kourou, destroying the rationale for this effort. However, although Kourou's Soyuzes were modernized, ASPC planned an NK-33 based system (Aurora), which was partially realized by the new Soyuz 2.1V launcher earlier this year.


http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/christmas/

Asia Pacific Space Centre (Asia Pacific) is an Australian company that owns and operates a commercial satellite launch facility known as the Asia Pacific Space Centre (APSC) on the Australian territory of Christmas Island.

Asia Pacific has launched satellites for a wide range of commercial customers. The APSC is designed to capitalise on commercial opportunities arising from the growing demand for telecommunications, positioning and remote sensing services offered by satellites. Asia Pacific does not intend to launch military satellites.

Christmas Island's close proximity to the equator, predictable climate conditions, existing infrastructure and the political stability of Australia give it a distinct advantage over other locations as a site for a global commercial space launch facility.

[CameronD]

I did some work on the initial upgrades of the airport at Christmas Island almost 15 years ago now (when the Casino was still running) so I do have some curious interest in this:

It appears that Asia Pacific Space Centre Pty Ltd is still an active Australian-registered company, but they don't appear to have a web site and the following news clipping from 2012 makes interesting reading:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/island-resort-owner-makes-millions-from-refugee-flood-20120417-1x5n5.html

"He [Sydney businessman David Kwon] has previously been linked to a bid to open a satellite rocket launching project on the island via the Asia Pacific Space Centre Pty Ltd, another company of which he was a director.

The APSC was listed as being a big donor to political parties at the time, giving $50,000 to the Liberal's Millennium Forum in late 2003 and in 2002 donating $40,000 to the ACT branch of the Labor Party and then $70,000 to the ACT branch of the Liberal Party, according to electoral commission records."


FWIW, I think CI is a bloody stupid place to launch a rocket from - for all of the reasons previously raised over in the SpaceX threads.. not to mention the possibility of debris landing on oil and gas operations off of the North-West Shelf.

[Proponent]

This isn't the first time that somebody's suggested Christmas Island as a launch site, by the way:

www.astronautix.com/craft/vonander.htm
www.wired.com/2013/03/the-ideal-home-in-space-1960

[CameronD]

This isn't the first time that somebody's suggested Christmas Island as a launch site, by the way:

www.astronautix.com/craft/vonander.htm
www.wired.com/2013/03/the-ideal-home-in-space-1960

Perhaps not.. but then perhaps none of them have actually been there.

To be honest, I'm sure it would make a nice launch site once you got everything there.. but ignoring the people and plant under the flight path, it's getting the stuff there that's the challenge.  One sight of those cliffs in less-than-perfect conditions and most people turn around and go home again. 

[kevin-rf]

I also think it was the proposed launch site for Javis (Assuming it is the same island) http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/jarvis.htm

[RanulfC]

I've made mention on other thread of the issue with launching anything "commercial" from Australian territory and been asked to cite "where" in the 1979 Moon treaty such launches (or commercial operations for that matter such as Virgin Galactic) shows where the treaty would effect things like profit and commercial resource extraction.

Lets be clear on a few things, the text of the treaty is here:
http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/moon/text

NO "space faring" capable, working on, or planned has signed, ratified and/or accedded to the treaty
http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/moon

SPECIFICALLY note that this is NOT the OST but the 1979 version...
And while some argue that no "legal" issues exist nor does the treaty actually "bind" any nation due to "not applying" to Earth
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35300.msg1243460#msg1243460
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35300.msg1243473#msg1243473

This ignores THE main point of contention specifically stated in the treaty and COMMON LEGAL UNDERSTANDING of the key "phrase" within the treaty, specifically:

                                                                                  Article 4

1. The exploration and use of the moon shall be the province of all mankind and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development. Due regard shall be paid to the interests of present and future generations as well as to the need to promote higher standards of living and conditions of economic and social progress and development in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

                                                                                             Article 11

1. The moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind, which finds its expression in the provisions of this Agreement and in particular in paragraph 5 of this article.
...

5. States Parties to this Agreement hereby undertake to establish an international regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the exploitation of the natural resources of the moon as such exploitation is about to become feasible. This provision shall be implemented in accordance with article 18 of this Agreement.

                                                                              Article 14

1. States Parties to this Agreement shall bear international responsibility for national activities on the moon, 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 this Agreement. States Parties shall ensure that non-governmental entities under their jurisdiction shall engage in activities on the moon only under the authority and continuing supervision of the appropriate State Party.

And keep in mind that the full title of the treaty is "Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies" and the treaty states that by "Moon and Other Celestial Bodies" it means and the space around them. This includes the "space" around Earth even though the air/surface of Earth is excluded.

The main problems with the treaty are:
1) The provision declaring the Moon (and all other celestial bodies to include the space around them) as the "Common Heritage of Mankind" which LEGALY is accepted to mean that:
"3.All nations must actively share with each other the benefits acquired from exploitation of the resources from the common heritage region"
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/common-heritage-of-mankind/

(It is legally recognized that "benifits" can and does include "Monitary-assets" extracted from commercial activities within the  "Heritage Zone" which you will note includes ALL space outside Earths atmosphere)

And that the established "Space Government" under UN control would be operated to and in a similar manner to the same body established for control of Antarctica and Earth's seabeds outside national EEZs.
http://lunar.ksc.nasa.gov/science/results/lunarice/moon.html

It was at first difficult to get even the minimum 5 needed signatory nations but that was accomplished in 1984. Since then the number of signators has risen to 16 but NONE of the "space faring" nations have agreed to the treaty. The problem comes, specifically for Australia, in that ANY launch from their territory that produces "benifits" have to be SHARED by giving them to the "International Regime" specified in the treaty where they will be "shared" to every nation (signatory) regardless of "support" provided by that nation. The treaty calls for the "Intenational Regime" to take into account the amount of support (or non-support) of signatory nations in distributing the "benifits" but the "regime" is not in any way restricted or required to do more than "consider" this aspect.

"Legally" under the treaty and well understood legal precident and understanding any "flight" from Australian territory that generates "benifits" MUST be turned over the UN for distribution UNLESS it does not reach "space" as legally defined.

Randy

[CameronD]

It was at first difficult to get even the minimum 5 needed signatory nations but that was accomplished in 1984. Since then the number of signators has risen to 16 but NONE of the "space faring" nations have agreed to the treaty. The problem comes, specifically for Australia, in that ANY launch from their territory that produces "benifits" have to be SHARED by giving them to the "International Regime" specified in the treaty where they will be "shared" to every nation (signatory) regardless of "support" provided by that nation. The treaty calls for the "Intenational Regime" to take into account the amount of support (or non-support) of signatory nations in distributing the "benifits" but the "regime" is not in any way restricted or required to do more than "consider" this aspect.

"Legally" under the treaty and well understood legal precident and understanding any "flight" from Australian territory that generates "benifits" MUST be turned over the UN for distribution UNLESS it does not reach "space" as legally defined.

Randy

Sorry, Randy, I don't quite get it. 

I don't see what this has to do with preventing commercial launch operations within Australia and its territories - especially those that don't go to the Moon (or even close) - since we didn't even sign the thing.
 

[RanulfC]

It was at first difficult to get even the minimum 5 needed signatory nations but that was accomplished in 1984. Since then the number of signators has risen to 16 but NONE of the "space faring" nations have agreed to the treaty. The problem comes, specifically for Australia, in that ANY launch from their territory that produces "benifits" have to be SHARED by giving them to the "International Regime" specified in the treaty where they will be "shared" to every nation (signatory) regardless of "support" provided by that nation. The treaty calls for the "Intenational Regime" to take into account the amount of support (or non-support) of signatory nations in distributing the "benifits" but the "regime" is not in any way restricted or required to do more than "consider" this aspect.

"Legally" under the treaty and well understood legal precident and understanding any "flight" from Australian territory that generates "benifits" MUST be turned over the UN for distribution UNLESS it does not reach "space" as legally defined.

Randy

Sorry, Randy, I don't quite get it. 

I don't see what this has to do with preventing commercial launch operations within Australia and its territories - especially those that don't go to the Moon (or even close) - since we didn't even sign the thing.
 

"We" who? Australia has areed to "accession" which legally means they will abide by the treay and all its provisions. (Funny though my original paperwork shows them actually signing the treaty in 1979, though the government may have not brought that forward for ratification at the time) And if you read the treaty its the "Moon, all celestial bodies" which in the definition article states is NOT limited to those bodies but includes the space around them, and any space used to reach them.

*Legally* in the same manner as the sea-beds outside national EEZs that includes ALL of the area surrounding the "specified" locations. So by the treaty anything in "space" that's not "of-Earth" (ie: above the Karman line) IS covered under the treaty.

Unless Australia OFFICIALLY withdraws its "accession" and from all provisions of the 1979 treaty its stuck legally having to obey it. (And I'm not sure but I don't recall how such things work, but one of the main reasons groups like L5 and such fought ANY recognition of the 1979 treaty by the US was because if we had it was understood that if we changed our minds later we could NOT go back to the provision of the original OST as the 1979 treaty LEGALLY surperseded the original OST. From what I understand that's pretty much the reason no *spacefaring* nation has signed or accedded to the treaty as well)

The only way around this would be for the Australian government to make some arrangment with a non-signatory government to allow the non-signatory nation "soverignty" over the launch operations site/territory for the purposes of being the legal "supporting" nation for any launches. Considering both the original OST and 1979 Treaties specifically state that SOME nation-state has to take responsibility for all "launches" even flying out to or launching from the open ocean doesn't get you anywhere.

I'm wondering if the fact that Austraila has agreed to accession to the treaty is not in fact the reason that most of the proposed launch efforts faded away.

Randy

[CameronD]

I'm wondering if the fact that Austraila has agreed to accession to the treaty is not in fact the reason that most of the proposed launch efforts faded away.

Well, wonder no more.  Here's the conclusion of the 2008 Senate Inquiry into the Australian Space Sector entitled "Lost in Space? Setting a new direction for Australia's space science and industry sector":

"While not opposed in principle to Australia regaining its role as a launch site if a commercial venture wishes to do so (whether for satellites or tourists), the committee does not see this as likely, nor as something the government should be supporting with taxpayers' money."

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Completed_inquiries/2008-10/space_08/report/index

Sums it up rather neatly really... 

[JazzFan]

This has been in the works since the Hope-X days.

http://www.trussel.com/kir/space.htm

[CameronD]

This has been in the works since the Hope-X days.

http://www.trussel.com/kir/space.htm

That's not really relevant to this discussion. Hint: You've got the wrong ocean. 
 

[RanulfC]

I'm wondering if the fact that Austraila has agreed to accession to the treaty is not in fact the reason that most of the proposed launch efforts faded away.

Well, wonder no more.  Here's the conclusion of the 2008 Senate Inquiry into the Australian Space Sector entitled "Lost in Space? Setting a new direction for Australia's space science and industry sector":

"While not opposed in principle to Australia regaining its role as a launch site if a commercial venture wishes to do so (whether for satellites or tourists), the committee does not see this as likely, nor as something the government should be supporting with taxpayers' money."

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Completed_inquiries/2008-10/space_08/report/index

Sums it up rather neatly really... 

That's one way to put it

Randy