Another article on the boat issue:Quote from: Business InsiderAs John Michelli, a spokesperson for the Coast Guard's eighth district, wrote in an email to Business Insider (emphasis ours):"The Coast Guard does not have authority to establish restricted areas for these types of events beyond the navigable waterways of the United States, which in most cases is 12-nautical miles from shore. Without a duly established restricted area, the Coast Guard can advise the boating public of potential safety concerns but cannot issue fines or other violations to recreational boaters who encroached within the recovery zone.""The development of lessons learned will be our next priority moving forward," Michelli wrote in an email. "The results of those lessons learned may yield further consideration to zones and the enforcement authorities of those zones." https://www.businessinsider.com/boaters-who-disrupted-nasas-spacex-landing-will-go-unpunished-2020-8
As John Michelli, a spokesperson for the Coast Guard's eighth district, wrote in an email to Business Insider (emphasis ours):"The Coast Guard does not have authority to establish restricted areas for these types of events beyond the navigable waterways of the United States, which in most cases is 12-nautical miles from shore. Without a duly established restricted area, the Coast Guard can advise the boating public of potential safety concerns but cannot issue fines or other violations to recreational boaters who encroached within the recovery zone.""The development of lessons learned will be our next priority moving forward," Michelli wrote in an email. "The results of those lessons learned may yield further consideration to zones and the enforcement authorities of those zones."
With limited assets available and with no formal authority to establish zones that would stop boaters from entering the area, numerous boaters ignored the Coast Guard crews’ requests and decided to encroach the area, putting themselves and those involved in the operation in potential danger.While the Coast Guard has legal authority to board vessels and enforce laws past the 12-mile navigable waterways rule, it would have required a massive undertaking of resources to engage each boat that came into the area and suspend their voyage or otherwise escort them out.
Surely the presence of the hypergolic fuel alone should allow a mandated safety exclusion zone.
Quote from: DistantTemple on 08/04/2020 12:21 amSurely the presence of the hypergolic fuel alone should allow a mandated safety exclusion zone.Not without prior notice in the Federal Register, coordination with various federal authorities, possible public hearing, etc., etc.,General framework and process for that in the US code of federal regulations appears to be here:https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/part-334https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/334.3https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/334.4There are a bunch of restricted zones and danger areas around KSC and CCAFS, including:https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/334.525https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/334.540https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/334.595(not a lawyer but I can find things in the CFR..)
...I imagine that the next time, there will be a safety zone that is established. But it's not clear to me why that wasn't done in the first place. If the Coast Guard doesn't the authority to enforce such a safety zone, who does? Perhaps, the Navy?Quote from: Coast GuardWith limited assets available and with no formal authority to establish zones that would stop boaters from entering the area, numerous boaters ignored the Coast Guard crews’ requests and decided to encroach the area, putting themselves and those involved in the operation in potential danger.While the Coast Guard has legal authority to board vessels and enforce laws past the 12-mile navigable waterways rule, it would have required a massive undertaking of resources to engage each boat that came into the area and suspend their voyage or otherwise escort them out.http://www.parabolicarc.com/2020/08/03/u-s-coast-guard-statement-on-private-boats-approaching-crew-dragon-capsule/
But but but... the CG can't just create a safety zone in International Waters. It doesn't have the authority to do so and I believe the only way is to file a request with the U.N. but every request (ie every primary and alternate landing zone for every flight) is a 6 month process.The Navy is in the same boat (bad pun I know). International waters are International and you can't take unilateral action without International approval.[...]Quote from: yg1968 on 08/04/2020 03:22 am...I imagine that the next time, there will be a safety zone that is established. But it's not clear to me why that wasn't done in the first place. If the Coast Guard doesn't the authority to enforce such a safety zone, who does? Perhaps, the Navy?Quote from: Coast GuardWith limited assets available and with no formal authority to establish zones that would stop boaters from entering the area, numerous boaters ignored the Coast Guard crews’ requests and decided to encroach the area, putting themselves and those involved in the operation in potential danger.While the Coast Guard has legal authority to board vessels and enforce laws past the 12-mile navigable waterways rule, it would have required a massive undertaking of resources to engage each boat that came into the area and suspend their voyage or otherwise escort them out.http://www.parabolicarc.com/2020/08/03/u-s-coast-guard-statement-on-private-boats-approaching-crew-dragon-capsule/
2.4 ‘Artificial Islands’ and ‘Installations’An artificial island or offshore installation refers to a man-made structure in the territorial sea, in the EEZ [exclusive economic zone] or on the continental shelf which is usually used to explore or exploit marine resources. These may also be built for other purposes, such as marine scientific research and tide observations.
3. UnilateralismThe word ‘unilateralism’ has a strong negative connotation, and is used almost as a synonym for illegality.[9] But unilateral acts are not unlawful per se. The adjective ‘unilateral’ simply indicates that a State is acting alone, rather than in concert with others. Whether a State acts alone or in concert says nothing about the legitimacy of its actions. An illegitimate action by a State does not, for example, become legitimate simple because it is carried out with others. What matters is not whether States act alone or in concert, but whether the act in question respects the rights of other States.[9] D Bodansky, ‘What’s so Bad About Unilateral Action to Protect the Environment?’ (2000) 11 Eur J Intl L 339.
A moderator caution re: NASA, the Coast Guard, SpaceX, and the Boatniks (my expression):Think before you post. Do you have anything substantive AND on-topic to add to the discussion? Maybe a "like" will do.We also have a party thread.
Under U.S. law the CG can board any U.S. flagged vessel or any vessel captained by a U.S. citizen anywhere on the planet and not just inside the 12 mile limit. I suspect what will happen is the CG will advise people to stay clear and that it will board and detain any U.S. flagged vessel that it sees encroaching.
Looks like someone made a good call covering up the side windows.
Quote from: tyrred on 08/04/2020 09:43 amLooks like someone made a good call covering up the side windows.That *is* interesting. As far as I know the view that covering the windows to reduce MMOD risk was speculation. It would be interesting if in fact the decision was based on re-entry modeling that showed unacceptable heat to that area.
Since all US boats, or US captained boats are answerable to the USG wherever they are, a new law could be passed to require such craft and captains to observe a new "space related activities" exclusion or safety zone. Going forward:If SpaceX uses ground-linked platforms (for SS) they may be covered by the above mentioned UN regs that are used for installations like oil... but if they use free-floating platforms it appears they won't.Despite SX being a private enterprise, its amazing progress is a potential massive expansion of American national industrial influence. It is in the US's interest to be supportive. Appropriate legislation in the US and representations to the UN for a new UN "spaceflight operations exclusion zones" should start now! When SX wants to pace a landing platform in the North Sea or Mediterranean, one "SX would like" to the local governments would be enforceable safety exclusion zones. After all, an incoming Starship cannot divert. And very likely could not divert once committed to launch, as the flight would be sub orbital! Local Coastguard / Navies (or even SX security) need to be able to forcibly remove offenders/ breakdowns, and they or courts issue penalties or sanctions.Edit: I realise this is now getting off of the recent DM2 incident to SS and is therefore moving off topic. If continued it could have a new thread - however I think I have said my bit, and gone beyond my expertise (UK Yachting!)
228. The right to protest is not without its limitations [...]. Article 58(3) of the Convention requires that in exercising their rights and performing their duties in the EEZ [exclusive economic zone], states shall have "due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with [Part V of the Convention]."230. In exercising their rights and duties under the Convention in the EEZ [exclusive economic zone], coastal States must have "due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention."326. In the view of the Tribunal, the protection of a coastal State’s sovereign rights is a legitimate aim that allows it to take appropriate measures for that purpose. Such measures must fulfil the tests of reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality.327. The Tribunal has given careful and detailed consideration to the types of protest actions that could reasonably be considered as constituting an interference with the exercise of those sovereign rights, particularly in the context of the case at hand. In that regard, the Tribunal considers that it would be reasonable for a coastal State to act to prevent: (i) violations of its laws adopted in conformity with the Convention; (ii) dangerous situations that can result in injuries to persons and damage to equipment and installations; (iii) negative environmental consequences (see paragraphs 307 to 313 above); and (iv) delay or interruption in essential operations. All of these are legitimate interests of coastal States.328. At the same time, the coastal State should tolerate some level of nuisance through civilian protest as long as it does not amount to an "interference with the exercise of its sovereign rights." Due regard must be given to rights of other States, including the right to allow vessels flying their flag to protest.310
All the way down we were talking about it. I think I took a line from an old movie that Doug and I were both familiar with at one point. Because under the g-load of about 4.2 g I said to him, "Want to get some coffee?"
Quote from: Mandella on 08/04/2020 06:22 pmQuote from: tyrred on 08/04/2020 09:43 amLooks like someone made a good call covering up the side windows.That *is* interesting. As far as I know the view that covering the windows to reduce MMOD risk was speculation. It would be interesting if in fact the decision was based on re-entry modeling that showed unacceptable heat to that area.To me this looks more like ablative residue than actual scorching. But I'm as far from an expert in this as can be.
