OOC still. The promised feedback. Posting twice in a row to make author aware that I did the promised deep probing.
No alien abduction probing jokes please.Saturna1ia wrote:Mining of Extraterrestrial Resources
Given your corrected category/AoE (which depends on the active clauses - more of that when I get that far), the title might need changing. But that's something that can be dealt with once the active clauses have been locked down.
Category: Regulation?
Area of Affect: Transportation?
And like with the title, the proper category/AoE depends really on the effect the active clauses have, so I'll get back to this later.
Recognizing the past accomplishment made by GAR#451 International Aero-Space Administration (IASA) for creating an organization to oversee coordination between member states space programs,
Further recognizing the foresight of GAR#460 Astronomical Data Repository for creating the Astronomic Science and Technical Research Organization (ASTRO) to store valuable knowledge gained from space exploration,
Problems right from the start. Don't start the proposal by referring to committees. Especially as you've pared down committee participation. The preamble should tackle the 3W's: WHAT is the problem you're trying to fix? WHY does it need
international legislation to deal with? WHY is it not already dealt with, by existing resolutions?
Starting from mentioning previous resolutions and their committees might not be an illegality, but it does kind of give the feeling that this
has already been dealt with, and you're just trying to sneak in a little addition to get the author badge. Now that may or may not be true, but it's always best to try and make your resolution as self-standing as possible, so nix those two clauses.
Intrigued by technologies that not only raise the possibility, but economic viability to extract resources limited by terrestrial scarcity, but abundant in the outer reaches,
Given that there are nations in the WA that are space-based or at least routinely mine resources from asteroids and such - and, arguably, the tech and economic viability are totally doable in RL too, but the required original investment is so huge that private industry simply can't do it and nations aren't interested in trying while terrestrial resources are abundant enough - talking about "raising possibilities" sounds a bit off. And this doesn't really address any of the 3W's either, so why is it here?
Believing the necessary infrastructure has been achieved through this Assembly to provide effective oversight of these ventures,
"Infrastructure" usually refers to physical facilities (hence "structure" in the word), but even if you were using it metaphorically, it still sounds weird, because the WA doesn't do space. It helps you get the info you need to start your space exploration and (depending how you read IASA's mandate) may help you get started (though even then it can't break the patent resolution's clauses, so I'm not entirely certain what use it is) and it mandates you to avoid littering your orbit (the debris prevention resolution), but that's about it.
If you intended to say the WA has already started space programs in member nations and built stuff for them, then no, it hasn't. Everything is voluntary on the member nation's side - the WA does not mandate that all member nations must have space programs. (Given PT/MT/FT, any such requirement would be silly anyway. And even in RL the vast majority of nations do not have a space program of their own, or they are only partaking shared projects (see ESA) by producing certain parts, for example, and funding.) WA does not mandate that all nations must have spaceship launch capabilities (for same reasons as above), so it really depends on the nation if there is any infrastructure in place or not, and assuming unilateral approach across 20k+ nations is just silly.
So, as this clause is patently not true (especially the oversight bit of it - see clause 4 of the IASA resolution), and doesn't really do anything about the 3W's, I'm not entirely certain it should be included at all.
Concerned however that no international standards regarding the mining and transportation of extraterrestrial resources has yet been established,
Drop the "however" and move this to the start of the preamble. This is, from what I can see, your WHAT of this entire proposal. You still need to address the two WHYs. Why is international legislation necessary and why hasn't it been dealt with by existing resolutions. You can answer these first in thread as a reply, rather than editing the draft directly, if you want.
"Extraterrestrial Body" as any composition of elements existing in a solid, liquid, gaseous, or plasmid state of matter that originates outside of member states terrestrial atmospheres,
Should be "member states' ", plural possessive, or "member state's" if talking of a singular member state.
"Celestial Formation" as any cluster of extraterrestrial bodies held together by gravitational forces that form a structure or system,
...so, everything in the universe, including the terrestrial planets.
Using the word "extraterrestrial" is a bit iffy in any case, given that it refers to Terra, which is another word for Earth, the RL planet we all live on, so as the WA nations do not exist on a single planet, you're going to have everyone treat every terrestrial planet as "extraterrestrial" to begin with, and then the proposal doesn't make much sense.
If you talked of "terrestrial planets", on the other hand, that does exist as a concept outside of the singular homeplanet thing, and simply means rocky worlds (note, not necessarily habitable the way we understand it, given that Mars and Venus and Mercury are also terrestrial planets). Though these definitions aren't really necessary, especially if your move to using words with clear meanings (that don't break RL mentions rule).
"Contaminant" as any alien biological organism originating from within member states terrestrial atmospheres,
So, RL astronauts. They certainly didn't evolve in space, so they're in an alien environment when out there. Probably an invasive species, at that.
What are you exactly going for with this?
Possessive punctuation issue. "Artificial Debris" as any alien non-biological material or machinery originating from within member states terrestrial atmospheres,
You do know that oxygen is non-biological material, right? Even though it's produced by photosynthetic lifeforms? It certainly originates from atmospheres. In RL the Earth has a magnetic "bubble" around it, thanks to use having an active planetary core, and that protects our atmosphere. We're still losing gas from the upper reaches of the atmosphere to the erosion by solar wind. (That is thought to be why Venus and Mars lost their water - sunlight splits water into hydrogen and oxygen, and hydrogen as a light gas leaks out of the atmosphere - and why both their atmospheres are mostly CO
2.) So any gas originating from RL Earth's atmosphere, would count as "artificial debris" outside of it, if it had WA member states on it.
Why do you need this definition anyway?
Tasks member states who maintain established space programs with the following mandates:
Rather than "tasks with", you might want to make that something simpler like "Mandates that member states who maintain established space programs". Though you might need to define a space program (instead of celestial formations and whatnot unnecessary stuff). Is it a space program if a nation funds an international space program (but only gives money to it) or has a single satellite (transported to orbit by a non-member nation's rockets) in orbit?
Everything these mandates additionally seems to assume that any nation with a space program automatically wants to mine stuffs out of other celestial bodies. I think this whole clause needs the modifier of "that is intending to or is already extracting resources from other celestial bodies" or something like that.
Researching methods to improve mining techniques, minimize disruption to celestial formations, and limit the spread of contaminants or loss of artificial debris throughout the extraction process,
Okay, why are these lumped together? Or are they meant to be a list of research subjects? Tackling them one at a time.
Researching methods to improve mining techniques
Improve compared to what? I also wonder what you think "mining technique" means. If the nation is
already using techniques that are as safe as possible while still viable, why should they research something they know is not going to be viable? They could get back to that when technology advances, but until then it's kinda a moot point. Adding "when necessary" or something like that, here, would be, well, necessary.
disruption to celestial formations,
If you're mining stuff out of something, you can't really not disrupt it in the process. And given that your "celestial formations" definition encompasses entire universes, you're really not going to disrupt the universe even if you literally blew up some stars. Or galaxies. The universe is
BIG (
last minute of video is advertizement). So, some re-thinking here and in the definition, is in order.
and limit the spread of contaminants
The only way to truly not import anything from a planet like Earth into space, is to not send anything to space. In RL even the NASA cleanrooms, which are made as hostile to life not meant to be there as is possible, with disinfection methods, have things living there. Bacteria are nearly impossible to kill, and even some multicellular lifeforms (see waterbears) are more durable than you would think anything alive to be. So, again, some re-thinking is in order. Why does this requirement exist? What's the idea behind it? Are you wanting to stop people taking their bacteria and micro-organisms into other ecosystems or the vice versa?
loss of artificial debris throughout the extraction process
...exactly how do you imagine to be mining anything, if you're not allowed to cause dust particles to be involved? And why are you talking about
loss of debris? Debris is generally understood to be "unwanted bits", not something valuable you lose (
and yes yes I know of the tools the ISS astronauts have "misplaced" into space, they still account for only a handful out of millions).
Where is this "loss" of debris meant to be a problem? At the mining site? In transit? On arrival?
Providing safety guidelines and information such as mitigation of exposure to space radiation, identification of reactive elements and compounds, and implementation of quarantine procedures,
These are another weirdly lumped together kind of list. Are you wanting information about the implementation of quarantine procedures provided, or the quarantine procedures actually getting done? These should be broken apart if they're not meant to be a list.
Providing safety guidelines and information such as mitigation of exposure to space radiation,
The exposure of what? The spacecraft? You can't really do that even within a thick terrestrial atmosphere. (
Well okay, maybe Venus's, but its surface pressure is higher than Earth's deep seas', so it's perhaps not a good measuring stick.) The cargo it's transporting? Any crew (if not robotic)? And just providing safety guidelines and information doesn't equal to the safety guidelines actually followed. I mean, just think in RL of the speedlimits on roads. People break those all the time even though there are repercussions if you're caught, and the limits exist for your own safety and the safety of others.
identification of reactive elements and compounds
...what? Like, do you mean making tests on stuff you're mining to see what you're mining (as if mining was done blindly), on the location, or trying to set it on fire, or banging some rocks together to see if something bad happens, or what?
and implementation of quarantine procedures,
Quarantine of what? The mining crew? The spaceship? The cargo? And again, giving guidelines doesn't actually mean them getting followed. Just look at what's happening in RL - people supposed to be self-quarantined to stop the spread of a deadly virus are out and about and even going to work, because they have no other choice financially, or because they simply need groceries and don't have anyone to carry them home for them.
Seeking data, with assistance from ASTRO when useful, regarding the composition and celestial coordinates of extraterrestrial bodies for the purpose of assessing economic viability and technological capability before commencing mining operations,
...so using RL as an example, your proposal would be totally fine if a nation on Earth belonged to the WA, and had posted stuff to the committee/database, and a far more advanced nation (say, the Imperium of
Tinfect) looked up the data and decided to come strip-mine Earth, because we can't stop them from doing that. Also, you're mandating seeking this data, even if the nation with the space program had no interest whatsoever in mining any other celestial bodies but their own.
Promoting sustainable and responsible development of resource extraction to preserve the beauty of space for future generations,
This is a preamble clause, not a mandate. Your probably should actually put it up there. It would work as a start towards the "WHY" of international legislation.
Requires that member states store and transport naturally radioactive resources and, if exposure is verifiably hazardous to organic compounds, any resources ionized by space radiation in noncombustible, radiation-resistant containers,
Okay, the sentence is grammatically correct and all that, but you might really want to switch the places of the containers mention and everything else. Because not everyone reads so carefully, and the start of the sentence looks like you require nations to store and transport radioactive resources, period. Also "exposure verifiably hazardous to organic compounds" is just wordy bullshit. UV light is that, and you don't die when you go outside on a sunny day. If your goal is to say "radioactive materials should be transported as safely as possible", just say that. As literally as you can. Or even go for the much more general "hazardous materials should be transported as safely as possible", because rocket fuel is fucking dangerous, but not (in RL anyway) radioactive.
And I don't really understand the use of "resources ionized by space radiation" here. What does that have to do with radiation? Do you know what ions are?
Prohibits members states from forcibly mining and transporting, bar operations performed during war or the enforcement of disputed claims, the resources of an extraterrestrial body inhabited by sapient species as defined in GAR#355 Rights of Sapient Species and any subsequent resolutions to the same effect,
Okay, I can see you're kind of trying to address the whole "space aliens coming to stripmine Earth" problem, but currently
this makes the entire proposal illegal for House of Cards violation. And it's entirely unnecessary anyway, you could've just left it at "inhabited by sapient species" and it would work just fine.
However,
this makes the point moot entirely. If the Tinfectians came to RL Earth to mine our resources, naturally it'd be "disputed claim", and if they declared war on us (as I imagine they would, after humans tried to shoot at them with something), they could do that without needing to worry about the WA so much as frowning at them. That just is not right nor something the WA should be okay with.
Strongly encourages private entities and governmental agencies to reject undertaking mining operations that irreplaceably deplete the entirety of an extraterrestrial body's resources, and when beneficial to coordinate on preservation efforts thereof,
When beneficial to whom? A lifeless asteroid? Smaller space rocks (think metallic meteoroids, for instance) would likely be gobbled up by space miners in their entirety, so they wouldn't technically be depleted so much as processed for manufacturing purposes. Also, what exactly counts as depletion? (Don't edit the draft, reply to me in this thread.) Is it not depletion if a single iron atom is left behind? And given uninhabited things, why should it matter that their resources are depleted (as far as is possible to tell/economically viably anyway)? Even more so for actually lifeless space rocks where nothing lives there. You won't be disturbing an ecosystem that doesn't exist.
Clarifies that the World Assembly has no authority to settle claims between member states over disputed extraterrestrial bodies,
Fairly sure there's a resolution that deals with territorial disputes and the WA being active in that.
Further clarifies that the World Assembly has no authority to prohibit member states from claiming sovereignty over extraterrestrial bodies, but highly encourages benevolent utilization of resources space has to offer in the spirit of peace and scientific advancement.
What on earth does any of
that mean? It looks just nonsense weaselwords put together to sound like something grand while not actually achieving anything.
Okay, so, the category? The active clauses kinda weave from side to side, from one category to another. This could be written as
pro-mining, and partially it is, as Free Trade, and partially it is, as Environmental, and partially it is, as Regulation: Transport, and partially it is, as Regulation: Safety, and partially it is... so you as the author really need to decide what of these is the one you really want to focus on, and then rewrite (I don't mean just altering, I mean abandoning most clauses not fitting what you've chosen, and coming up with new ones) to fit that category.
If you want to focus on safe transport, then the stuff about actually mining and sustainability and such, should largely be removed. If you want to focus on the sustainability, the transporting clauses should largely be removed. I don't think you'll be able to pass this if you focus on the sustainability, honestly speaking - or at least it'll be instantly repealed - because people tend to view "space rocks with no life on them" as not being worth protecting, if you can get economically viable resources out of them
and thus protecting the ecosystems on the terrestrial planets with similar resources. If getting into orbit wasn't so difficult and resource-heavy, in RL we should move to space mining immediately, given all the ecological difficulties that doing so on Earth is causing.
A few EDITs for fixing typos that changed the meaning of the sentence and actually finishing one sentence that some space goblin had eaten a part of.
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:05 am