Jan 27, 17 / Aqu 27, 01 00:06 UTC

Re: Current Space Law : The Outer Space Treaty  

The OST doesn't prohibit space resource exploitation, yet I would suggest Tingkang's approach to the matter. All it would require is to ad one little paragraph to the OST, and we are free to go.


However, we need to recall that: - The OST was supposed to keep the outer space from being a warzone, same as the antarctic treaty. - A constitution is a framework for a nation, not an act regulating national activities in outer space - Operating a space station, regardless of the size (from ISS to O'Neil Cylinders) will require a similar approach as the ISS Code of Conduct.

Besides, Russian Federation has it's national About Space Activities Act, that clearly states that RF can create safety zones around their installations. That is not appropriation, yet You can point an AK rifle at a non-astronaut that tries to get too close. National legislations have to be complied, although they ma regulate topics, previously ignored in the international space law, like asteroid mining (US, Lux) or space settlement (upcoming US).

May 10, 17 / Gem 18, 01 01:14 UTC

@DVK9 - you have the right of it with regards to understanding how those treaties and so forth are handled by the big signatories.

The UN treaties are not there to create a law that is followed by those who created them. They are there to create a law to inhibit parties from being able to get an advantage over others, I'm not talking conspiracy I'm talking our normal human attitude of wanting an advantage in any particular field.  In the case of the OST the world had become a militarised arena and the military thinking wanted supremacy in the space arena. No one wanted the other parties (especially a new party to the field) to put weapons up there floating overhead.  So the treaty was designed to inhibit people from easily getting to space and to ensure that states held responsibility and liability for space objects. In effect this meant that only a state could enter humans into space as they had to take liability for any individual or business that launched bodies into space from their state held territory.

As with everything in life, larger controlling states who already have vested interests in space will naturally be the first to modify the interpretation of any treaty to suit their own ends. This is evident in the sth china sea example you mentioned. We already know that both the russians and the usa put weapons into space long ago and now we have the chinese who have demonstrated abilities in military satellites which indicate they are probably weaponised.

This brings us to the issue with Asgardia.  Firstly it needs to be a state to launch or own bodies in space. Secondly It needs to be signatory to the relevant treaties or it will be regarded as a rogue state (witness north korean situation). Under these circumstances the larger states can feel justified in any action they take against a group like asgardia if it doesn't comply.  

So what does Asgardia do? Exactly what Dr Ashurbeyli has put in progress.

a) Go through the long and arduous task of getting peer recognition as a state. This involves a number of things which have nothing to do with engineering or space it is purely about peer recognition. This peer recognition revolves around acceptability and that means deference to current laws and treaties whether we like them or not.

b) Get involved and recognised as serious investors and participants in the scientific and space industries. This involves contributing to multiple projects and events, proposing and supporting serious, recognised scientific projects which benefit the industry and humanity in general.

c) build a community and support base that are contributing and are willing to forego their current society to form the new state.

d) show a pattern and documented form of organisation with goals, structure and design that benefits those individuals within the support base and outside parties with whom they come into contact.

At this point representation and involvement of the Asgardian project to and with the rest of the world is the most important part of this process.  This means we have to work within the boundaries of all UN treaties and international law so that none of the other players can damage the recognition process or stop the organisation from being formed.  So the focus shouldn't be on how we don't like something the UN or "powers that be" have created. The focus should be on how do we utilise these tools to get to where we want to be.  Remember, in the minds of the military (who hold sway over government in the current world) we are essentially proposing to create a state which will want to defend it's territory - and that territory will be floating above their heads in space. If we go outside the rules that have been set up by whomever is in power there won't be any Asgardia - I think it is safe to say that none of us has the political, social or financial power to go up against the "powers that be".

This is what we are dealing with and every vague law and treaty will be utilised to try and regulate and/or stop a situation in which "society" thinks will give them a disadvantage or where we have any perceived military capability which they don't control.  The legalities and the current law are important and are all we have to work with.  If we are to have discussions about space law let's actually discuss the laws - download them, read them, post them and discuss how they can be utilised and worked within to further the process of creating Asgardia. This would seem to be a productive use of the forum.

Jun 19, 17 / Leo 02, 01 19:50 UTC

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty is going to last exactly until the minute somebody discovers something valuable on the Moon and/or establishes a way to process or own said something.

Then things are going to start blowing up. Count on this.

Jun 27, 17 / Leo 10, 01 01:14 UTC

We already discovered Helium-3, which is a great fission fuel.  Worth more than all the oil on the planet Earth.  It is also capable of utility in fission weapons.  So the moon is off limits.  Unless you want to become a nuclear (weapons) power, just by being there.

More importantly, as we are not signatory to the Treaty (as a nation) it is not binding to us, nor grants us protection.

HOWEVER, neglected in the discussion is the fact Asgardia The Space Nation is a product of "International Non-Governmental Research Society on Space - Asgardia", a German Government NGO - then we as a CORPORATE ENTITY are subject to the laws of the treaties signed by the Republic of Germany, and in violation to assert sovereignty in this or any other matter, without violation of the conditions, terms, and limitations placed on the "International Non-Governmental Research Society on Space - Asgardia" (frequently referred to as the "Asgardia NGO" by its CEO, Rebekah Berg.

As such, it is my understanding we intend to act in rebellion against such treaty contrary all language, by the proposed "virtual territorial claim" of ASGARDIA-1, and such violation may qualify its loss of control under terms conditional to its manufacture, launch, and ongoing mission control; and while tolerated are regulated by the tracking and management software and services which interact with the device as explained by my friend in the radio regulatory industry.

We therefore cannot proceed if we expect to maintain communications with ASGARDIA-1.

As ASGARDIA-1 is bound by the Treaty language via our chain of franchise and authority directly to a State power.

  Last edited by:  JAMES ALLEN (Asgardian)  on Jun 27, 17 / Leo 10, 01 01:15 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Oct 26, 17 / Oph 19, 01 20:30 UTC

The UN may declare space and celestial bodies as unclaimable, but first off as humanity visits other planets that will become obsolete, and secondly that only means they would potentially go to war (worst case) with someone doing so - I can't see either of us going to war with each other as our mandate is a peaceful one with most of the same fundamentals.  Furthermore as Asgardia gains recognition it will replace the UN where space is concerned, leaving them to focus on earth as they obviously are, and perhaps should be - space should be freedom from early nations, which were founded pre-internet.

Oct 28, 17 / Oph 21, 01 20:15 UTC

There are humans in space. There are forward future positive models and forward future negatives. The past is just the future gone full circle and back to before, but really after. There are humans in space for I am the eyes and I exist on the planet and in space. In fact my eyes exist everywhere across all dimensions/frequencies and programs to watch and observe and save you from the fall. In order to assign this you must design this as I have. Do not assign or speculate probabilities with death and carnage for you are dooming an entire probability just for the sake of imagination. Do not imagine enemies my friends imagine friends. For if you tell the universe to bring you an enemy it will listen and if you tell it to bring you a friend it will listen. So balance your emotions and do not assign fates outside your own dimensions or else you will be an instrument of the eyes. A tortured soul to walk through infinities to tell the story and remind them all. For when you can make a world you can learn to rule it. Until that day my friends you must train to be able.