Looks like the Google Lunar X-Prize is actually going to happen!

[magnemoe]

On 5.8.2016 at 5:10 PM, Shpaget said:

They have a permission from someone who does not have the authority to give permission. Such permission is not worth the paper it's written on.

Who gives permission to land on the moon?
 

[Kryten]

43 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Who gives permission to land on the moon?

For commercial operations from the US, the FAA. FAA are the regulatory body for all commercial spaceflight in the US.

[Streetwind]

4 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Who gives permission to land on the moon?
 

It is a formality that the United Nations requests of member states that ratified the Outer Space Treaty.

Said treaty says "member states must provide authorization and oversight for their commercial entities". In other words, if a commercial company wants to land on the moon, the UN member nation they are registered in is formally required to tell the UN: "okay, we have taken notice that they are doing this, we have checked their plans and intentions, we determined that the proposed mission complies with the Outer Space Treaty, and we will continue to watch them do this all the way so we can ensure that no breach of the Outer Space Treaty is going to take place".

It is not so much getting permission to land on the Moon, but rather getting permission to represent the member state in outer space - getting permission for the state to formally take over the burden of responsibility towards the UN, instead of the commercial company having to do it themselves. Which they could not, because the OST doesn't have a provision for it.

[Shpaget]

10 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Who gives permission to land on the moon?
 

I can give you one if you ask me nicely. It's worth as much as any permission the FAA might give you.

 

5 hours ago, Streetwind said:

It is a formality that the United Nations requests of member states that ratified the Outer Space Treaty.

Said treaty says "member states must provide authorization and oversight for their commercial entities". In other words, if a commercial company wants to land on the moon, the UN member nation they are registered in is formally required to tell the UN: "okay, we have taken notice that they are doing this, we have checked their plans and intentions, we determined that the proposed mission complies with the Outer Space Treaty, and we will continue to watch them do this all the way so we can ensure that no breach of the Outer Space Treaty is going to take place".

It is not so much getting permission to land on the Moon, but rather getting permission to represent the member state in outer space - getting permission for the state to formally take over the burden of responsibility towards the UN, instead of the commercial company having to do it themselves. Which they could not, because the OST doesn't have a provision for it.

I'm unable to find "member states must provide authorization and oversight for their commercial entities" part in the OST. Which article is it from?

Anyway, what "member states must provide authorization and oversight for their commercial entities" means is this:
"Oh, somebody told us that they are going up there so we're just going to nod our heads in approval and twiddle our thumbs while they do it, maybe shake an angry finger if they mess something up. Not like we can stop them or anything." 
It certainly does not mean "no commercial entities will operate in outer space without approval from the member state, under the penalty of this and that". Nor does it detail and define on which parameters would a government give or deny a permission for a space mission.

Not only is OST unenforceable and has no penal system for those that defy it, UN itself is almost entirely toothless and completely so when it comes to individuals and private companies. It has absolutely no power over them.

And I will say it again, there are plenty of countries that are not signatories to the OST. Setting up a daughter company in any such country is perfectly legal and circumvents the OST, for whatever OST is worth.

[Streetwind]

I'm simply not going to discuss anything with you while you keep being hostile. Since you've demonstrated basic reading ability by being here, I'm sure you can find the relevant article yourself.

[Shpaget]

Just because you don't agree with my point of view it doesn't mean I'm hostile. I've been nothing but polite and calm.
You may argue that I'm dismissive regarding OST, but I believe I've provided reasoning behind my every statement.

I've also been polite in pointing out that you are misquoting the OST. I went through two independent copies of OST, and neither contains the statement you posted. It says something slightly different.
"The activities of non-governmental 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."
Which brings me to my previous point of there being no guidelines or regulations regarding the authorization process, or what does this "continuing supervision" mean and entail.

[Streetwind]

Nothing but polite? Hardly. If your behavior here in this thread is your definition of politeness, then I feel incredibly sorry for you. If someone were to talk to me IRL like you have here, I would simply stand up from my chair and leave the room without a word.

But sure, let's put all that aside and stay on topic. You found Article VI and quoted it above, so we're both on the same page now.

Here's the part where you are fully correct: there are no guidelines in Article VI, or anywhere else in the Outer Space Treaty, how this kind of "authorization and continuing supervision" is supposed to be implemented or audited. However, this doesn't just let you ignore Article VI. If you as a state signed this treaty, then you have committed to show your compliance with every article, including this one. How? Well, since there's nothing written in the treaty, that is completely up to you to decide. Which is where the bit of news comes in for which I originally started this thread.

Let me quote myself from the opening post:

On 4.8.2016 at 10:59 AM, Streetwind said:

But... how does the US government authorize and supervise Moon Express during its mission? Nothing like that has ever happened. There are no protocolls, no processes, no agencies tasked or equipped for such a thing!

Which is precisely why this is so important. On one hand, it established a precedent that future requests like this can refer to. (...) On the other hand, it impressed on the US government the need to formally establish processes, which they have now started to talk about in earnest.

From the start, I have acknowledged that there are no provisions for this kind of thing. That any country has to make it up on the spot themselves. This is not news.

The thing that's news is that now, for the first time in the history of the Outer Space Treaty, someone actually looked at Article VI, said to themselves "there are no provisions, we have to make something up" and went to act on it. The very thing you say is missing is now being drafted up. Which is why I am incredibly confused how you can keep arguing this point after two pages of discussion. it was literally brought up and checked off right there in the opening post.

If you want to base your arguments on the OST being essentially unenforcable - that's kind of a non-argument as well. Of course it isn't. It is a diplomatic agreement between sovereign nations. No diplomatic agreement between sovereign nations is enforcable. None ever has been enforcable in the history of mankind. The very nature of such an agreement makes it impossible to enforce, because the agreeing parties are already the highest tier of enforcing power that exists. There is nothing above which could hold both parties equally responsible. (This is also why the UN is often considered essentially powerless: because the UN, too, is ultimately just a diplomatic agreement between sovereign nations. It cannot enforce itself, and therefore it cannot enforce anything on its member states.)

However, this doesn't render a signed treaty meaningless. If it did, civilization as we know it would not exist - even the simplest peace treaty would hold no meaning. This is where diplomacy comes in. Diplomacy is the act of ascribing meaning to unenforcable agreements, the act of a nation voluntarily holding itself to a set of moral values shared between the partners of an agreement. The reason for such voluntary action can be many: perhaps a peace treaty is signed and honored to lessen the suffering of the populace. Perhaps a military alliance is honored to protect your nation's economic interests. And perhaps the United Nations and the Outer Space Treaty are honored because it demonstrates to other nations that you are a reliable and trustworthy state that stands by their word, someone worthy of free trade and friendship, which boosts the wealth and safety of your people. Or perhaps even for the altruistic hope that ultimately, humanity should be as one... who knows.

Treaties like the OST are therefore self-enforced. Honoring it serves the signing nation's own ends, and therefore the signing nation has a vested interest in honoring it. Should it fail to do so, it will suffer not enforcement, but rather consequences: loss of face and diplomatic credit, loss of trade, economic sanctions, loss of support for its international plans of action. It is no coincidence that the nations in this world with the fewest friends and allies, the least trade and the highest amounts of sanctions are the poorest countries in the world. Yes, they can continue to exist as sovereign nations just fine. Nobody can force them to play the same game as other nations. However, they also can't participate in what other nations share amongst each other. They will be outsiders forever unless they change their ways.

This is why the United States now goes and aims to develop a means to comply with Article VI of the OST. And they will do it properly - not just a stamp on a piece of paper that says 'yeah yeah, stuff is approved', but rather a real and proper process in which a government agency closely examines, formally authorizes and continues to work with any non-government entities through their ventures into outer space. A process that stands up to international scrutiny. The US does this not because they are forced to do this; they do it because it serves their own interests, and aligns with their own moral compass. They want a process drafted up that they can hold under the noses of every other signatory of the OST and say: "look here folks, this is how you do it." And also: "you can turn this every which way you want, you will not find us shirking our responsibility in any way. We can be trusted." And then every other signatory of the OST will have to nod their head and agree, conceding the point that the US just gained diplomatic credit.

And this, by the way, is also what vets the approval that the US grants to its commercial entities - what turns this whole 'we had to make this up ourselves' thing into something that's internationally recognized and valid. Permission to land on the Moon is given by 'mankind' as a whole - and thus by proxy, by the signing nations of the Outer Space Treaty (which in its articles grants the ownership of the Moon to mankind as a whole). If the US gives permission and the other nations find no fault, then the permission is valid; if the US gives permission and the other nations protest it, then it is invalid, and the US must find better ways to appease and satisfy their international partners (or risk snubbing them with an unilateral action). If a nation that has not signed the OST allows one of its commercial entities to land on the Moon, the other nations are going to pressure that country to sign the OST. If they refuse, there will be consequences. Not enforcement, but consequences.

I hope that with this, I was able to make you see where I'm coming from.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Streetwind
Typos, typos everywhere!

[Vanamonde]

Come back to this discussion some other time when tempers have cooled.