Wrong, the "damage" listed in the Liability Convention is very specific, it has nothing to do with forward planetary protection:
Wrong, the "damage" listed in the Liability Convention is very specific, it has nothing to do with forward planetary protection:
When the USG signed and ratified the OST, the USG agreed to “carry on [its] space activities in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations”. That includes international environmental laws and principles. The USG is bound by its signature and ratification to ensure that any entity launching from US soil complies (and has done so for decades now).
Preface
P.1 Purpose
a. This directive defines NASA’s obligation to avoid harmful forward and backward biological
contamination under Article IX of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in
the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the
"Outer Space Treaty"), October 19, 1967.
If there is still no COSPAR human planetary mission standard to copy, NASA and the FAA will need to promulgate something that conforms to the relevant principles under international environmental law.
Oh btw, the experts in the field already said we should reclassify much of Mars surface to Category II, there're papers and National Academy report on this.
It seems to me that your principal objection is that you want Starships to be able to land on the surface right now, and other interests be damned.
None of the other international laws the US has signed can serve as the legal basis for planetary protection, NASA's own document made it clear that Article IX of OST is the sole reason they're doing planetary protection:
So I'm not sure what you're even arguing here, since this is exactly what I said up thread and what my ITU example illustrates: The US government is not bound to COSPAR guidelines.
It seems to me that your principal objection is that you want Starships to be able to land on the surface right now, and other interests be damned. To be honest, my inner 5-year-old wants the same thing. But I'm not five, and I understand that somebody's going to have to do some diplomatic work before we have a resolution. I'm not sure why you don't understand the same thing.
Please join NASA’s Science Mission Directorate for a series of workshops aimed at discussing the priority science goals and Planetary Protection knowledge gaps that NASA should address in advance of human presence on the surface of Mars.
Actually no, I don't want it right now, since nobody needs it right now.
I do want it to be ready when SpaceX is ready to send Starship to Mars, which I estimate would happen by 2026 or 2028.
It's like what Gerst said in front of Congress, flight hardware should not be waiting for paperwork, that should never be allowed to happen.
But as I said before, this will be resolved by a US planetary protection policy for human mission to Mars created by NASA PPO, regardless of what COSPAR thinks.
I've been waiting since the 1960's for people to land on Mars, so "right now" would be great.
The problem is, and has always been, that planetary protection is great, but it won't survive colonisation...
You can choose planetary protection, or you can colonise. You can't realistically have both.
Actually no, I don't want it right now, since nobody needs it right now.
I do want it to be ready when SpaceX is ready to send Starship to Mars, which I estimate would happen by 2026 or 2028.
Ah, so you want a Mars Starship right now, as well.
None of the other international laws the US has signed can serve as the legal basis for planetary protection, NASA's own document made it clear that Article IX of OST is the sole reason they're doing planetary protection:
Nowhere in that excerpt does NASA claim that the OST or a certain section of it is the “sole reason” NASA pursues “planetary protection”. That’s your spin and words, not what is actually written.
All NASA is saying is that their planetary protection processes conform to US obligations under the OST. That’s it. And what the OST says with respect to member obligations is that members will “carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations”. This means that NASA’s planetary protection guidelines have to meet whatever international environmental law and principles are relevant. The shorthand for this to date has been COSPAR’s planetary protection guidelines for robotic missions.
1-I don't have time
2-to go round and round over this
3-especially when people are not arguing in good faith.
What? Didn't you just claim COSPAR’s planetary protection guideline is NOT international law in the other thread, now you're claiming it is an international law which NASA planetary protection has to meet?
There're no other international environmental laws that are relevant to planetary protection, in fact planetary protection has nothing to do with protecting Mars environment/life at all.
Thinking about Mars samples/sample return, it occurred to me that even if the samples collected to date are not returned, in the future they might be valuable for having been sealed before humans contaminate the planet. While not pre-human-robot, still pre-human.
A money saving strategy would be to cache as many samples on Mars as possible without worrying about retrieving them. Let the humans who some day go pick em up when they get there.
The important thing is the science, not when it gets done. Spend the MSR $$$ to cache more samples. Scientists (someday) get unsullied samples, humans get to go to Mars. Not sure how the international partners are kept happy.