PASSED: Protection of Outer Space Act

[Progressive Union]

As of now, I see no issues with it.

BTW, congrats on your proposal passing.

[Stash Kroh]

The WA is allowed to form agencies, but is not allowed to determine the agencies' members.

Hhhm... I believe that is specific members, what is being created is a consortium for nations to join not a bureau.

[New Rockport]

The WA is allowed to form agencies, but is not allowed to determine the agencies' members.

Hhhm... I believe that is specific members, what is being created is a consortium for nations to join not a bureau.

I see what you mean, but the Rules for GA Proposals state:

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

[Krioval]

Well, the Great Chiefdom continues to oppose this legislation on the basis that the void of space is not an environment that needs protection. We continue to point out that if space debris causes as its primary effect to impede the travel along routes of trade that a resolution specifying pickup of said debris should be re-categorized, perhaps as "Free Trade". That said, we are unlikely at this time to organize a counter-campaign aimed at convincing delegates to withdraw their support, as Krioval has many other pressing issues with which to contend these days.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

[Progressive Union]

Congrats on having the proposal reaching Quorum.

[Stash Kroh]

Okay this proposal has reached Quorum, thank you for your endorsements !

It's going to be a while till it comes to vote, sometime around September 6-9 2009.
So more endorsements are welcome to keep it afloat in the queue.

Congrats on having the proposal reaching Quorum.

Thank you, honored ambassador.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Well done, honoured ambassador. Hopefully it will prevent man-made meteorites made out of junk, which sometimes poses a risk of a baaad collision.

[Stash Kroh]

Well done, honoured ambassador. Hopefully it will prevent man-made meteorites made out of junk, which sometimes poses a risk of a baaad collision.

At one point in time, Stash Kroh was not worried about these man-made meteorites, as our planet was 90% water, therefore the junk had almost no chance of landing in one of our cities. But as our industrialization accelerated, we now have claimed a large percentage of the planet as a flouting industrial park. Thus we and many other expanding nations are at terrible risk to falling space satellites, death stars, and only god knows what else!

We hope you are correct, honored ambassador.

[Travancore-Cochin]

Did the Ambassador from Stash Kroh withdraw the proposal? We don't see it in the queue.

[Bergnovinaia]

yeah i think it's no in queque. Or was it illegal and a mod caught it?

[Stash Kroh]

OOC: New Rockport expressed concerns of the legality of the submitted issue,

So I silently filled out a Getting Help request, and I sort of knew he was right before I even filled it, I was just optimistic...

Its not the way I would have planned to have returned to the game after a fun weekend, having came back to a deletion notification of my first queued proposal, but eh, it gives me time to rewrite new material. This NS weekend has actually kind of sucked for me, but ah well, I still love NS .

IC: Regrettably Ambassadors, I must inform you that the Secretariat found the proposal unacceptable and has vetoed it out of the General Assembly. In the coming week(s) I look to redraft and fully restructure it with a new aim.

Many cities and planets have already been torn by fallen objects, I do believe that in the future the WA could look to devising a welfare program for poorer nations in such an event, however what I would like to see is proper radar equipment for astronautical use to help prepare nations of the World Assembly from anything falling through the atmosphere, man made or not. Only thing is, the more I think about that, the more I realize that means travelling missiles and orbital weaponry could be used to be caught in the sights of the radar, and it isn't my intention to fund the defense of a nation in regards to long-range warfare. I'll have to think about it.

At the suggestion of one Honored Ambassador, I reviewed a Historical Resolution, and a good read, NSUN 174: Orbital Space Safety Act, that freakishly aims for the same goals as this proposal, and decided that this proposal needs to stress that one nation's space equipment is always identified as their space equipment, and therefore they are always responsible for it. My main concern with the text of the Orbital Space Safety Act is that it essentially bans nations from trading space equipment to other nations with an exchange of currency of what-not, without the original owner still responsible for it.

Thoughts and discussion on the proposal are always welcome. I'm personally thinking the educational consortium is looking less and less important, it helps to defuse arguments of 'well, we don't know if what we are doing it harming anything anyway' but overall it could just be a 'space-waster' if you catch the bad word pun.

[Bears Armed]

Though in all practicalness no-one is going to be flying out of the atmosphere of a star,

OOC: although in 'International Incidents', on the other paw, that has been done!

[New Rockport]

OOC: New Rockport expressed concerns of the legality of the submitted issue,

So I silently filled out a Getting Help request, and I sort of knew he was right before I even filled it, I was just optimistic...

Its not the way I would have planned to have returned to the game after a fun weekend, having came back to a deletion notification of my first queued proposal, but eh, it gives me time to rewrite new material. This NS weekend has actually kind of sucked for me, but ah well, I still love NS .

OOC: I'm sorry I wasn't paying enough attention to the thread when the proposal was in the draft stage. If I had expressed that concern earlier, I could have saved you the trouble of re-submitting the proposal. The current draft looks good. I'd have no trouble approving it in its current form.

[Sydia]

This proposal has a lot of merit and is something the WA should be actively addressing.

One thing I would suggest is dropping the political overtones and focusing purely on the environmental effects of space exploration. Even small bits of space debris often causes 'sandblasting' of vehicles and larger parts can cause environmental and health risks on Earth (or other planets). To throw some ideas out;

- Space stations create a lot of debris through waste disposal - The proposal could address this by stipulating that space stations recycle whatever they can and dispose of any waste in a manner that is least likely to cause unnecessary risk to other space users.
- Satellites too can be a bit cause of this, particularly if they smash into each other. By sharing the trajectories (or locations if in geosynchronous orbit) of satellites this can be minimised. Military satellites should obviously be exempt from this.
- Speaking of satellites, defunct ones have no use whatsoever and pose an active risk to other space users. The resolution (through the consortium) could encourage research into prolonging satellite longevity.
- Spent rocket stages would also fall under this. Research should be carried out to investigate the possibility of minimising the number of spent rocket stages needed, possibly with an aim to eliminate them altogether.
- Bits of junk falling back to planets are also a serious risk to health - nations should, wherever possible, ensure that materials they are responsible for which re-enter the atmosphere does not endanger the health of any citizen of any nation.

[Stash Kroh]

Okay honorable ambassador, I've made some edits to the proposal from your suggestions to establish Draft 3.5 .

Please correct me if the additions were not were what you intended, or, pardon me, crap.

One thing I would suggest is dropping the political overtones and focusing purely on the environmental effects of space exploration.

Might I ask where the political overtones exist in the proposal? - do you by any chance mean the third preamble clause?

_____________________________

Any advice, comments or suggestions are always welcome.

[Sydia]

Okay honorable ambassador, I've made some edits to the proposal from your suggestions to establish Draft 3.5 .

Please correct me if the additions were not were what you intended, or, pardon me, crap.

One thing I would suggest is dropping the political overtones and focusing purely on the environmental effects of space exploration.

Might I ask where the political overtones exist in the proposal? - do you by any chance mean the third preamble clause?

_____________________________

Any advice, comments or suggestions are always welcome.

Ah, I meant this sort of thing: "Demands that Outer Space be free from property claims, as it is an environment shared by all and owned by none.

Notes that all international and nation criminal laws regarding arrest, detainment, extradition, prosecution, trial and punishment should apply in Outer Space as they do in the WA otherwise" in the original proposal, which I can see is no longer in the current draft. Speaking of which, the clauses look very beneficial. If I may, I've taken the liberty of rewriting the initial draft to make it a bit more succinct and organised; I felt the preamble in particular could be snipped down. I also added a bit after the satellite section. See what you think, anyway:

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Protection of Outer Space Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Author: Stash Kroh | Category: Environment | Strength: All Business

The World Assembly abroad,

ACKNOWLEDGING the importance of maintaining Outer Space as an environment for all nations to explore in the safest manner possible,

UNDERSTANDING that it is an area frequently used by space-voyaging nations, who in many cases leave behind a hazardous trail of space debris,

CONCERNED that nations may pollute this internationally encompassing environment, as space debris that is uncontrolled will not remain in one area forever and may even gravitate towards celestial bodies,

DEFINING “Outer Space” as the void which occupies the largely empty areas of the universe outside the atmosphere of any planet, star or other celestial body, where the edge of any celestial body’s atmosphere is understood to be the specific position where a craft would have to travel faster than orbital velocity in order to receive sufficient aerodynamic lift from the atmosphere to support itself.

HEREBY:
1) Prohibits space-voyaging nations from damaging or polluting Outer Space unnecessarily.

2) Further Prohibits any unnatural addition of hazardous debris near a frequented travel route or within dangerous proximity to a celestial body where nations reside.

3) Forbids the intentional atmospheric reentry of any vessel, satellite, or object of non-weaponry purpose, if its reentry will endanger the health of any citizen of a nation.

4) Stipulates that all vessels, and residences in Outer Space recycle and reuse waste material to the best of their ability, and dispose of it in a manner that is least likely to cause unnecessary risk.

5) Mandates that nations bear international responsibility and liability for any objects launched from their territory into outer space.

6) Establishes the Coordination of Space Consortium (C.O.S.C), in order to:
I. Support peaceful scientific research carried out by member states regarding the environmental effects of interstellar travel and Outer Space in general.
II. Safely organize, and coordinate the trajectories and flight paths of space vessels and satellites belonging to nations that are willing to share such vital information.
III. Research and devise new technologies and methodologies to improve waste management systems in Outer Space as well as the longevity of satellites and other space equipment while minimalizng space travel's dependency on disposable space equipment such as rocket stages.

7) Encourages nations to adopt the C.O.S.C’s technological designs or environmental practices if applicable, or otherwise remain outside of Outer Space until their crafts and crew are compliant with its standards.

[Stash Kroh]

Your minor reedits and reorganization look professional, and easy to comprehend. I appreciate the effort.

However, I've been debating with myself, and my other political advisers over the repercussions of Clause #5.

I merely do not want to prevent the commercialization of Outer Space, but looking back at the responsibilities that the Act entails - I do not believe it prevents commercialization.

I also want to make sure it does not prevent explorers from reentering other nation's atmosphere, refueling and leaving. The reason I bring this up is, what about the previous nation they left from ? - would they still have responsibility and legality over the ship? Or would it be the nation they more recently launched from? Or would they both be fully responsible? In which case if something happens, who takes the blame? Both of them equally?

I'm tentatively agreeing with the clause, and using your complete array of suggestions in Draft 4.

However I am leery of that clause in particular.

[Stash Kroh]

Also, as my original Acknowledging clause declared that the WA knew there are nations not capable, not ready or have no space programs of any kind - I wish the new clause to be as 'technologically-friendly' for a variety of technological statuses as well.

ACKNOWLEDGING the importance of maintaining Outer Space as an environment for all nations to explore in the safest manner possible,

This sounds like the WA expects all nations to explore Outer Space,

I'm thinking of changing the wording to...

ACKNOWLEDGING the importance of maintaining Outer Space as an environment for any nation to explore in the safest manner possible,

That sounds alright? Doesn't it?

[Sydia]

Your minor reedits and reorganization look professional, and easy to comprehend. I appreciate the effort.

However, I've been debating with myself, and my other political advisers over the repercussions of Clause #5.

I merely do not want to prevent the commercialization of Outer Space, but looking back at the responsibilities that the Act entails - I do not believe it prevents commercialization.

I also want to make sure it does not prevent explorers from reentering other nation's atmosphere, refueling and leaving. The reason I bring this up is, what about the previous nation they left from ? - would they still have responsibility and legality over the ship? Or would it be the nation they more recently launched from? Or would they both be fully responsible? In which case if something happens, who takes the blame? Both of them equally?

I'm tentatively agreeing with the clause, and using your complete array of suggestions in Draft 4.

However I am leery of that clause in particular.

I understand, I just threw it in there as a ref to the RL Liability Convention, which covers what happens when space bric-a-brac crashes through someone's roof. Particularly, who foots the bill.

But if you get rid of it, please do so.

[Stash Kroh]

Okay this is the version of #5 that I've decided on tentatively...

5) Mandates that the international responsibility and liability for any space-faring object be equally divided between all nations that have launched it into Outer Space.

[New Rockport]

I'm not sure about Section 3. It seems to me that whenever a spacecraft lands, there's a chance that the re-entry or landing might kill or injure passengers, crew, or people on the ground. That chance is very small, but it's not zero. Therefore, Section 3, as currently written, could be read to forbid spacecraft from landing. I would suggest something like this instead:

3) Forbids the intentional atmospheric reentry of any vessel, satellite, or object of non-weaponry purpose, if its reentry will endanger presents a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the health of any resident of a nation.

Regarding Section 5, does it make sense to mandate international liability if there is no international court to adjudicate claims? It would seem to me that either a panel should be established to adjudicate international claims or that this should be a matter of domestic law.

Respectfully submitted,
David Corrigan, Esq.
Deputy Counsel to the Ambassador
Federal Republic of New Rockport

[Stash Kroh]

I'm not sure about Section 3. It seems to me that whenever a spacecraft lands, there's a chance that the re-entry or landing might kill or injure passengers, crew, or people on the ground. That chance is very small, but it's not zero. Therefore, Section 3, as currently written, could be read to forbid spacecraft from landing. I would suggest something like this instead:

3) Forbids the intentional atmospheric reentry of any vessel, satellite, or object of non-weaponry purpose, if its reentry will endanger presents a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the health of any resident of a nation.

Regarding Section 5, does it make sense to mandate international liability if there is no international court to adjudicate claims? It would seem to me that either a panel should be established to adjudicate international claims or that this should be a matter of domestic law.

Respectfully submitted,
David Corrigan, Esq.
Deputy Counsel to the Ambassador
Federal Republic of New Rockport

Your first concern will be edited into the newest edition, and the second has led me to believe that Section 5 should be struck, till further notice, from the proposal. Other proposals in the future, possibly a political stability one, could be used to establish international liability for space objects.

[Stash Kroh]

Draft 4.3 has been submitted, and has reach quorum much to my nation's delight - who anxiously followed its progress in the queue from the comfort of their own homes last night.

[float=right][/float]

We were thankful that so many delegates saw the proposal in such a great light, one delegate even wrote...

"We need more bills like yours that support international cooperation instead of forcing regulations down nations throats."

Though this proposal actually does force regulation upon nations, it is the spirit of international cooperation that drives it. Also, I personally I feel the financial and social repercussions of space debris out way the costs of implementing regulation for space travel.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Well done (for real), honoured ambassador.

[Stash Kroh]

Thank you, honorable ambassador.