[Draft] Repeal GA349: To Prevent Dangerous Debris

[Radicalania]

Hey folk, my second attempt at writing legislation for the GA (my first being a flop on Repealing GA10), so please bare with me. be gentle
Please note that my proposed replacement is now also posted.


The General Assembly

Aware that the problem of space debris as is of great importance to spacefaring nations;

Applauding the attempt of GA349 to reduce the amount of space debris presenting an immediate hazard;

Observing debris as being mockingly defined as debris, which is an unsuitable definition;

Noting this act fails to properly address debris which is not in orbit of a celestial body, and actively encourages nations to make this worse;

Believing that by allowing vessels to fire debris into space as long as it is not in orbit will cause further issues, should that debris collide with another planet or ship;

Concerned that this act does not prevent space debris at all, and in fact allows for creation of vessels which contribute to a junk orbit;

Alarmed that by allowing vessels to land in "unclaimed undeveloped territory, or the territory of nations that consent to the collision or landing", that they are putting lives at risk;

Disgusted that nations entering space are not encouraged to clean up after themselves, but are enabled by this resolution to contribute to the growing problem of space debris;

Knowing that World Assembly Nations can and should do more to rid planets of this problem;

Hereby repeals GA349.

The General Assembly

Observing the problem of space debris as of great importance to spacefaring nations,

Applauding the attempt of GA349 at keeping all planetary orbits clear;

Observing debris as being mockingly defined as debris, which is an unsuitable definition;

Concerned that this act does not prevent space debris at all, and in fact allows for creation of vessels which contribute to a junk orbit;

Alarmed that by allowing vessels to land in "unclaimed undeveloped territory, or the territory of nations that consent to the collision or landing", that they are putting lives at risk;

Believing that allowing vessels to fire debris into space as long as it is not in orbit will cause further issues, should that debris collide with another planet or ship;

Disgusted that nations entering space are not encouraged to clean up after themselves, but are enabled by this resolution to contribute to the growing problem of space debris;

Knowing that World Assembly Nations can and should do more to rid planets of this problem;

Hereby repeals GA349.

GA349

The General Assembly

Noting the problem of space debris as of great importance to spacefaring nations,

Applauding the attempt of GA349 at keeping all planetary orbits clear;

Concerned that this act does not prevent space debris at all, and in fact allows for creation of vessels which contribute to a junk orbit;

Disgusted at the idea of a designated junk orbit which is not regularly cleared, which will eventually cause issues for the nations beneath those designated orbits, should debris fall, or those nations wish to enter space;

Alarmed that by allowing vessels to land in unclaimed undeveloped territory, or the territory of nations that consent to the collision or landing, that they are putting lives at risk;

Understanding that allowing an option to fire debris into space as long as it is not in orbit will cause further issues, should that debris collide with another planet or ship;

Believing that World Assembly Nations can and should do more to rid planets of this problem;

Hereby repeals GA349.

[Ardiveds]

"That last clause mentions 'the' planet? Which planet is it talking about amabassador?"
Edit: OOC: would awfully helpful if you link the original resolution.

[Radicalania]

For reference I am planning on writing a new piece on Space Junk, though am currently looking for the relevant legislation on Space which will dictate what options are currently available, but I'm thinking of pushing for international space lifts or something along those lines

[Kenmoria]

“I have placed some feedback on the draft in red pen.”

There should be ‘The World Assembly,’ or ‘The General Assembly,’ at the beginning of the repeal.

Noting the problem of Space Debris as of great importance to space fairing nations, You want ‘spacefaring’ not ‘space fairing’ here.

Applauding the attempt of GA349 at keeping the orbit clear; I suggest going with ‘planetary orbits’ rather than ‘the orbit’, because the WA exists on multiple planets.

Concerned that this act does not prevent Space Debris at all; A clause such as this requires some evidence. Why doesn’t it prevent space debris?

Disgusted at the idea of a designated junk orbit which is not regularly cleared; Consider putting here why a designated junk orbit is so troubling. Provide further detail.

Believing that WA Nations can do more to rid the planet of this problem;

Hereby Repeals GA349 There should be a full stop at the end of this.

[Radicalania]

“I have placed some feedback on the draft in red pen.”

There should be ‘The World Assembly,’ or ‘The General Assembly,’ at the beginning of the repeal.

Noting the problem of Space Debris as of great importance to space fairing nations, You want ‘spacefaring’ not ‘space fairing’ here.

Applauding the attempt of GA349 at keeping the orbit clear; I suggest going with ‘planetary orbits’ rather than ‘the orbit’, because the WA exists on multiple planets.

Concerned that this act does not prevent Space Debris at all; A clause such as this requires some evidence. Why doesn’t it prevent space debris?

Disgusted at the idea of a designated junk orbit which is not regularly cleared; Consider putting here why a designated junk orbit is so troubling. Provide further detail.

Believing that WA Nations can do more to rid the planet of this problem;

Hereby Repeals GA349 There should be a full stop at the end of this.

Thank you for the advice, I believe in it's current form that addresses these comments?

[Araraukar]

OOC: You went too far this time, it's not (if memory serves) ALL planetary orbits, but inhabited planet orbits.

EDIT: And the disgusted clause completely misunderstands what a junk orbit is - so badly that it could count as Honest Mistake (read: lying about the target) violation.

2nd EDIT: If you intend to write a better draft to replace this, do post that draft in its own thread (link to this thread so people don't yell at you for duplication) so we can see if you can actually do better.

[Radicalania]

OOC: You went too far this time, it's not (if memory serves) ALL planetary orbits, but inhabited planet orbits.

I'm not sure what you mean by going too far? You believe I've over-stated the problem?

I checked and it actually doesn't say, nor is it mentioned in any further Resolutions, nor in #349. However I think this repeal should highlight that just because a planet isn't currently inhabited doesn't mean that it wont be.

EDIT: And the disgusted clause completely misunderstands what a junk orbit is - so badly that it could count as Honest Mistake (read: lying about the target) violation.

Removed, in the middle of reworking it to accurately portray a junk orbit. I would argue that designating a ) graveyard though is still risky to those living on the below planet, and that is what I was trying to portray.

2nd EDIT: If you intend to write a better draft to replace this, do post that draft in its own thread (link to this thread so people don't yell at you for duplication) so we can see if you can actually do better.

I've added old copy into it's own spoiler rather than it's own post, to avoid getting shouted at for duplication, and to show that the draft is being improved.

EDIT: I absolutely misunderstood what was meant here, and am still writing a draft to replace GA 349, which will be posted once I've done a bit more research on it

[Araraukar]

2nd EDIT: If you intend to write a better draft to replace this, do post that draft in its own thread (link to this thread so people don't yell at you for duplication) so we can see if you can actually do better.

EDIT: I absolutely misunderstood what was meant here, and am still writing a draft to replace GA 349, which will be posted once I've done a bit more research on it

OOC: Yeah, the way the GA forum works is "one topic per thread and one thread per topic", so new drafts of the same proposal (this repeal for example) should go in the same thread (though I suggest putting the older drafts in spoilers below the newest one, in the first post, or even relocating them to another one of your posts on this thread), but any new topic (such as the planned replacement) should have its own thread. That way 1. people coming to the thread later don't get confused by the discussion, and 2. if the repeal passes the vote, the thread will eventually be archived, and can't be posted in anymore.

[Radicalania]

Yeah, I'd misunderstood what you meant completely hahaha.

I have got a rough draft at the moment which I'm hoping to have finished today for the replacement legislation, but I feel its missing something as stands and am getting advice from my region-mates before posting it in a seperate thread.

Will move the old draft to the bottom, too. Thanks for the heads up.

[Araraukar]

OOC: You went too far this time, it's not (if memory serves) ALL planetary orbits, but inhabited planet orbits.

I'm not sure what you mean by going too far? You believe I've over-stated the problem?

OOC: You changed the wording to this:

Applauding the attempt of GA349 at keeping all planetary orbits clear

after this feedback:

Applauding the attempt of GA349 at keeping the orbit clear; I suggest going with ‘planetary orbits’ rather than ‘the orbit’, because the WA exists on multiple planets.

So basically you went from talking about a singular planetary orbit to talking about all of them. Both are incorrect.

I'll get to your other points later, though I think you're still misunderstanding a graveyard orbit, as its whole point is to not present danger to people on the planet in question, or future spacecraft sent into orbit.

[Radicalania]

I'm not sure what you mean by going too far? You believe I've over-stated the problem?

OOC: You changed the wording to this:

Applauding the attempt of GA349 at keeping all planetary orbits clear

after this feedback:

So basically you went from talking about a singular planetary orbit to talking about all of them. Both are incorrect.

The original act fails to mention debris outside of orbit, so that's why I've stuck to mention debris inside an orbit. However that would make a decent criticism and will be added to my next draft.

I'll get to your other points later, though I think you're still misunderstanding a graveyard orbit, as its whole point is to not present danger to people on the planet in question, or future spacecraft sent into orbit.

From what I've read on Graveyard/junk orbits, unless the junk maintains enough fuel to move away, they still present a (granted, reduced) risk of collision from both natural and artificial 'satellites' (asteroids for example, or other junk, even junk maneuvering into the graveyard orbit), and despite being off the beaten track, still pose a risk to vessels re-entering/exiting orbit.

Also, as time progresses, what is deemed somewhere that's not often used may change- while some nations are only going to their moons currently (and therefore have a huge zone that may be deemed as "safe"), they may eventually attempt inter-planetary travel, and as such this "graveyard" suddenly may become a real problem.

The aim of the replacement act should be to prevent their existence to safeguard future generations from dealing with this issue. We can talk for days on a variety of options (low tech option of maneuvering into a "disposal orbit" where the device burns up into an as harmless form as possible)

[Araraukar]

The original act fails to mention debris outside of orbit, so that's why I've stuck to mention debris inside an orbit. However that would make a decent criticism and will be added to my next draft.

OOC: You completely misunderstood me. You went from "the" to "all", when the right answer is "some".

[Radicalania]

The original act fails to mention debris outside of orbit, so that's why I've stuck to mention debris inside an orbit. However that would make a decent criticism and will be added to my next draft.

OOC: You completely misunderstood me. You went from "the" to "all", when the right answer is "some".

Tbf I've changed the actual clause itself to save the headache, so should be a non-issue now

[Qhevak]

The original act fails to mention debris outside of orbit, so that's why I've stuck to mention debris inside an orbit. However that would make a decent criticism and will be added to my next draft.

"This is because debris outside of orbit is a statistically insignificant threat - for most nations the cost of cleaning it up would be many, many orders of magnitude greater than the cost of possible ensuing harms. Functionally speaking, debris launched into interplanetary space can be considered disposed of."

[Radicalania]

"You're absolutely correct, it is statistically improbable that a vessel will hit that debris field and have an issue. Until that does happen. A single life lost over something this easily preventable would be disgusting."

[Grays Harbor]

Alarmed that by allowing vessels to land in "unclaimed undeveloped territory, or the territory of nations that consent to the collision or landing", that they are putting lives at risk;

Landing is “putting lives at risk”?

"You're absolutely correct, it is statistically improbable that a vessel will hit that debris field and have an issue. Until that does happen. A single life lost over something this easily preventable would be disgusting."

No, it would be an anomaly.


You keep mistaking “safety” with “zero chance of something happening”. That’s not how safety works.

What you do: minimize the risk.

What you do not do: Go on a naive and quixotic quest for 100% safety with 0% risk. Which will never happen. Ever.

[Radicalania]

Alarmed that by allowing vessels to land in "unclaimed undeveloped territory, or the territory of nations that consent to the collision or landing", that they are putting lives at risk;

Landing is “putting lives at risk”?

I should have specified that it is not the landing which worries us, but the collisions into unclaimed territories. Those territories, though not claimed, may well contain life. The point of the clause in our repeal was it is an ill written clause. I shall make sure to correctly target the collisions part of it.

"You're absolutely correct, it is statistically improbable that a vessel will hit that debris field and have an issue. Until that does happen. A single life lost over something this easily preventable would be disgusting."

No, it would be an anomaly.


You keep mistaking “safety” with “zero chance of something happening”. That’s not how safety works.

What you do: minimize the risk.

What you do not do: Go on a naive and quixotic quest for 100% safety with 0% risk. Which will never happen. Ever.

Yes, I understand what safety is, and part of that, as you correctly say, is minimising risks. The risks are high enough to be of note, especially around bodies that have obscenely large amounts of dead machinery orbiting them that has since been blasted off into that systems orbit- presenting a risk to anyone travelling through that system.

And yes, the risk of running into some rubbish in space is slim, but the fact that it's only there because a nation couldn't be bothered to properly clean up after itself is an issue. We dont dump rubbish in the countryside, why is space any different? We should be preserving its beauty, not clogging it up with waste.

[Qhevak]

Yes, I understand what safety is, and part of that, as you correctly say, is minimising risks. The risks are high enough to be of note, especially around bodies that have obscenely large amounts of dead machinery orbiting them that has since been blasted off into that systems orbit- presenting a risk to anyone travelling through that system.

And yes, the risk of running into some rubbish in space is slim, but the fact that it's only there because a nation couldn't be bothered to properly clean up after itself is an issue. We dont dump rubbish in the countryside, why is space any different? We should be preserving its beauty, not clogging it up with waste.

The risks aren't in fact high enough to be of note. The odds of randomly hitting any of the many billions of pieces of space rock that already litter the solar system on an interplanetary voyage are less than one in a billion - launching a new piece of junk into interplanetary space might increase those odds by a quintillionth or so. Given the many billion dollars required for an information age society to retrieve such debris, which could be used for infinitely more effective lifesaving roles such as welfare, healthcare and foreign aid, making this a priority is absolutely absurd.

[Ardiveds]

And yes, the risk of running into some rubbish in space is slim, but the fact that it's only there because a nation couldn't be bothered to properly clean up after itself is an issue. We dont dump rubbish in the countryside, why is space any different? We should be preserving its beauty, not clogging it up with waste.

OOC: 1. It doesn't take billions of dollars to clean up a countryside.

2. Space is practically infinite compared to a countryside and if the millions of asteroids that float about and the million that get added daily don't spoil its beauty, space junk probably won't either.

3. Space doesn't have delicate ecosystems that might get destroyed afawk

In conclusion: don't compare the countryside with space, it sounds beyond dumb.

[Radicalania]

Yes, I understand what safety is, and part of that, as you correctly say, is minimising risks. The risks are high enough to be of note, especially around bodies that have obscenely large amounts of dead machinery orbiting them that has since been blasted off into that systems orbit- presenting a risk to anyone travelling through that system.

And yes, the risk of running into some rubbish in space is slim, but the fact that it's only there because a nation couldn't be bothered to properly clean up after itself is an issue. We dont dump rubbish in the countryside, why is space any different? We should be preserving its beauty, not clogging it up with waste.

The risks aren't in fact high enough to be of note. The odds of randomly hitting any of the many billions of pieces of space rock that already litter the solar system on an interplanetary voyage are less than one in a billion - launching a new piece of junk into interplanetary space might increase those odds by a quintillionth or so. Given the many billion dollars required for an information age society to retrieve such debris, which could be used for infinitely more effective lifesaving roles such as welfare, healthcare and foreign aid, making this a priority is absolutely absurd.

It's not a priority, and the replacement legislation does offer "cheap" options available to any nation within the Information Age. However, just because there are bigger fish to fry doesnt mean we shouldn't spend time on the little things.

OOC: 1. It doesn't take billions of dollars to clean up a countryside.

2. Space is practically infinite compared to a countryside and if the millions of asteroids that float about and the million that get added daily don't spoil its beauty, space junk probably won't either.

3. Space doesn't have delicate ecosystems that might get destroyed afawk

In conclusion: don't compare the countryside with space, it sounds beyond dumb.

1: It costs billions of dollars to shoot the waste up there. Again, I will highlight the replacement legislation does offer a cheaper option which would not require it be physically retrieved.

2: We don't see microplastics, but we did eventually find that they were massively damaging our ecosystem. Yes, the things we are throwing are tiny in size, but as a nation develops, they throw more and more of them up, and eventually you have a larger problem within the system.

Further, the existing legislation does not force this blasted off junk to be outside of your solar orbit, just outside of your planets orbit. It also doesn't prevent it from being fired toward a neighbouring planet. (Whod have thought of weaponising junk, ey?)

3: (I believe this is more likely to be IC- RL me doesn't believe theres actually space whales or anything!) Key point here: you don't know there isn't, eventually we may find that there is an ecosystem within space, and that we are damaging it. We don't know, and we shouldn't risk it.

New draft should be getting posted at some point today, hopefully including some of the points addressed between the two threads.

[Ardiveds]

2: We don't see microplastics, but we did eventually find that they were massively damaging our ecosystem. Yes, the things we are throwing are tiny in size, but as a nation develops, they throw more and more of them up, and eventually you have a larger problem within the system.

Further, the existing legislation does not force this blasted off junk to be outside of your solar orbit, just outside of your planets orbit. It also doesn't prevent it from being fired toward a neighbouring planet. (Whod have thought of weaponising junk, ey?)

3: (I believe this is more likely to be IC- RL me doesn't believe theres actually space whales or anything!) Key point here: you don't know there isn't, eventually we may find that there is an ecosystem within space, and that we are damaging it. We don't know, and we shouldn't risk it.

New draft should be getting posted at some point today, hopefully including some of the points addressed between the two threads.

OOC: 2. You can start chucking entire earths into space and it would still take you centuries or even millenniums to fill our solar systems.

3. Then there could also be cthulu out there. Ban space travel altogether, we don't want to wake the old ones, do we? Look if we start taking precautions against stuff that's implausible just not impossible, lunacy would be the result.

[Radicalania]

Space Cthulu is a terrifying concept (and one that I actually roughly RP in a region haha!) and the great one must not be mocked.

I think you're failing to see the original act we'll be repealing attempts to do that, though inefficiently. All I wish to do is strengthen these protections. Theres a new draft of the replacement act which offers an even cheaper option which is so simple any spacefaring nation should be able to do it.

[Araraukar]

spacefaring nation

OOC: You realize that that term is used of Future Tech nations for whom space travel within their solar system is an everyday thing? It doesn't mean Modern Tech nations that are sitting on a single planet and occasionally sending something into space. (For the record, "starfaring" means able to move between solar systems. I don't know if there's a term for intergalactic travel.)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The General Assembly

Aware that the problem of space debris as is of great importance to spacefaring nations;

Applauding the attempt of GA349 to reduce the amount of space debris presenting an immediate hazard;

"Great. With ya so far, ambassador."

Observing debris as being mockingly defined as debris, which is an unsuitable definition;

"You weren't here for the previous edition, but the target's predecessor was repealed partly because of a frankly stupid argument that its subject matter - though obvious to any creature capable of reading and understanding the basic concept of international law - was not defined. We do not see this as a serious problem."

Noting this act fails to properly address debris which is not in orbit of a celestial body, and actively encourages nations to make this worse;

"Debris which is not in orbit of a celestial body is not an issue. It simply goes away. Unless you intend to police literally the whole universe, we can all simply let non-orbiting debris drift off into interstellar space, where it is not an issue."

Believing that by allowing vessels to fire debris into space as long as it is not in orbit will cause further issues, should that debris collide with another planet or ship;

"Again, unless you intend to clean up all debris everywhere, to the tune of cubic light years, debris that is not in orbit is simply not an issue."

Concerned that this act does not prevent space debris at all, and in fact allows for creation of vessels which contribute to a junk orbit;

"The target resolution prevents the creation of all space debris outside of junk or graveyard orbits. Literally the only problem now facing WA nations is specifically those existing junk orbits - aside from perhaps the occasional satellite-asteroid collision, which is essentially unavoidable for most nations."

Alarmed that by allowing vessels to land in "unclaimed undeveloped territory, or the territory of nations that consent to the collision or landing", that they are putting lives at risk;

"This is not terribly germane, I think. If the land is unclaimed, nobody wants it, and presumably claimed territory is run by nations that would not consent to having giant flaming chunks of metal drop down on their inhabitants' heads. This really isn't an issue."

Disgusted that nations entering space are not encouraged to clean up after themselves, but are enabled by this resolution to contribute to the growing problem of space debris;

"Of course they are. That is literally the point of the target resolution! Other than maneuvering into a junk orbit, all other avenues of satellite and spacecraft retirement are non-debris-forming. And there is nothing in the target that blocks a further resolution on the amelioration of junk orbits. I would focus on that, rather than needlessly tearing down a perfectly good resolution that guarantees the problem stops getting worse and leaves the door open for a resolution to start to solve the problem."

OOC: This one might actually be an Honest Mistake. To the extent that space debris is a growing problem, nations are forbidden from making it worse in any fashion besides putting it in a graveyard orbit that is specifically assigned by the World Assembly Science Program.

You might instead say something like "Disgusted that nations launching objects into space are not required to de-orbit them, but are enabled by this resolution to contribute to the continual creation of new junk orbits;"

Knowing that World Assembly Nations can and should do more to rid planets of this problem;

"Yes, indeed. Why don't we start by leaving this target resolution in place, and create something specifically designed to clear junk and graveyard orbits? Nothing in this target is stopping you from doing that."

Hereby repeals GA349.

"You really haven't given sufficient reason to do so. We must oppose this as written."

[Ardiveds]

Space Cthulu is a terrifying concept (and one that I actually roughly RP in a region haha!) and the great one must not be mocked.

I think you're failing to see the original act we'll be repealing attempts to do that, though inefficiently. All I wish to do is strengthen these protections. Theres a new draft of the replacement act which offers an even cheaper option which is so simple any spacefaring nation should be able to do it.

OOC: The original act was reasonable and its restrictions also reasonable. Your replacement is simply ludicrous. What you are failing to see is the immensity of space.

Just to show how absurd and ignorant your notion of 'filling space up with junk' is, get this: if you keep the sun, earth and mars on a straight line, you'd need approximately 8000 earths in a straight line to fill the space between earth and mars. And this is just in one dimension for the inner planets, the distance between the outer planets is even greater.

Your replacement is born of a fundamental misunderstanding of how absurdly big space is.