[PASSED] International Aero-Space Administration

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: Besides, nothing prevents you from also liaising directly.

[Wallenburg]

Ooc: it limits the amount of liaising, as you only need to work with IASA to work with member ststes in managing ATC.

OOC: Fair enough, although it actually says you must work with both the IASA and the IMO.

Ooc: Besides, nothing prevents you from also liaising directly.

What sane nation would involve themselves in fruitless bureaucracy?

[Tinfect]

OOC:
On the topic of the IASA, there are other legitimate reasons for not wanting what you're doing and where you're going broadcast to everyone than simply military. Classified research, transportation of high-value items or personnel, or things that otherwise would not benefit from handing everyone and their mother it's travel plans. Consider splitting the clause into two, one for requiring space launches to liaise, and another specifically proving exemption for Military or otherwise classified launches.

[Aclion]

The World Assembly renounces any direct authority over domestic space programs or their operations, and reserves them entirely to their respective national jurisdictions.

Conflicts with existing resolutions; like To prevent Dangerous Derbies. Additionally; Suppose a future resolution comes up that would regulate employment, carbon emissions or some other aspect tangentially related to the operation of space programs, will space programs have to be exempt from the regulation?

[Bears Armed]

Conflicts with existing resolutions; like To prevent Dangerous Derbies.

"Hats off!"

[Aclion]

Conflicts with existing resolutions; like To prevent Dangerous Derbies.

"Hats off!"

Oh dear. Though a space derby sounds like a fun and unique idea for NS sports...

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Hats off!"

Oh dear. Though a space derby sounds like a fun and unique idea for NS sports...

I have a vague head-canon outline of a PMT space-Olympics Postmodern Pentathlon event. Like the ancient and the so-called "Modern Pentathlon," it embodies five necessary skills of soldiery at the time of its conception. Unlike the so-called "Modern Pentathlon," all five sub-events are likely to be relevant for longer than four or five Olympic cycles.

- Running (centrifugal space habitat)
- Jumping (I'm imagining something like the "stars" in Ender's Game - a truly three-dimensional obstacle course)
- Shooting (Rocket slugs or lasers/DEWs? Could go either way)
- EVA docking lockdown (wherein the astronaut-athlete must secure one structural member and a series of tension cables between two module hulls. This is the least defined/intuitive event)
- EVA reaction pistol velocity matching (wherein you get a single thruster and must chase down a randomly-maneuvering target, match speeds, and slap the shutdown button)

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:
On the topic of the IASA, there are other legitimate reasons for not wanting what you're doing and where you're going broadcast to everyone than simply military. Classified research, transportation of high-value items or personnel, or things that otherwise would not benefit from handing everyone and their mother it's travel plans. Consider splitting the clause into two, one for requiring space launches to liaise, and another specifically proving exemption for Military or otherwise classified launches.

OOC: liaise doesn't mean opening the Top Secret packet, it merely means coordinating flightpaths and disclosing special risks to others. You'd want to disclose if your craft was carrying several tons of corrosive material, but you wouldn't necessarily disclose what kind of material it was if it was a security concern.

All corrections are being noted, I'm just spending a lot of my day today away from a full-size keyboard.

[Excidium Planetis]

If you're a ft spacefaring nation, I doubt it matters, since it's unlikely that most of your flights are over multinational space, so it's a fairly moot issue.

OOC:
FT nations may still share planets with other nations (Excidium Planetis, for example, maintains a puppet state on Chri-irah which is only one of 4 nations on that planet, some Earth-based FT nations share Earth). And the physics of launching ships into space doesn't change, we'll still need to have multinational trajectories on occasion.

Coordinating with the IASA itself is the problem. Unless the WA spends exorbitant amounts of money establishing a near universal presence for the IASA, how are we supposed to reasonably contact them for local launches?

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "Best I've seen so far, but there's one glaring issue."



"If this is any more complicated than contacting the local ATC Tower at an airport or spaceport when entering controlled airspace, nations where personal spacecraft are common are going to have a LOT of fun with this. And by a lot of fun I mean NO FUN AT ALL."

"Resolve that one issue, though, and the Greater Siriusian Domain will fully support this. Heck, we may even donate a Frostknife-class kitted out as an exploration vessel."

Ooc: i,don't have time for an IC reply, but feel free to pretend it is if it suits you. Requiring liaison with an international organization in these situations lowers the risk of data being left out of the loop by centralizing it. If you're a ft spacefaring nation, I doubt it matters, since it's unlikely that most of your flights are over multinational space, so it's a fairly moot issue.

OOC: It's not a moot issue, especially in the case of exploratory missions and enclave-worlds. In the Greater Siriusian Domain's setting, the Sol system is an independent enclave system that is also along trade routes within CoGSD territory. The space in those systems are technically under the control of the local planets, as per Greater Siriusian Domain protocol when dealing with non-starfaring civilizations, and any regular flights through the Sol system would technically count as crossing international borders. Additionally, independent civilian explorers will regularly cross into uncontrolled space.

Additionally, I have to admit I don't see it necessary to even have an ATC equivalent for anything beyond the orbit of a planet. Space is so vast that 99 times out of 100 any collision between two spacecraft was pre-planned, and this holds true even in orbit to some degree. The tiniest change in trajectory can mean a HUGE change in position over long distances.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: i,don't have time for an IC reply, but feel free to pretend it is if it suits you. Requiring liaison with an international organization in these situations lowers the risk of data being left out of the loop by centralizing it. If you're a ft spacefaring nation, I doubt it matters, since it's unlikely that most of your flights are over multinational space, so it's a fairly moot issue.

OOC: It's not a moot issue, especially in the case of exploratory missions and enclave-worlds. In the Greater Siriusian Domain's setting, the Sol system is an independent enclave system that is also along trade routes within CoGSD territory. The space in those systems are technically under the control of the local planets, as per Greater Siriusian Domain protocol when dealing with non-starfaring civilizations, and any regular flights through the Sol system would technically count as crossing international borders. Additionally, independent civilian explorers will regularly cross into uncontrolled space.

Additionally, I have to admit I don't see it necessary to even have an ATC equivalent for anything beyond the orbit of a planet. Space is so vast that 99 times out of 100 any collision between two spacecraft was pre-planned, and this holds true even in orbit to some degree. The tiniest change in trajectory can mean a HUGE change in position over long distances.

OOC: The collision concern was only ever intended to cover the space between the ground and orbit. Thus why I used the terminology of "launch" rather than a more generic reference to flight in general.

[Tinfect Diplomatic Enclave]

OOC: liaise doesn't mean opening the Top Secret packet, it merely means coordinating flightpaths and disclosing special risks to others. You'd want to disclose if your craft was carrying several tons of corrosive material, but you wouldn't necessarily disclose what kind of material it was if it was a security concern.

OOC:
Well, yes, but therein lies the problem. If you're carrying classified research materials to a classified facility in a classified location, you don't exactly want to be telling everyone you're carrying research materials of which you cannot disclose the nature, to a facility you aren't supposed to acknowledge the existence of, somewhere nobody is supposed to know about.

The identities and destinations of high-value diplomatic personnel travelling through a contested area, would be a quite good example of a non-military operation in which it would be preferable to not have everyone know what you're doing. On less friendly notes, non-military intelligence operations in international or foreign territories would also be required to tell everyone where they're going, and what they'll be doing there.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: liaise doesn't mean opening the Top Secret packet, it merely means coordinating flightpaths and disclosing special risks to others. You'd want to disclose if your craft was carrying several tons of corrosive material, but you wouldn't necessarily disclose what kind of material it was if it was a security concern.

OOC:
Well, yes, but therein lies the problem. If you're carrying classified research materials to a classified facility in a classified location, you don't exactly want to be telling everyone you're carrying research materials of which you cannot disclose the nature, to a facility you aren't supposed to acknowledge the existence of, somewhere nobody is supposed to know about.

The identities and destinations of high-value diplomatic personnel travelling through a contested area, would be a quite good example of a non-military operation in which it would be preferable to not have everyone know what you're doing. On less friendly notes, non-military intelligence operations in international or foreign territories would also be required to tell everyone where they're going, and what they'll be doing there.

OOC: but none of that would necessarily need to be disclosed. Sure, you could, but stating that a ship with dangerous or delicate cargo will be following X path at X time and ensuring that nobody is launching a ship that intersects with it isn't anywhere near the same thing. You don't even have to disclose the nature of the cargo except that it might help IASA determine the best option for avoiding the hazard. Not unlike how trucks have a HazWaste placard defining the nature of the danger without always disclosing the actual contents of the truck.

Modern military ATC does this, even when the craft is off to do something super secret, because you still need to make sure everybody knows when aircraft is coming in or going out so they don't hit it. Clearly, I need to clarify that this extends to the space between the ground and orbit only, because those are the areas most likely to have heavy traffic. Deep space is well outside this scope.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: What exactly is a "nonmilitary space launch"? If a civilian vessel is already in orbit under its own power, hasn't it already been launched? If the captain decides to go on a jaunt to the Kaleb sector, it's not a "launch", it's nonmilitary, but it's not the member state doing it either when it's a privately owned spaceship.

Also, if someone proposed that a WA committee would need to handle the details of whenever someone crossed an international border on land or sea, they would rightly be laughed out of town. This appears to be trying to the same thing in space with the inexplicable but WA norm military exemption.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: What exactly is a "nonmilitary space launch"? If a civilian vessel is already in orbit under its own power, hasn't it already been launched? If the captain decides to go on a jaunt to the Kaleb sector, it's not a "launch", it's nonmilitary, but it's not the member state doing it either when it's a privately owned spaceship.

OOC:
So does this only apply to launches by governments and not private space companies or individuals?

And what is a launch, exactly? Does a ship being launched from a space station count as a launch? Or only ground to space launches?

[Imperium Anglorum]

When he says non-military, he means non-military. In the same way that Boeing, Lockeed Martin, Northrup-Grumman, etc. are companies that also do military contracts and we aren't confused when Boeing registers a flight a 737neo and a F-15 Eagle, this really isn't a problem.

[Excidium Planetis]

When he says non-military, he means non-military. In the same way that Boeing, Lockeed Martin, Northrup-Grumman, etc. are companies that also do military contracts and we aren't confused when Boeing registers a flight a 737neo and a F-15 Eagle, this really isn't a problem.

OOC:
I don't think anyone is confused by the word nonmilitary. It's "member states engaging" that is confusing. Does that include all entities within the state or only the government?

[WA Kitty Kops]

OOC: At a quick look it looks like a committee-only violation (as the rule currently stands), and category/AoE violation as well. How exactly does it affect nations' educational budgets?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Edits have been made that resolve the current issues."

[Nessuna-Arma]

As a representative of a nation that has a fledgling space program that has had some issues getting off the ground, I've read through this several times. I cannot find anything objectionable. As a matter of fact, I think my nation can greatly benefit from this endeavor. You have my support. For what it's worth.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Edits have been made that resolve the current issues."

"This still requires 'member states' to liaise for all nonmilitary space launches which cross national airspaces. It is unclear if the governments of member states are the ones who must liaise or some other entities who must do so. If it is the government, the government must the government liaise with the IASA for all private launches, which seems excessive."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Our Delegation stands in support of this proposal.

OOC: As a point of order, however, wouldn't this line:

Glorifying the spirit of exploration and curiosity that drives us to boldly go where no one has gone before;

...technically violate the Plagiarism rule? I mean, it's obviously not your own work.

[Separatist Peoples]

Fairburn: Our Delegation stands in support of this proposal.

OOC: As a point of order, however, wouldn't this line:

Glorifying the spirit of exploration and curiosity that drives us to boldly go where no one has gone before;

...technically violate the Plagiarism rule? I mean, it's obviously not your own work.

OOC: No. The Star Trek line is "Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." My line is non-gender specific. Besides, its a popular culture reference. Seems to fall under Fair Use. If it really bothers you that I used a pop culture reference, file a report. This kind of litigious nitpicking is absurd.

"Edits have been made that resolve the current issues."

"This still requires 'member states' to liaise for all nonmilitary space launches which cross national airspaces. It is unclear if the governments of member states are the ones who must liaise or some other entities who must do so. If it is the government, the government must the government liaise with the IASA for all private launches, which seems excessive."

"We have tweaked the wording slightly to make it clear that member states must do the liaising. After all, they are the governing authority, not private entities, and the government is responsible for ensuring compliance with international law."

[Wallenburg]

Fairburn: Our Delegation stands in support of this proposal.

OOC: As a point of order, however, wouldn't this line:

Glorifying the spirit of exploration and curiosity that drives us to boldly go where no one has gone before;

...technically violate the Plagiarism rule? I mean, it's obviously not your own work.

I don't think so. It's a rather short phrase, after all.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Our Delegation stands in support of this proposal.

OOC: As a point of order, however, wouldn't this line:

...technically violate the Plagiarism rule? I mean, it's obviously not your own work.

OOC: No. The Star Trek line is "Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." My line is non-gender specific. Besides, its a popular culture reference. Seems to fall under Fair Use. If it really bothers you that I used a pop culture reference, file a report. This kind of litigious nitpicking is absurd.

OOC: Who said I was bothered by it? I made it very clear that I supported the proposal. Aren't we encouraged to discuss legality issues during drafting rather than filing a Legality Challenge every time a clause might potentially be illegal if one squints hard enough?

GenSec will not review proposals still in their drafting stages, as player critique should be the first defense against an illegal proposal.

That said, if we now need to file Legality Challenges for the smallest of queries then I'd be more than happy to do that.