NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/space/19112

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-10 | 6.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: question on privately funded space colonization
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 93 22:51:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0nu7q.My9.1
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Lines: 102
Approved: bboard-news_gateway
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: [e-mail]


-From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
-Subject: Re: question on privately funded space colonization
-Date: 10 Jan 93 05:34:23 GMT
-Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

-In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
->...Your complaint is that US citizens can't circumvent US safety
->regulations by going overseas. I don't see why they can't launch and also
->conform to the safety regulations.

-John, are you under the impression that safety is the only reason why the
-US government can refuse permission for a launch?

No, I've also heard of government objections or theoretical objections to
specific launch proposals on the grounds of national security, environmental
impact, and (to a widely varying extent) protection of the domestic launch
industry. (The last is not equivalent to forbidding overseas launches,
since at least *some* foreign launches are generally permitted, and since
a the hardware to be launched overseas could have been purchased in the US.)
Herman did not specify which existing laws he was referring to, but my
recollection from his posts of the last year or so is that one of his main
areas of complaint has been US organizations being subjected to US safety
regulations for foreign launches. I should have asked Herman to specify
which legal points he objected to, not just safety regulations.

-Would that it were so.
-If you want to fly a plane, that's more or less true.  But if you want to
-launch a rocket, they can refuse permission because it is "not in the
-national interest", they don't have to explain, and there is no appeal.

I don't claim to be an expert on US politics and law, but I've read millions
of words on those subjects, and I live in a part of the country where
the working of the US government counts as "local news". I've heard of
the US government blocking the activities of US citizens for many reasons,
including the reasons I mentioned above, but I've never heard of any
activity of US citizens being blocked by the US government with the
official reason being given as quote it is not in the national interest
unquote. Can anyone come up with a more concrete indication that such a
legal provision exists exactly as stated, and perhaps some discussion on
how it came about, and under which conditions it is likely to be used?

-For example, for some years it was government policy that any private
-remote-sensing satellite with ground resolution better than 30m would
-be denied launch permission.

That's on the grounds of military security, not some abstract, unspecified
"national interest". Allen says that there's been a recent change in this
particular policy, though I don't think he mentioned specific resolution
limits.

-One of the more interesting provisions of the late, lamented Commercial
-Space Incentive Act was a clause exempting launches carried out under it
-from DOT regulation *except* for safety.

->... And consider human rights issues - suppose
->US citizens set up a colony on the moon, and decide to revive the
->institution of slavery - would you say the US would have no legitimate
->interest in the matter?

-Suppose we stack the deck the other way.  US citizens set up a lunar
-colony.  The US then gets involved in a nasty little war in a country
-named, say, Nam Viet, and reinstates the draft.  Some of the residents
-of the lunar colony are draft-age, and they are ordered to report to
-an induction center.  They refuse, noting that slavery was abolished
-in the US over a century ago, and that the constitutional amendment
-which did it made no exception for the US Army.  The colony's government
                                                  -----------------------
Let's assume for the sake of argument that what you mean is more or less
equivalent to "national government" - so the colony is not just an
activity by a US corporation, for instance - it's a political entity,
which interacts with and makes agreements with the nations of Earth.

-backs them, noting that the Neocommunist revolutionary movement in
-Nam Viet presents no threat to the colony.  Does the US have a legitimate
-interest in *this* matter?

Well, let's look at historical precedent. Suppose the lunar government has
signed an extradition treaty with the US that includes extradition for
draft evasion. Then the US has a right to expect the evaders to be
returned (assuming they're still regarded as US citizens). If, however,
the lunar colony (let's call it Adanac [Note1]) has signed no such treaty,
then the US has little recourse to get the evaders back, and evaders who
manage to escape from the US and get to Adanac can reasonably expect to
be able to sit out the war, and perhaps even be pardoned several
administrations later. Of course, if the US-Adanacians start building
military bases and dropping rocks on the US, and this is condoned by
the government of Adanac, then the US might be inclined to try use of
economic or military pressure to alleviate the situation.

To try to get the topic somewhat back on track, I interpreted Herman's
post to suggest that Earth governments will always seek to control
establishment of humanity off-earth, out of an evil desire to suppress
human freedom. I theorized that if governments show an interest in the
form of government chosen elsewhere, the motives are not necessarily
always evil, and the results are not always guaranteed to be a net suppression
of human freedom.

[Note 1]: National anthem: "Adanac Ho!"

John Roberts
[e-mail]