The Legal Has Landed [article]

[eye2i2hear]

New Scientist Magazine Wrote:The legal has landed
09 March 2011
Magazine issue 2802. Subscribe and save

Space law needs to catch up with plans for private lunar exploration

THE space movement's centre of gravity has shifted. NASA no longer rules the heavens; instead it must defer to Silicon Valley, where rich entrepreneurs are turning their vision of privately funded space exploration into reality. Leading the way is Google and its $20 million Lunar X Prize, the GLXP, which is designed to open space to all comers (see "Moon millions: Space firms chase Google's lunar lucre").

Appropriately, the technology driving this new space race was invented in the Valley itself. It is no longer necessary to have the resources of a government to go to the moon. Commercially available technologies have become sophisticated enough to run a space programme. One team is considering controlling a lunar rover from an iPhone.

But once this technological wizardry and entrepreneurial zeal delivers, we will come face to face with and entrepreneurial zeal delivers, we will come face to face with a question that is already nagging: is space law up to the job? Though the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the foundation of existing space law, has worked well till now, lawyers increasingly worry that some of its provisions are in need of a rethink.

For example, the treaty states that nobody can own any part of the moon. A company that lands a rover cannot plant a flag and claim ownership. Confusingly, the treaty also permits the exploitation of the resources of outer space--which includes the moon--"without interference", and defines any piece of equipment sent there as private property in perpetuity.

What that means in practice is that once equipment is on the moon, no one is permitted to damage it. That would prohibit anyone from landing near enough to endanger it with thrusters. We have ended up with what looks an awful lot like ad hoc property rights: once your rover is there, you effectively own the land it is sitting on. With 29 companies competing for the $20 million prize, the potential for conflict is clear.

Perhaps the most important question concerns sterilisation. The 1967 treaty states that space exploration should avoid "harmful contamination" of celestial bodies, but it contains no directive requiring craft to be sterilized. This was not a problem when governments were the gatekeepers of space. Now, with all kinds of entities in the running, it's not clear what the rules are, or who is in charge.

For the GLXP, contamination is not an issue: the moon is as dead as a doornail. But that's not necessarily true of Mars or Europa or any of the future twinkles in Google's eye. If the prize proves anything, it is that we will go as far as our technology can take us. It's time for the law to catch up.

[right]--New Scientist Magazine[/right]
:rolleyes: [optional: que up the ole Led Who The Song Remains The Same/Won't Get Fooled Again here]

[Dionysus]

eye2i2hear Wrote:

New Scientist Magazine Wrote:It is no longer necessary to have the resources of a government to [strike]go[/strike] fake going to the moon.

Fixed.

[eye2i2hear]

Dionysus Wrote:

New Scientist Magazine Wrote:It is no longer necessary to have the resources of a government to [strike]go[/strike] fake going to the moon.

Fixed.

dang! now why you wanna go an stir up NonE's feathers/hornet's nest/moon beams!?! :frobro: (fro instead of tinfoil)

:winkwink:

[fwiw: I dunno where eye's@ on this lunar but-- nor whether Paul is dead/Elvis is alive etal [shuffles off here hearing Red Rider's Lunatic Fringe refrain...]
[right][youtube]oI8ZoWrUrCs[/youtube]
We all know you're out there... can you feel The Resistance...[/right]

[Dionysus]

Where does NonE fall on the moon landing debate? Is he pro-hoax?

Oh, and Paul is dead, and so is Elvis.

[eye2i2hear]

speaking of...

[mmv/ce]