California Company Gets Approval to Put Robotic Lander on Moon | Hacker News Reader

California Company Gets Approval to Put Robotic Lander on Moon

nytimes.com

28 pointsjbredeche21 comments

From the article:

First, Florida, not California.

Second, the lede:

"Moon Express, based in Cape Canaveral, Fla., announced Wednesday that it had received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration to set a robotic lander on the moon.

That feat would win the Google Lunar X Prize competition for the first private organization to reach the moon and an accompanying $20 million reward."

> Correction: August 3, 2016

> An earlier version of this article gave an outdated location for the headquarters of Moon Express. The company is now based in Cape Canaveral, Fla., not Mountain View, Calif. The error was repeated in the headline.

Thank you.

And why does anyone need permission to land on the moon?

From the article: The Outer Space Treaty prohibits nations from claiming sovereignty over the moon or other parts of the solar system. It also states: “The activities of nongovernmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate state party to the treaty.”

Violating the Outer Space Treaty would be a cool thing to go to jail for.

"What are you in for?" "Robbed a liquor store. You?" "Violated the Outer Space Treaty." "...huh..."

I agree, if I had to go to prison for something, I'd pick that.

True. Though what would happen if you launched your lunar vehicle from a platform on international waters?

Loophole? Or do we now get to mix in Maritime Law as well as the Outer Space Treaty, which is an even cooler jail story in the making...

Just have to launch it from one of the counties that did not sign the treaty.

That'd make you an Outer Space Pirate.

Mark Watney, Space Pirate.

I wonder if there are countries that didn't sign it.

Yes, quite a few

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

the best is the Holy See.

There's an old scifi novel where a religious organization survives a nuclear apocalypse by being the only remaining organization with enough forethought to build a space rocket instead of a bomb.

Wiki says holy see signed but didn't ratify. Don't know what that means tho.

Short version as I see it: many countries require their parliaments to decide on entering a treaty, but they may want to indicate their intent to enter earlier, for example during an official signing session. The UN has the official explanation, though. http://ask.un.org/faq/14594:

"Signature Subject to Ratification, Acceptance or Approval

Where the signature is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, the signature does not establish the consent to be bound. However, it is a means of authentication and expresses the willingness of the signatory state to continue the treaty-making process. The signature qualifies the signatory state to proceed to ratification, acceptance or approval. It also creates an obligation to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and the purpose of the treaty.

[Arts.10 and 18, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]

Ratification

Ratification defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, while in the case of multilateral treaties the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties informed of the situation. The institution of ratification grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty."

There also is such a thing as "Signature ad Referendum"

I feel like a space launch complex would take up about 85% of the land mass.

Wow, Latvia, Croatia, Qatar? These aren't exactly high-tech countries but they do seem stable enough that they could host an aerospace company's operations.

It doesn't matter much. The treaty signing countries will just treat the non treaty signing countries as if they had signed the treaty.

If you claim the moon for Latvia, the rest of the world will refuse to acknowledge it. If you put nukes in space, it better be enough to win the war you just started. And if you damage some equipment in space, your country will probably get embargoed until you pay for it.

Comeon, we're not foolish and hubristic enough to fuckin claim the moon. Hell, we wouldn't claim anything. We'd just say that we're exploring for all of humanity and harvesting our operating expenses from the 'belt.

No nukes required, except for some nuclear reactors to power our ships. Does the USG really want to chase after some simple scavengers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com