NationStates

I did not expect this to be at vote so soon. The original draft thread can be found here

Debris Prevention
Environmental/Manufacturing

SEEKING to protect access to space for all nations

DISTRESSED by the rapidly increasing accumulation of debris in orbit

RECOGNIZING that prolonged accumulation of debris in orbit can impede space travel and orbital operations

RESOLVING to reduce the amount of debris in orbit

INSTRUCTS member nations to have systems in place to certify the compliance of objects planned to be launched into orbit with the guidelines of this resolution

REQUIRES member nations to take all action necessary to prevent the launch of objects from their territory into orbit that have not been certified as compliant with this resolution, allowing exceptions only when loss of life would occur as a result of such actions

In order to reduce the quantity of potentially harmful debris in orbit, all objects launched into space must have the following abilities and are required to take the following actions

A- To Deorbit in one of the following fashions prior to becoming nonfunctional:
1- Complete deterioration into non damaging remains during descent and prior to collision
2- Landing or collision in international waters, unclaimed undeveloped territory, or the territory of nations that consent to the collision or landing
3- Entering into a junk orbit assigned by WASP
4- Any method that removes the object from the vicinity of the body it previously orbited without harming other artificial objects in orbit

B- To Maneuver in order to avoid other objects in orbit in order to prevent damage of property

STATES that WASP will take into account the desires and needs of the relevant nations when assigning a junk orbit and will not contradict orbital classifications around a celestial body created by any entity representing, with consent of the governed, all nations on that body

CLARIFIES that this resolution will not impede or restrict the rights of nations to do battle in space so long as all damage done is part of a declared act of war against the owner of the object, the nation the object was launched from, or if the object services or benefits the enemy

And what a surprise.... A Mouse stack against...

Shame. I thought you had some pretty good legislation here. Too bad it went down in flames because such an influential member is in a position to exercise so much power over legislation.

Chester Pearson wrote:And what a surprise.... A Mouse stack against...

Shame. I thought you had some pretty good legislation here. Too bad it went down in flames because such an influential member is in a position to exercise so much power over legislation.

Its curious- I can't understand the motivation. I will wait until morning before seeing it a direct request for answers is warranted.

In the meantime, I'm more than happy to address all concerns from the voters. To their individual credit, they appear to be resisting severe lemming patterns so far.

Edit: and there goes TEP. How strange it is, that after looking at their forums and members, it doesn't appear that there been any discussion on the topic.

I am curious as to why people vote against this resolution... Is manufacturing industry that big of a concern?

Given how Panait doesn't really have a space programme, we vote yes solely because the category is environmental.

Defwa wrote:

Chester Pearson wrote:And what a surprise.... A Mouse stack against...

Shame. I thought you had some pretty good legislation here. Too bad it went down in flames because such an influential member is in a position to exercise so much power over legislation.

Its curious- I can't understand the motivation. I will wait until morning before seeing it a direct request for answers is warranted.

In the meantime, I'm more than happy to address all concerns from the voters. To their individual credit, they appear to be resisting severe lemming patterns so far.

Edit: and there goes TEP. How strange it is, that after looking at their forums and members, it doesn't appear that there been any discussion on the topic.

Don't kid yourself. There are quite a few GCR delegates that are lemmings as well.

As it stands I voted in favour of this, and hope that people will see a shred of reason here. If this fails based upon a stack of a certain member, then it will just go to show the levels of elitism that the WA has degraded to....

Defwa wrote:Its curious- I can't understand the motivation.

What I find bizarre is the lack of explanation on the forums. What is the point of drafting here if people will not express their opposition until a proposal goes to vote? What is the point of insisting all proposals must be publicly drafted if not all comments will be publicly made?

I do not understand why there are so many against this proposal.

We vot AGAINST. The WA has no authority in outer space. They don't own it, they don't make the rules. And our astrophysicists know what they are doing. They aren't stupid.

Panait wrote:I am curious as to why people vote against this resolution... Is manufacturing industry that big of a concern?

Given how Panait doesn't really have a space programme, we vote yes solely because the category is environmental.

As would the Democratic Republic of Rhonde Island, except for the final point of allowing for space-based warfare and weopons... The DRRI wholly objects to any legislation that allows for the weoponization of space, especially earth orbit, where even non-participating parties may be affected.

Jakuso wrote:We vot AGAINST. The WA has no authority in outer space. They don't own it, they don't make the rules. And our astrophysicists know what they are doing. They aren't stupid.

Well then, does your nation own it? Have you considered that other nations are also doing space travel and debris is a big problem? Who is to say some nation's astrophysicists aren't stupid? (Yes, I'm looking at the one that crashed millions worth of equipment because there was an Imperial/Metric misunderstanding)

Anyway. The WA doesn't have authority in outer space, but they have authority over us. They are also an international collection of countries to make rules for everyone in the collection. In fact, we are attempting to make rules right now. As many wiser minds will tell you, if you don't like the rules they're making, feel free to leave.

Democratic Republic of Rhonde Island wrote:... The DRRI wholly objects to any legislation that allows for the weoponization of space, especially earth orbit, where even non-participating parties may be affected.

Panait is quite a Pacifist nation, so we most certainly agree that weaponization of space shouldn't really be allowed. Given that, however, this resolution mainly addresses the situation of space debris affecting potential space exploitation, and the wording of this resolution, which I hereby quote, "CLARIFIES that this resolution will not impede or restrict the rights of nations to do battle in space..." clearly stated that they are letting it be as it currently is, and is pursuing a status quo on that issue. Since it does not in any way advocate the weaponization of space, our government is willing to overlook its status quo on such an issue.

Panait wrote:Panait is quite a Pacifist nation, so we most certainly agree that weaponization of space shouldn't really be allowed. Given that, however, this resolution mainly addresses the situation of space debris affecting potential space exploitation, and the wording of this resolution, which I hereby quote, "CLARIFIES that this resolution will not impede or restrict the rights of nations to do battle in space..." clearly stated that they are letting it be as it currently is, and is pursuing a status quo on that issue. Since it does not in any way advocate the weaponization of space, our government is willing to overlook its status quo on such an issue.

"We agree with your analysis. The proposal is essentially neutral on the issue of space-based warfare. If the WA in the future banned all space-based warfare, it wouldn't conflict with this proposal."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

Clover spoke up "I must apologize, I admit to not being around for the drafting phase, sometimes it is difficult to balance domestic and international responsibilities, with only so much time in a day. So, to the draft...

While we, as a people, are keenly interested in the stars, we observe them from the ground only. We do not believe in these tales we hear of others actually going to the stars, or into space. Such a thing would be impossible.

Assuming one believes these tales however, this resolution would seem to place many restrictions on nations with these abilities, at the expense of nations who are just beginning to create a space program. Assuming the tales are true, and this is indeed an issue, I cannot vote for something that places so many restrictions on those attempting to create a space program, when others had the advantage of no such restrictions when they began. That said, I can offer tentative support on the resolution to remove this debris, should it exist."

A new Applebanian ambassador walks into the hall, smoking a pipe. he takes it out to speak.

"Applebania supports the removal of debris from planetary orbits and interplanetary transport routes, though also disposes of much of its waste in areas of space outside of common transport routes, in what we refer to as spacefills. Nonetheless, we are voting in favour."

Normlpeople wrote:...Assuming one believes these tales however, this resolution would seem to place many restrictions on nations with these abilities, at the expense of nations who are just beginning to create a space program. Assuming the tales are true, and this is indeed an issue, I cannot vote for something that places so many restrictions on those attempting to create a space program, when others had the advantage of no such restrictions when they began....

While the restrictions may seem to be quite burdensome for fledgling space programs, complying with A-1/A-2 and B really requires only additional mass. It's annoying to have to strap a maneuvering system onto what is intended to be a stationary object in a more-or-less constant orbit, but as far as building rockets capable of boosting the extra mass to orbit, it's a change in quantity, not quality.

Does this make space programs in general more expensive? Yes. Due to the tyranny of the rocket equation, each measure of increased payload requires several times that measure of extra fuel (which then requires its own additional fuel, etc.). This unquestionably makes space travel more expensive, as non-compliant systems are noticeably lighter, and thus cheaper to deploy.

But precisely these same nations for whom this resolution would be a burden now, will derive incalculable future benefits when they aren't faced with the problem of having to clean up or avoid several decades (and hundreds of tons) of defunct garbage flying at their astronauts and assets at several kilometers per second. The orbital debris problem is a serious one even for more advanced civilizations; if it can be nipped in the bud even a little for those countries just starting out, you'll find it worth the extra initial expense and trouble.

OOC: I have only half an idea what this is talking about - largely due to SL's nice little explanation (reminds me somewhat like the A340 and its engines), but the lack of punctuation irks me so much I've to cast a no vote.

Apologies in advance.

In trying to keep in posts down by waiting between replies against my usual style of replying in real time to everything.

Panait wrote:I am curious as to why people vote against this resolution... Is manufacturing industry that big of a concern?

Given how Panait doesn't really have a space programme, we vote yes solely because the category is environmental.

Definitely part of the problem is people who vote based on the category and not at all on the merits of the proposal itself.

Jakuso wrote:We vot AGAINST. The WA has no authority in outer space. They don't own it, they don't make the rules. And our astrophysicists know what they are doing. They aren't stupid.

What happened to him now?
For the benefit of the reader, I will reply anyway.
The WA doesn't have jurisdiction over any territory. Its the governments.
Regardless, we hope that the reason yakus is an ex nation has nothing to do with a falling space station.

Democratic Republic of Rhonde Island wrote:As would the Democratic Republic of Rhonde Island, except for the final point of allowing for space-based warfare and weopons... The DRRI wholly objects to any legislation that allows for the weoponization of space, especially earth orbit, where even non-participating parties may be affected.

I understand your concern. The exception was necessary to ensure I wasn't accidently legislating in the topic at there was not sufficient room in the resolution of the category to do so properly.
Note, however "so long as all damage done is part of a declared act of war against the owner of the object" which means the resolution will kick back into effect of uninvolved parties are hit.

Applebania wrote:A new Applebanian ambassador walks into the hall, smoking a pipe. he takes it out to speak.

"Applebania supports the removal of debris from planetary orbits and interplanetary transport routes, though also disposes of much of its waste in areas of space outside of common transport routes, in what we refer to as spacefills. Nonetheless, we are voting in favour."

That would have been easy to include. Sorry I hadn't thought of it earlier.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Normlpeople wrote:...Assuming one believes these tales however, this resolution would seem to place many restrictions on nations with these abilities, at the expense of nations who are just beginning to create a space program. Assuming the tales are true, and this is indeed an issue, I cannot vote for something that places so many restrictions on those attempting to create a space program, when others had the advantage of no such restrictions when they began....

While the restrictions may seem to be quite burdensome for fledgling space programs, complying with A-1/A-2 and B really requires only additional mass. It's annoying to have to strap a maneuvering system onto what is intended to be a stationary object in a more-or-less constant orbit, but as far as building rockets capable of boosting the extra mass to orbit, it's a change in quantity, not quality.

Does this make space programs in general more expensive? Yes. Due to the tyranny of the rocket equation, each measure of increased payload requires several times that measure of extra fuel (which then requires its own additional fuel, etc.). This unquestionably makes space travel more expensive, as non-compliant systems are noticeably lighter, and thus cheaper to deploy.

But precisely these same nations for whom this resolution would be a burden now, will derive incalculable future benefits when they aren't faced with the problem of having to clean up or avoid several decades (and hundreds of tons) of defunct garbage flying at their astronauts and assets at several kilometers per second. The orbital debris problem is a serious one even for more advanced civilizations; if it can be nipped in the bud even a little for those countries just starting out, you'll find it worth the extra initial expense and trouble.

I understand the issue, though. Luckily, the difficulty of deorbitting is a little overstated. It does require some additional fuel, yes, but in the end, a lack of experience should not be an excuse for endangering people. Also notable, is that this resolution does not punish nations of something doesn't work so there is still a margin for error during those early times

Elke and Elba wrote:OOC: I have only half an idea what this is talking about - largely due to SL's nice little explanation (reminds me somewhat like the A340 and its engines), but the lack of punctuation irks me so much I've to cast a no vote.

Apologies in advance.

OOC you... You're kidding, right?

Our nation has no desire to send anything into orbit. However the arguments here are reasonable. I would have hoped that a better solution might be found, perhaps a committee to actually go into space, collect all the debris, place them in recycle bags and return them for proper recycling, (and considering how much industry is going to actually pay for this I can't see how that isn't possible) but it's not a deal breaker for me. So we are voting for this.

The delegation from the Commonwealth is pleased to hear that the World Assembly is taking steps to ensure that we are preserving our world for future generations.

We gladly vote YES to this resolution.

Chester Pearson wrote:And what a surprise.... A Mouse stack against...

Shame. I thought you had some pretty good legislation here. Too bad it went down in flames because such an influential member is in a position to exercise so much power over legislation.

Mouse stacks against have been overcome in the past...

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:I would have hoped that a better solution might be found, perhaps a committee to actually go into space, collect all the debris, place them in recycle bags and return them for proper recycling, (and considering how much industry is going to actually pay for this I can't see how that isn't possible)

OOC:

"Who are these unnamed unspoken majority voters that are against this?!" Sia asks bewildered.

"The Kingdom of Annadelle does not have much of a space program and we do not eject waste into outer space but we do realize the good intentions of this bill and that, being beneficial for the planet as a whole and noting widespread opposition without cause, I vote AYE for this resolution."

~Kristoffer Bjorkman, Annadelle Royal Ambassador to the World Assembly

Hakio wrote:"Who are these unnamed unspoken majority voters that are against this?!" Sia asks bewildered.

They're not a majority. At least, not much of one.

So far the most massive delegates who have voted have voted against, for reasons they have not bothered to disclose to the broader Assembly. At this writing the seven largest delegate votes FOR have a total vote count of 254, while the seven largest delegate votes AGAINST have a total vote count of 1,438. Among the actual electorate, the resolution is barely losing: 933 for to 1,124 against.

OK:

1) the "actual electorate" numbers excludes the number of delegates who voted for/against (who despite being regional officers are still voters)

2) 1,124 votes is still a comfortable majority of non-delegate votes (55%).

That said, the Federal Republic rises in favor of this resolution, and rightly rails against a corrupt elite for short-changing the democratic process and squelching the people's voices from being heard. Granted, many of these "populist" voices actually represent cruel and tyrannical regimes, many of which run by certifiable nutjobs (including the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny), but still.

~ Jimmy Baca, Ambassador at Large

I extend my gratitude to all supporters in this chamber, I only regret that I cannot quote you all efficiently due to my appearing via telecom drone.

I have tried to contact a handful of the voting delegates but have not had a response.
At this moment, I am outside of what may be an empty office waiting for a secretary's nails to dry so that they may tell me if the delegate is available.

Chester Pearson wrote:Don't kid yourself. There are quite a few GCR delegates that are lemmings as well.

I'd like to hear who these lemmings are. Of the GCR delegates that voted early on this, Cormac and myself, we both have a very clear and well-established policy of voting in accordance with our respective regions' offsite polls. Here is TNP's for reference, though I am sure you are familiar with it as you regularly vote in our threads. Both Cormac and I also endeavor to have our offsite polls set up well before resolutions go to vote, so that we can vote as early as possible.

The same applies for Mouse and Europeia, who follow a similar policy.

Defwa wrote:Its curious- I can't understand the motivation. I will wait until morning before seeing it a direct request for answers is warranted.

Here is TNP's voting thread. I have posted there my own reasons for not supporting this proposal. I assume our other citizens voting against have similar reasons.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:What I find bizarre is the lack of explanation on the forums. What is the point of drafting here if people will not express their opposition until a proposal goes to vote? What is the point of insisting all proposals must be publicly drafted if not all comments will be publicly made?

TNP's WA forum is visible to everyone - not even forum registration is required. Those that additionally take half a minute to register an account can also post there. Furthermore, in the same forum we publish all of the voting recommendations we make to our citizens and WA nations, and the reasons for those recommendations. As you can see, everything is very public.

The majority of GCRs have similarly public WA forums. And I know fairly well that Europeia also does. So again, everything is very public.

Here is what I find bizzare: If authors care so much about how we vote, why do they not come to campaign in our forums? As Delegate of The North Pacific, it is neither my obligation nor my duty to come here and express my concerns about a draft before it goes to vote. And even though I often do so in private to various authors I know and work with, I generally do not have the time to regularly do so. My only obligation is to keep the citizens and nations in my region informed about WA votes, and I do that very well and in many different ways.

If an author wants to get my vote, TNP's vote, then the burden is on them to come to TNP and lobby for it. TNP's forum section for WA proposals is open to all authors. Personally, I am far more inclined to support a resolution if their author has taken the time to come and present it in our forum, and I am sure many other TNP citizens feel the same. Even after a resolution goes to vote, all authors are welcome to come and address concerns in our offsite polls. Once again, personally I am a lot more willing to reconsider my vote if an author posts in our offsite poll to address my and other citizens' concerns. For instance, I had originally voted against Ban on Leaded Fuel, but I switched my vote once Bears Armed came to our forum and answered my questions.

The bottom line is this. TNP's early vote can pretty much determine the fate of your resolution. If you want our vote on your side, posting in the NS forum is not enough. You should come and lobby for it in our forum. If you do, we in TNP will be more than willing to carefully consider your resolution, and we will be a lot more likely to support it. If you don't, then you don't get to complain when we vote against it.