NATION

PASSWORD

[Draft] Repeal GA349: To Prevent Dangerous Debris

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Radicalania
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

[Draft] Repeal GA349: To Prevent Dangerous Debris

Postby Radicalania » Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:29 am

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.
Last edited by Radicalania on Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:13 am, edited 9 times in total.
"Ask for work. If they don't give you work, ask for bread. If they don't give you work or bread, then take bread"-Emma Golding, Anarchism and Other Essays

Radicalania Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: -8.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77
If I'm not in the WA today, there's probably a reason.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 191
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:34 am

"That last clause mentions 'the' planet? Which planet is it talking about amabassador?"
Edit: OOC: would awfully helpful if you link the original resolution.
Last edited by Ardiveds on Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:36 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Radicalania
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Radicalania » Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:38 am

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
"Ask for work. If they don't give you work, ask for bread. If they don't give you work or bread, then take bread"-Emma Golding, Anarchism and Other Essays

Radicalania Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: -8.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77
If I'm not in the WA today, there's probably a reason.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6233
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:39 am

“I have placed some feedback on the draft in red pen.”
Radicalania wrote: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.
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Radicalania
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Radicalania » Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:56 am

Kenmoria wrote:“I have placed some feedback on the draft in red pen.”
Radicalania wrote: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?
"Ask for work. If they don't give you work, ask for bread. If they don't give you work or bread, then take bread"-Emma Golding, Anarchism and Other Essays

Radicalania Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: -8.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77
If I'm not in the WA today, there's probably a reason.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:21 am

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.
Last edited by Araraukar on Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
Radicalania
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Radicalania » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:20 am

Araraukar wrote: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.

Araraukar wrote: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.

Araraukar wrote: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 :)
Last edited by Radicalania on Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Ask for work. If they don't give you work, ask for bread. If they don't give you work or bread, then take bread"-Emma Golding, Anarchism and Other Essays

Radicalania Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: -8.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77
If I'm not in the WA today, there's probably a reason.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:46 am

Radicalania wrote:
Araraukar wrote: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. :)
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
Radicalania
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Radicalania » Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:52 am

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.
"Ask for work. If they don't give you work, ask for bread. If they don't give you work or bread, then take bread"-Emma Golding, Anarchism and Other Essays

Radicalania Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: -8.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77
If I'm not in the WA today, there's probably a reason.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:07 am

Radicalania wrote:
Araraukar wrote: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:
Radicalania wrote:Applauding the attempt of GA349 at keeping all planetary orbits clear

after this feedback:
Kenmoria wrote:
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.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
Radicalania
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Radicalania » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:46 am

Araraukar wrote:
Radicalania wrote: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:
Radicalania wrote:Applauding the attempt of GA349 at keeping all planetary orbits clear

after this feedback:
Kenmoria wrote:

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.

Araraukar wrote: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)
Last edited by Radicalania on Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Ask for work. If they don't give you work, ask for bread. If they don't give you work or bread, then take bread"-Emma Golding, Anarchism and Other Essays

Radicalania Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: -8.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77
If I'm not in the WA today, there's probably a reason.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jul 14, 2020 7:39 am

Radicalania wrote: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".
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
Radicalania
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Radicalania » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:43 am

Araraukar wrote:
Radicalania wrote: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
"Ask for work. If they don't give you work, ask for bread. If they don't give you work or bread, then take bread"-Emma Golding, Anarchism and Other Essays

Radicalania Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: -8.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77
If I'm not in the WA today, there's probably a reason.

User avatar
Qhevak
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 59
Founded: Jul 22, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Qhevak » Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:07 am

Radicalania wrote: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."
Semi-Hard SF Mutualist Anarchotransbaseline association of Oort cloud space habitats - basically all of these ideologies living together. Does not use NS stats.

Tier 9, Level 0, Type 7 on this index.
Aerospace Engineering student in UK. Georgist Market Socialist short term, anarchotranshumanist long term.

User avatar
Radicalania
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Radicalania » Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:38 am

"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."
"Ask for work. If they don't give you work, ask for bread. If they don't give you work or bread, then take bread"-Emma Golding, Anarchism and Other Essays

Radicalania Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: -8.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77
If I'm not in the WA today, there's probably a reason.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18432
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:56 am

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”?

Radicalania wrote:"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.
Last edited by Grays Harbor on Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Curmudgeon, Bastard, Grumpy Old Man. And those are my good qualities.

Head of the Grays Harbor WA delegation: Sir Henry Rodut, OHE, GHC
3-2-1 lets jam

User avatar
Radicalania
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Radicalania » Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:24 am

Grays Harbor wrote:
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.

Grays Harbor wrote:
Radicalania wrote:"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.
"Ask for work. If they don't give you work, ask for bread. If they don't give you work or bread, then take bread"-Emma Golding, Anarchism and Other Essays

Radicalania Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: -8.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77
If I'm not in the WA today, there's probably a reason.

User avatar
Qhevak
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 59
Founded: Jul 22, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Qhevak » Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:07 pm

Radicalania wrote: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.
Semi-Hard SF Mutualist Anarchotransbaseline association of Oort cloud space habitats - basically all of these ideologies living together. Does not use NS stats.

Tier 9, Level 0, Type 7 on this index.
Aerospace Engineering student in UK. Georgist Market Socialist short term, anarchotranshumanist long term.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 191
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:22 pm

Radicalania wrote: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.
Last edited by Ardiveds on Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Radicalania
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Radicalania » Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:03 am

Qhevak wrote:
Radicalania wrote: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.

Ardiveds wrote: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.
"Ask for work. If they don't give you work, ask for bread. If they don't give you work or bread, then take bread"-Emma Golding, Anarchism and Other Essays

Radicalania Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: -8.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77
If I'm not in the WA today, there's probably a reason.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 191
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:15 am

Radicalania wrote: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.

User avatar
Radicalania
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Radicalania » Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:31 am

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. :p

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.
"Ask for work. If they don't give you work, ask for bread. If they don't give you work or bread, then take bread"-Emma Golding, Anarchism and Other Essays

Radicalania Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: -8.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77
If I'm not in the WA today, there's probably a reason.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:50 am

Radicalania wrote: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.)
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3674
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:59 am

Radicalania wrote: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."
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
Ardiveds
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 191
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:11 am

Radicalania wrote: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. :p

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.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ardiveds, The New Nordic Union

Advertisement

Remove ads