NATION

PASSWORD

[Draft] [Pending Repeal] To Remove Space Debris, and...

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] [Pending Repeal] To Remove Space Debris, and...

Postby Radicalania » Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:16 am

Been advised to post my current work on the replacement for GA349. This will follow my repeal attempt, should it be successful.

To Remove Space Debris, and Encourage Scientific Advancement of Nations Who Create It
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Manufacturing
Strength: (Strong I think)

Believing that Space Debris is a very dangerous form of pollution in space;

Feeling that previous attempts to legislate on this have been ineffective or incomplete;

Recognising differing levels of scientific advancement between nations;

Encouraging cooperation in minimising waste around planets;

Respecting the right of nations to protect their borders or resources within space;

Encouraging nations which do not have the ability to send vessels without creating debris to think of the necessity of their work in space;

Noting that more can be done in the future;

Hereby mandates that;

1- 'Space Debris' is defined as manufactured objects in space which are waste from anything leaving a planet, abandoned spacecraft including satellites, unused weapons, or any other artificial produce which is defunct, and/or remains of vessels which have fought one another, which may or may not be in orbit of another celestial body;

2- Any vessel entering space which is designed with parts which contribute to space debris must be registered with the WA.

3- Tasks WASP with directing funding into research of disposal techniques.

4- Vessels entering space must be capable of retrieving or carrying waste products back when re-entering orbit-
a- Except where the vessel does not intend to re-enter orbit, in which case nations must submit a detailed clean-up plan or;
b- Except if the vessel is capable of entering and maintaining a disposal orbit upon coming close to its end of use.

5- Nations which engage in warfare in space must be equipped with the facilities to retrieve their destroyed vessels and accompanying debris, complying with local and international salvage laws, except where this is likely to cause risk to life.
a- Should peace be made between warring nations, any treaty must include plans to clean up any excess debris made and not retrieved during that war.

6- Space debris within a planet's orbit must be retrieved or disposed of by the nation that has put them there, or by an agent acting on their behalf. If the debris is likely to stay there for over one orbit of that planet's star, nations must equip the debris sections with the ability to maneuver, in order to prevent collision.

7- Disallows intentional crash landings of space debris onto inhabited planets, except where the descent is controlled and landing in an area which is uninhabited or a designated landing zone, or in an emergency, or to prevent an immediate life risking hazard. Debris landed in this manner must be retrieved as soon as possible.

8- Allows for the creation of Space Salvage Yards which may dispose of or recycle space debris. These Salvage Yards must not be within a Planetary or Lunar Orbit, or a region effected by orbit of any celestial bodies. These Space Salvage Yards must:-
a- Contain their supply reasonably,
b- Clearly mark out the areas they are using in order to prevent collision,
c- Report regularly on their contents and progress in debris removal, recycling and destruction,
d- They shall also be tasked with retrieval of and either the destruction of space junk, or where possible recycling produce left in space, elsewise moving debris to planets designated as uninhabitable by the WA,
e- Nations must be able to enlist their help to remove waste produce.

9- Allows for nations to dispose of debris on planets designated uninhabitable by the WA.
a- This option must only be considered should all reasonable efforts have been considered.

To Remove Space Debris, and Encourage Scientific Advancement of Nations Who Create It
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Manufacturing
Strength: (Strong I think)

Believing that Space Debris is a very dangerous form of pollution in space;

Feeling that previous attempts to legislate on this have been ineffective or incomplete;

Recognising differing levels of scientific advancement between nations;

Encouraging cooperation in minimising waste around planets;

Respecting the right of nations to protect their borders or resources within space;

Encouraging nations which do not have the ability to send vessels without creating debris to think of the necessity of their work in space;

Noting that more can be done in the future;

Hereby mandates that;

1- 'Space Debris' is defined as manufactured objects in space which are waste from anything leaving a planet, abandoned spacecraft including satellites, unused weapons, or any other artificial produce which is defunct, and/or remains of vessels which have fought one another, which may or may not be in orbit of another celestial body;

2- Any vessel entering space which is designed with parts which contribute to space debris must be registered within the WA Science Program (herein WASP).

3- Tasks WASP with overseeing punishment to nations which intentionally create space debris and fail to adequately deal with it.

4- Further tasks WASP with directing funding from member nations into research of disposal techniques.

5- Vessels entering space must be capable of retrieving or carrying waste products back when re-entering orbit-
a- Except where the vessel does not intend to re-enter orbit, in which case nations must submit a detailed clean-up plan to WASP or;
b- Except if the vessel is capable of entering and maintaining a disposal orbit upon coming close to its end of use.

6- Nations which engage in warfare in space must be equipped with the facilities to retrieve their destroyed vessels and accompanying debris, complying with local and international salvage laws, except where this is likely to cause risk to life.
a- Should peace be made between warring nations, any treaty must include plans to clean up any excess debris made and not retrieved during that war.

7- Space debris within a planet's orbit must be retrieved by the nation that has put them there, or by an agent acting on their behalf. If the debris is likely to stay there for over one orbit of that planet's star, nations must equip the debris sections with the ability to maneuver, in order to prevent collision.

8- Disallows intentional crash landings of space debris onto inhabited planets, except where the descent is controlled and landing in an area which is uninhabited, or in an emergency, or to prevent an immediate life risking hazard. Debris landed in this manner must be retrieved as soon as possible.

9- Allows for the creation of Space Salvage Yards which will be overseen by WASP, and must not be within a Solar Systems Orbit, or a region effected by orbit of any celestial bodies. These Space Salvage Yards must:-
a- Contain their supply reasonably,
b- Clearly mark out the areas they are using in order to prevent collision,
c- Report to WASP regularly on their contents and progress in debris removal, recycling and destruction,
d- They shall also be tasked with retrieval of and either the destruction of space junk, or where possible recycling produce left in space,
e- Nations may enlist their help to remove waste produce from space.

[spoiler= First Draft]Believing that Space Debris is a very dangerous form of pollution in space;

Feeling that previous attempts to legislate on this have been ineffective or incomplete;

Recognising differing levels of scientific advancement between nations;

Encouraging cooperation in minimising waste around planets;

Respecting the right of nations to protect their borders or resources within space;

Encouraging nations which do not have the ability to send vessels without creating debris to think of the necessity of their work in space;

Noting that more can be done in the future;

Hereby mandates that;

1- 'Space Debris' is defined as manufactured objects in space which are waste from anything leaving a planet, abandoned spacecraft including satellites, unused weapons, or any other artificial produce which is defunct, and/or remains of vessels which have fought one another, which may or may not be in orbit of another celestial body;

2- Any vessel entering space, which is likely to contribute to space debris must be registered within the WA Science Program (herein WASP).

3- Tasks WASP with overseeing punishment to nations which intentionally create space debris and fail to adequately deal with it.

4- Further tasks WASP with directing funding from member nations into research of disposal techniques.

5- Vessels entering space must be capable of retrieving or carrying waste products back when re-entering orbit-
a- Except where the vessel does not intend to re-enter orbit, in which case nations must submit a detailed clean-up plan to WASP or;
b- Except if the vessel is capable of entering and maintaining a disposal orbit upon coming close to its end of use.

6- Nations which engage in warfare in space must be equipped with the facilities to retrieve their destroyed vessels and accompanying debris, complying with local and international salvage laws, except where this is likely to cause risk to life.
a- Should peace be made between warring nations, any treaty must include plans to clean up any excess debris made and not retrieved during that war.

7- Space debris within a planets orbit must be retrieved by the nation that has put them there, or by an agent acting on their behalf. If the debris is likely to stay there for over one orbit of a star, nations must equip the debris sections with the ability to maneuver, in order to prevent collision.

8- Disallows intentional crash landings of space debris onto inhabited planets, except where the descent is controlled and landing in an area which is uninhabited, or in an emergency, or to prevent an immediate life risking hazard. Debris landed in this manner must be retrieved as soon as possible.

9- Allows for the creation of Space Salvage Yards which will be overseen by WASP, and must not be within a Solar Systems Orbit, or a region effected by orbit of any celestial bodies. These Space Salvage Yards must:-
a- Contain their supply reasonably,
b- Clearly mark out the areas they are using in order to prevent collision,
c- Report to WASP regularly on their contents and progress in debris removal, recycling and destruction,
d- They shall also be tasked with retrieval of and either the destruction of space junk, or where possible recycling produce left in space,
e- Nations may enlist their help to remove waste produce from space.
Last edited by Radicalania on Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:36 am, edited 7 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
Flying Eagles
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 169
Founded: Nov 04, 2017
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Flying Eagles » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:03 pm

1. Please number your active clauses and letter your active sub clauses for easier reference.

2. “one orbit of a star” refers to which star exactly?

3. In “Any vessel entering space, which is likely to contribute to space debris”, “entering space,” is superfluous, as vessels can’t contribute to space debris without being in space in the first place.
Last edited by Flying Eagles on Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:10 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I do dumb things sometimes. Sorry.

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

Postby Radicalania » Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:18 pm

Flying Eagles wrote:1. Please number your active clauses and letter your active sub clauses for easier reference.

2. “one orbit of a star” refers to which star exactly?

3. In “Any vessel entering space, which is likely to contribute to space debris”, “entering space,” is superfluous, as vessels can’t contribute to space debris without being in space in the first place.


1. Will do

2. I specifically left it vague as different planets take a different amount of time to orbit their star. I'm not sure if we standardised time, and if you have any suggestions for a legal exact measurement, I'm more than happy to take it

3. Intentional, though it could read better. Will work that out.
"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
Flying Eagles
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 169
Founded: Nov 04, 2017
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Flying Eagles » Wed Jul 15, 2020 6:08 pm

Radicalania wrote:
Flying Eagles wrote:1. Please number your active clauses and letter your active sub clauses for easier reference.

2. “one orbit of a star” refers to which star exactly?

3. In “Any vessel entering space, which is likely to contribute to space debris”, “entering space,” is superfluous, as vessels can’t contribute to space debris without being in space in the first place.


1. Will do

2. I specifically left it vague as different planets take a different amount of time to orbit their star. I'm not sure if we standardised time, and if you have any suggestions for a legal exact measurement, I'm more than happy to take it

3. Intentional, though it could read better. Will work that out.


I'd replace "one orbit of a star" with "one of that planet's orbit of a star" just so some nation doesn't think we're talking about some random planet with a really long orbit to avoid compliance with this resolution. At the beginning of the same clause, you also need a apostrophe in "planets", should be "planet's"
I do dumb things sometimes. Sorry.

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

Postby Radicalania » Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:14 am

Thanks for the feedback, second draft incoming!
"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
Graintfjall
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 131
Founded: Jun 30, 2020
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Graintfjall » Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:07 am

“There are some customary objections to proposals we loathe, but which we will hypocritically make for ourselves now.

“Definitions… I think you need a definition of ‘entering space’, given much of the operative language rests on that. What, specifically, does that mean?

“Committees… There is no need for WASP’s role in this. Compliance will be taken care of by member nations and the Compliance Commission and any other relevant organs. Nor need WASP fund ‘disposal techniques’. We don’t need yet more money funneled from the General Fund for stuff like this. The space salvage yards are not needed, either.

“Planets… You probably need take account of inhabited moons.

“Beyond that, in Article 5 – setting aside the role of WASP – we’re not clear what the mandate is. If a ‘vessel entering space’ does not have such a capability, what happens?

“Format… The language is a bit inconsistent. Before finalizing the draft, decide whether you either want to head the list mandates that and then follow with numbered articles that are merely statements, or eliminate the mandates that heading and use operative verbs to introduce each operative clause. I’d recommend leaving this until the final draft as it’s not a major issue, though.

“On balance we’re not overly convinced by this as a replacement, yet, but it has promise. Our delegation will keep track of this draft and offer any useful comment we can.”

-- Júlía Maria Jónsdóttir
Economic Advisor to the Græntfjall WA Mission

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

Postby Radicalania » Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:06 am

Graintfjall wrote:“There are some customary objections to proposals we loathe, but which we will hypocritically make for ourselves now.

“Definitions… I think you need a definition of ‘entering space’, given much of the operative language rests on that. What, specifically, does that mean?


Defining entering space would be difficult, given what is space on one body will not be the same as another. Even were we to say "Entering Space is defined as leaving a bodies atmosphere" which is as broad as reasonably possible, this is still problematic to those living on worlds which are subject to the vacuum of space.


“Committees… There is no need for WASP’s role in this. Compliance will be taken care of by member nations and the Compliance Commission and any other relevant organs. Nor need WASP fund ‘disposal techniques’. We don’t need yet more money funneled from the General Fund for stuff like this. The space salvage yards are not needed, either.


I believe it is WASPs duty to assist in funding research, is it not? Surely research into technologies so beneficial to nations (being able to exit orbit without as much waste produce is much cheaper and produces much less debris, if any) would be beneficial to all space users.
Regarding junkyards, I believe it is of importance to legislate the bare minimum standards we expect of Junkyards in space, lest a nation claims that their planetary orbit is deemed one.

“Planets… You probably need take account of inhabited moons.


Will change it to celestial bodies.

“Beyond that, in Article 5 – setting aside the role of WASP – we’re not clear what the mandate is. If a ‘vessel entering space’ does not have such a capability, what happens?

Ah, yes, it doesnt make it clear, so we will have to add that. The nation should be making suitable plans to dispose of the waste, either via another vessel, an organisation (such as a licensed junkyard), or by another suitable method which does not leave waste or pose risk to those living below.

“Format… The language is a bit inconsistent. Before finalizing the draft, decide whether you either want to head the list mandates that and then follow with numbered articles that are merely statements, or eliminate the mandates that heading and use operative verbs to introduce each operative clause. I’d recommend leaving this until the final draft as it’s not a major issue, though.

Will add it into the next redraft provisionally as "mandates that"

“On balance we’re not overly convinced by this as a replacement, yet, but it has promise. Our delegation will keep track of this draft and offer any useful comment we can.”

-- Júlía Maria Jónsdóttir
Economic Advisor to the Græntfjall WA Mission


By all means, if you feel this is missing some bigger issue on the matter, or options are left unexplored, speak up. Many nations, yours included, will have perspectives we may never consider.
"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 5:11 am

9- Allows for the creation of Space Salvage Yards which will be overseen by WASP, and must not be within a Solar Systems Orbit, or a region effected by orbit of any celestial bodies.

Do you have any idea how big a solar system is, and how much empty space is there?
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 5:33 am

Grays Harbor wrote:
9- Allows for the creation of Space Salvage Yards which will be overseen by WASP, and must not be within a Solar Systems Orbit, or a region effected by orbit of any celestial bodies.

Do you have any idea how big a solar system is, and how much empty space is there?


As difficult as it is to comprehend sometimes when you're sat in a room with a pen, yes, we are aware of the vastness of solar systems. This part was in place to reduce the risk of planets et al from colliding with them, however, should they have abnormal orbits. I suppose there could be other options, this was the first option we thought of, and it seemed (albeit slightly excessive) suitable.
"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
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1251
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:35 am

Radicalania wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:Do you have any idea how big a solar system is, and how much empty space is there?


As difficult as it is to comprehend sometimes when you're sat in a room with a pen, yes, we are aware of the vastness of solar systems. This part was in place to reduce the risk of planets et al from colliding with them, however, should they have abnormal orbits. I suppose there could be other options, this was the first option we thought of, and it seemed (albeit slightly excessive) suitable.

Simply place the yards in orbit of a planet, and they won’t go crashing into them
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9595
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:40 am

Distribute dust in random positions across a 2D plane and then see how much of that dust remains in the centre after gravitational collapse and you'll see how little collisions matter, even if you impose basic collision physics. Whole galaxies can interact with each other and stars won't collide.

Author: 1 SC and 34 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

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

Postby Radicalania » Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:47 am

Honeydewistania wrote:
Radicalania wrote:
As difficult as it is to comprehend sometimes when you're sat in a room with a pen, yes, we are aware of the vastness of solar systems. This part was in place to reduce the risk of planets et al from colliding with them, however, should they have abnormal orbits. I suppose there could be other options, this was the first option we thought of, and it seemed (albeit slightly excessive) suitable.

Simply place the yards in orbit of a planet, and they won’t go crashing into them


That seems as problematic as a graveyard orbit, which is one of the things we need to outlaw.
"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
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1251
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:48 am

Radicalania wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote:Simply place the yards in orbit of a planet, and they won’t go crashing into them


That seems as problematic as a graveyard orbit, which is one of the things we need to outlaw.

Whoops, forgot the /s.

In all seriousness, IA is right. Collision is minimal.
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

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

Postby Radicalania » Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:55 am

Honeydewistania wrote:
Radicalania wrote:
That seems as problematic as a graveyard orbit, which is one of the things we need to outlaw.

Whoops, forgot the /s.

In all seriousness, IA is right. Collision is minimal.


Of course it is, and any vessel worth anything will be able to "see" oncoming debris. But it happens that space debris is still there, and is a stain on space. Again, I'll raise the point that most of us outlaw littering on our worlds, why should it be any different off world.
"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 5:58 am

Radicalania wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote:Whoops, forgot the /s.

In all seriousness, IA is right. Collision is minimal.


Of course it is, and any vessel worth anything will be able to "see" oncoming debris. But it happens that space debris is still there, and is a stain on space. Again, I'll raise the point that most of us outlaw littering on our worlds, why should it be any different off world.

Because what you are advocating for is essentially the equivalent of dropping a toothpick in the Mojave
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 5:59 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Distribute dust in random positions across a 2D plane and then see how much of that dust remains in the centre after gravitational collapse and you'll see how little collisions matter, even if you impose basic collision physics. Whole galaxies can interact with each other and stars won't collide.


That never happens...except when it does.

As negligible as the risk is, it still exists, and it doesn't have to.
"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
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1251
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:05 am

Radicalania wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Distribute dust in random positions across a 2D plane and then see how much of that dust remains in the centre after gravitational collapse and you'll see how little collisions matter, even if you impose basic collision physics. Whole galaxies can interact with each other and stars won't collide.


That never happens...except when it does.

As negligible as the risk is, it still exists, and it doesn't have to.

Once in ten thousand years per galaxy.

And even if it was good to prevent the 'collision', anywhere not affected by a celestial body would be almost absolute zero.
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

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

Postby Radicalania » Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:10 am

Grays Harbor wrote:Because what you are advocating for is essentially the equivalent of dropping a toothpick in the Mojave


To expand on this;
Except the toothpick is constantly moving and may prick you in the throat. And that prick may not be anywhere vital, but theres that tiny chance it hits you on a main artery.

This act ers on the side of caution, but it may prevent a disaster which one day we all cry "why did we not try and prevent this".

Once in ten thousand years per galaxy.

And even if it was good to prevent the 'collision', anywhere not affected by a celestial body would be almost absolute zero


We have asteroids in our systems which regularly hit planets. Most of them are harmless (and often even beautiful), but when you have a lot of those asteroids, and they're a touch more resistant to burning up (because we design them to not burn up on exit), that are fired near your planets orbit, it's a recipe for disaster.
Last edited by Radicalania on Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:13 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
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1251
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:13 am

I should had clarified, but I was talking about absolute zero the temperature. It would be incredibly, unbelievable cold to have manned salvage yards like that. Also, very expensive.
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

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

Postby Radicalania » Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:44 am

Honeydewistania wrote:I should had clarified, but I was talking about absolute zero the temperature. It would be incredibly, unbelievable cold to have manned salvage yards like that. Also, very expensive.


A half decent fleet of ships would be able to do it, possibly with a central trading hub, which could be useful for the more local nations. Of course, nobody is forcing these Junkyards to open, it's just one option presented. A more favourable one, in our heads, is the return and recycling of those parts jettisoned.
"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: 190
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:00 am

OOC: How does this affect nations that have just discovered space travel but have no realistic chance of finding a way to retrieve the debris they create for the next century or so? And again, why not mandate, a space station capable of salvagingand recycling the derbies. Compared to the surface area of planets, space is practically infinite, making these salvage yards on planet sufaces seems a waste.

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

Postby Grays Harbor » Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:33 am

Radicalania wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:Because what you are advocating for is essentially the equivalent of dropping a toothpick in the Mojave


To expand on this;
Except the toothpick is constantly moving and may prick you in the throat. And that prick may not be anywhere vital, but theres that tiny chance it hits you on a main artery.

This act ers on the side of caution, but it may prevent a disaster which one day we all cry "why did we not try and prevent this".
because obsessing over a 1 in 1 billion event is lunacy.

Once in ten thousand years per galaxy.

And even if it was good to prevent the 'collision', anywhere not affected by a celestial body would be almost absolute zero


We have asteroids in our systems which regularly hit planets. Most of them are harmless (and often even beautiful), but when you have a lot of those asteroids, and they're a touch more resistant to burning up (because we design them to not burn up on exit), that are fired near your planets orbit, it's a recipe for disaster.

It has become pretty clear that your goal is to bubble wrap the galaxy. Not gonna happen, no matter how much money you throw at it.
Last edited by Grays Harbor on Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:36 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 11:47 am

Ardiveds wrote:OOC: How does this affect nations that have just discovered space travel but have no realistic chance of finding a way to retrieve the debris they create for the next century or so? And again, why not mandate, a space station capable of salvagingand recycling the derbies. Compared to the surface area of planets, space is practically infinite, making these salvage yards on planet sufaces seems a waste.


Well that actually is an option, the idea behind the Space junkyards would be to either dismantle or recycle parts. What I believe you've got confused at is that these salvage yards could not be on planets, they must be in open space.
And that was my option to nations that would struggle to retrieve their debris, they can make contact with one of the local spacefaring regions. An alternate option is to maneuver their debris into an orbit which would allow it to burn up into the atmosphere.

It has become pretty clear that your goal is to bubble wrap the galaxy. Not gonna happen, no matter how much money you throw at it.


Honestly, if you're complaining this much about adding extra environmental protections, I'm glad I haven't managed to make my way over to your home world, god only knows what it looks like.
"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
Flying Eagles
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 169
Founded: Nov 04, 2017
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Flying Eagles » Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:14 pm

We’re happy with this resolution. To all nations, this resolution simply mandates you do just one of the following:

Crash your debris into an uninhabited area and send someone to pick it up

Dump it into a disposal orbit

Equip it with engines so it doesn’t crash into anything

Dump it into a Space Salvage Yard

Send another vessel to pick it up

We feel that all nations can do one of these simple thIngs with their debris.

P.S. 5b should likely mandate that the waste products should be put into a disposal orbit too, not just the vessel.
Last edited by Flying Eagles on Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I do dumb things sometimes. Sorry.

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1251
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Fri Jul 17, 2020 4:59 am

Radicalania wrote:
Ardiveds wrote:OOC: How does this affect nations that have just discovered space travel but have no realistic chance of finding a way to retrieve the debris they create for the next century or so? And again, why not mandate, a space station capable of salvagingand recycling the derbies. Compared to the surface area of planets, space is practically infinite, making these salvage yards on planet sufaces seems a waste.


Well that actually is an option, the idea behind the Space junkyards would be to either dismantle or recycle parts. What I believe you've got confused at is that these salvage yards could not be on planets, they must be in open space.
And that was my option to nations that would struggle to retrieve their debris, they can make contact with one of the local spacefaring regions. An alternate option is to maneuver their debris into an orbit which would allow it to burn up into the atmosphere.

It has become pretty clear that your goal is to bubble wrap the galaxy. Not gonna happen, no matter how much money you throw at it.


Honestly, if you're complaining this much about adding extra environmental protections, I'm glad I haven't managed to make my way over to your home world, god only knows what it looks like.


I'm one that prefers environmental regulations (and I've written one on that), but to be honest this is unnecessarily regulatory. I'm almost certain that anyone manning a space junkyard can tell when two stars are about to collide, and can get the hell out of there along with whatever expensive equipment in ample time, and what's destroyed is literally junk, so it wouldn't matter. And this happens so rarely anyway.
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ardiveds, Honeydewistania

Advertisement

Remove ads