A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Moon Laws



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 9th 07, 04:10 AM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
DougL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Moon Laws

On Oct 8, 10:27 am, John Schilling wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 07:09:05 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"


Given that any puncture of a habitat or space suit is potentially fatal for
all inhabitants, I'd definitely include in the constitution or body of law a
ban on private ownership of firearms.


Didn't we just have this discussion? A puncture of a habitat is only
"potentially fatal for all inhabitants" if you assume the inhabitants
are going to spend the next couple of days doing absolutely nothing
whatsoever about it. So, if you were administering a Terrestrial city,
would you insist on a ban on private ownership of matches?


Yes, you just had this discussion. It DOESN'T MATTER. The people who
think any hole is a catastrophy have seen LOTS of movies and TV shows
that show it being a catastrophy, and for the most part haven't taken
any classes in fluid dynamics at all (or watched myth-busters for that
matter).

I'm guessing no, but that you'd still be in favor of the ban on firearms.
Again, the legal and political environment in any future space colonies
is going to have a *lot* more to do with the people who decide to set up
the colony, than the nature of the colonial environment. Whatever laws
you want to impose on your neighbors, you'll find a reason to say those
law are particularly appropriate for your space colony.


Guns release evil gun mind control rays that corrupt otherwise non-
violent people into homicidal murderers even if no gun is actually
present. You should know this. The danger to the habitat is that the
people working in life support might NOT have a gun present, and hence
when one of them sucumes to the "gun poisoning" they will be forced to
resort to doing something seriously nasty rather than just opening
fire.

DougL

Ads
  #22  
Old October 9th 07, 09:45 AM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Eivind Kjorstad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Moon Laws

skreiv:

(1) many to many communication satellite network - global wireless
internet


Possibly, but that'd have to be LEO-satelites then. Otherwise latency is
intolerable for many uses due to speed-of-light issues.

And satelites are *very* poorly suited even so. The problem is that you
cover a large area with a signal that is only interesting for -one-
receiver. Which wastes the bandwith of the used channel for everyone
else in that area.

If you can use a very narrow signal, this problem goes away, it's a bit
hard to imagine a swarm of LEO-satelites, each maintaining a large
number of very narrow-beam signals (say laser) with independent receivers.

Keep in mind that the lower a satelite is, the faster it zips by, from
the POV of the receiver. So the satelite would need to be constantly
tracking with all of its beams, and there'd be a constant stream of
handovers from one satelite to the next.

And at the end of the day you get internet to the few places where it
-doesn't- pay to do it the land-based way. Which means there's few users
and/or the ones that are there have low ability to pay for it.

Somehow doesn't sound like a profit-centre to me....


Eivind Kjørstad
  #23  
Old October 9th 07, 10:34 AM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
BernardZ[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Moon Laws

In article ,
says...
Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:

:On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: BernardZ wrote:
:
: :
: :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like
: :ships do today.
: :
:
: In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are
: willing to give up their citizenship.
:
:
:Really? Why?
:

Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they
are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens.
If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company.


The company should be able to arrange its affairs to overcome these
problems.


http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress...ndez032707.htm

The principal law under which the U.S. exercises its Special Maritime
and Territorial Jurisdiction is set forth in Section 7 of Title 18 of
the U.S. Code. This statute provides, in relevant part, that the U.S.
has jurisdiction over crimes committed on a ship if:

* The ship, regardless of flag, is a U.S.-owned vessel, either whole
or in part, regardless of the nationality of the victim or the
perpetrator, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any
particular state;
* The offense by or against a U.S. national was committed outside
the jurisdiction of any nation;
* The crime occurred in the U.S. territorial sea (within 12 miles of
the coast), regardless of the nationality of the vessel, the victim or
the perpetrator; or
* The victim or perpetrator is a U.S. national on any vessel during
a voyage that departed from or will arrive in a U.S. port.




:
:Suppose that someone sets up a Liberian space ship. Some of the
assengers, employees and investors are citizens of countries other
:than Liberia.
:
:Presumably, if the rules on board the spaceship or in Moon colony are
:felt to be unfair to some of those involved, the consul of their
:native country in Liberia can complain to Liberian government and ask
:the Liberian government to enforce their laws.
:
:Whereas if those involved have given up their citizenship and become
:Liberian naturalized citizens, they have no consuls to protect them,
:but they can themselves complain to Liberian government...
:

The law isn't about protecting the individuals. It's about
responsibility for actions that are essentially 'extra-territorial'.
If a Mongolian crewman does something on your Liberian spaceship that
leads to a couple of buildings getting smashed, who is responsible?

Hint: It doesn't work like ships, where the flag nation is
automatically responsible.




You may want to check this link out

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/05/09/tanker-
investigation050509.html

Apparently Liberia.






  #24  
Old October 9th 07, 11:31 AM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Moon Laws

BernardZ wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
:
: :On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : BernardZ wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like
: : :ships do today.
: : :
: :
: : In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are
: : willing to give up their citizenship.
: :
: :
: :Really? Why?
: :
:
: Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they
: are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens.
: If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company.
:
:
:The company should be able to arrange its affairs to overcome these
roblems.
:

Hogwash.

One more time, for the folks who didn't get it. MARITIME LAW ****DOES
NOT APPLY****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Get it yet? The rules are totally different.

:
: Hint: It doesn't work like ships, where the flag nation is
: automatically responsible.
:
:
:You may want to check this link out
:
:http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/...ion050509.html
:
:Apparently Liberia.
:

You may want to go reread the hint.

Apparently you're illiterate.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #25  
Old October 9th 07, 01:24 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Moon Laws

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:34:17 +1000, in a place far, far away, BernardZ
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
says...
Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:

:On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: BernardZ wrote:
:
: :
: :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like
: :ships do today.
: :
:
: In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are
: willing to give up their citizenship.
:
:
:Really? Why?
:

Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they
are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens.
If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company.


The company should be able to arrange its affairs to overcome these
problems.


http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress...ndez032707.htm

The principal law under which the U.S. exercises its Special Maritime
and Territorial Jurisdiction is set forth in Section 7 of Title 18 of
the U.S. Code. This statute provides, in relevant part, that the U.S.
has jurisdiction over crimes committed on a ship if:


This has nothing to do with space. Space activities are governed by
the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, not maritime law.
  #26  
Old October 9th 07, 02:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
BernardZ[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Moon Laws

In article ,
h says...
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:34:17 +1000, in a place far, far away, BernardZ
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
says...
Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:

:On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: BernardZ wrote:
:
: :
: :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like
: :ships do today.
: :
:
: In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are
: willing to give up their citizenship.
:
:
:Really? Why?
:

Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they
are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens.
If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company.


The company should be able to arrange its affairs to overcome these
problems.


http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress...ndez032707.htm

The principal law under which the U.S. exercises its Special Maritime
and Territorial Jurisdiction is set forth in Section 7 of Title 18 of
the U.S. Code. This statute provides, in relevant part, that the U.S.
has jurisdiction over crimes committed on a ship if:


This has nothing to do with space. Space activities are governed by
the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, not maritime law.


Although not a definite answer it appears that space law is basically
maritime law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
  #27  
Old October 9th 07, 03:24 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Moon Laws

BernardZ wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:34:17 +1000, in a place far, far away, BernardZ
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: In article ,
: says...
: Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
:
: :On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : BernardZ wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like
: : :ships do today.
: : :
: :
: : In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are
: : willing to give up their citizenship.
: :
: :
: :Really? Why?
: :
:
: Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they
: are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens.
: If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company.
:
:
: The company should be able to arrange its affairs to overcome these
: problems.
:
:
: http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress...ndez032707.htm
:
: The principal law under which the U.S. exercises its Special Maritime
: and Territorial Jurisdiction is set forth in Section 7 of Title 18 of
: the U.S. Code. This statute provides, in relevant part, that the U.S.
: has jurisdiction over crimes committed on a ship if:
:
: This has nothing to do with space. Space activities are governed by
: the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, not maritime law.
:
:
:Although not a definite answer it appears that space law is basically
:maritime law.
:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
:

No, it does not appear that that is the case at all.

If a company chartered in the Bahamas owns a Liberian flagged ship
with a Moroccan crew and there is an accident, who is financially
responsible?

Now ask yourself the same question about a spacecraft. The answer is
quite different.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
  #28  
Old October 9th 07, 03:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Moon Laws

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 23:28:43 +1000, in a place far, far away, BernardZ
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:34:17 +1000, in a place far, far away, BernardZ
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
says...
Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:

:On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: BernardZ wrote:
:
: :
: :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like
: :ships do today.
: :
:
: In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are
: willing to give up their citizenship.
:
:
:Really? Why?
:

Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they
are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens.
If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company.


The company should be able to arrange its affairs to overcome these
problems.


http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress...ndez032707.htm

The principal law under which the U.S. exercises its Special Maritime
and Territorial Jurisdiction is set forth in Section 7 of Title 18 of
the U.S. Code. This statute provides, in relevant part, that the U.S.
has jurisdiction over crimes committed on a ship if:


This has nothing to do with space. Space activities are governed by
the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, not maritime law.


Although not a definite answer it appears that space law is basically
maritime law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty


That doesn't mean that Maritime law applies in all details.
  #29  
Old October 9th 07, 05:00 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Michael Ash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 128
Default Moon Laws

In rec.arts.sf.science Eivind Kjorstad wrote:
If you can use a very narrow signal, this problem goes away, it's a bit
hard to imagine a swarm of LEO-satelites, each maintaining a large
number of very narrow-beam signals (say laser) with independent receivers.

Keep in mind that the lower a satelite is, the faster it zips by, from
the POV of the receiver. So the satelite would need to be constantly
tracking with all of its beams, and there'd be a constant stream of
handovers from one satelite to the next.


Using a phased array would probably help a lot. Then everything comes down
to a problem of computing power, something which becomes less of a problem
with each passing day.

And at the end of the day you get internet to the few places where it
-doesn't- pay to do it the land-based way. Which means there's few users
and/or the ones that are there have low ability to pay for it.


This is the lesson of Iridium. Non-satellite works well enough for 99.99%
of the people, so you'd better be able to make money off only 0.01% of the
people.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
  #30  
Old October 9th 07, 05:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Crown-Horned Snorkack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default Moon Laws

On 9 okt, 03:53, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:

:On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:: BernardZ wrote:

:
: :
: :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like
: :ships do today.
: :
:
: In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are
: willing to give up their citizenship.
:
:
:Really? Why?
:

Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they
are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens.
If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company.

:
:Suppose that someone sets up a Liberian space ship. Some of the
assengers, employees and investors are citizens of countries other
:than Liberia.
:
:Presumably, if the rules on board the spaceship or in Moon colony are
:felt to be unfair to some of those involved, the consul of their
:native country in Liberia can complain to Liberian government and ask
:the Liberian government to enforce their laws.
:
:Whereas if those involved have given up their citizenship and become
:Liberian naturalized citizens, they have no consuls to protect them,
:but they can themselves complain to Liberian government...
:

The law isn't about protecting the individuals. It's about
responsibility for actions that are essentially 'extra-territorial'.
If a Mongolian crewman does something on your Liberian spaceship that
leads to a couple of buildings getting smashed, who is responsible?

Hint: It doesn't work like ships, where the flag nation is
automatically responsible.

Ah, this part.

Read the Outer Space Treaty and Liability Convention then.

Nowhere is the citizenship of persons mentioned. I see references to
launching state, and to states whose territory is used for launch as
well as states performing or procuring the launch, but not to persons.

When a Soviet spacecraft (unmanned) crashed in Canada, Soviet Union
paid for damage. Should a US spaceship launched or about to land in
Florida crash in Cuba, USA would pay Cuba for the damages.

Columbia carried an Israeli citizen. If a US shuttle with an Israeli
citizen aboard were to crash in Cuba, would Israel be jointly and
severally liable for the damages done to Cuba, or would the damages be
paid by USA alone?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Laws of Nature G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 0 January 2nd 07 11:31 PM
80/f5 For the In-Laws [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 November 3rd 05 01:55 AM
IP in china worse than no laws at all [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 1 February 24th 05 04:02 AM
Kepler's laws and trajectories tetrahedron Astronomy Misc 2 March 27th 04 06:31 AM
Kepler's laws Michael McNeil Astronomy Misc 1 January 23rd 04 05:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.