Environmental Policy Final
Environmental Policy Final
Professor Nina Kelsey
Carl Mackensen
Word Count: 2173
Introduction
There have been perhaps few projects in history that so grasp the human mind and heart as space exploration does. It may be the case that nothing has had the same draw on the imaginations of so many as since the dawn of the finding of the New World. It is in that spirit, therefore, that I recommend that NASA support the privatization of all aspects of space exploration and development, now that governments have proven exploration is technically feasible. This will truly transform humanity.
Negotiations
On December Eighth, 1966, it was announced that the twenty eight countries which formed the United Nations Outer Space Committee had reached agreement on a treaty that for the first time declared principles detailing the business of states in the ‘exploration and use of outer space, the moon, and other celestial bodies.” (Johnson, 1966). On December 17th, 1966, the treaty was put forward by the Political Committee of the General Assembly with full support and no dissenters. On the 19th, it achieved a unanimous vote by the UN General Assembly. For the first time, ‘nations often in conflict with one another and adhering to widely divergent political philosophies have agreed on the first Treaty of general applicability governing activity in outer space.’ (U.N. Doc. A/C.l/L.396 (1966)).
The official name of the treaty is the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, also known as the Outer Space Treaty (hereafter OST). It is the foundation for all of space law, and includes numerous parties. It was put into force by the United Nations, and on January 27th 1967 was signed by the United States, United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. It came to be effective law on October 10th, 1967. By March 2024, “115 countries are parties to the treaty – including all major spacefaring nations – and another 22 are signatories.” (Treaty, retrieved September 16th, 2017)
The OST was implemented in part due to the rise of the intercontinental ballistic missiles of the 1950s, which traveled through space. The USSR launched the first satellite, Sputnik, in October 1957. This led to a ‘space race’ between the USA and USSR. In turn, this resulted in the promulgation of the view that outer space be exempt from military development, or ownership. All members of the UN GA supported a resolution banning the use of weapons of mass destruction in space on October 17th 1963. Arms control talk continued in December 1966, leading up to the taking up of the OST. “Key provisions of the Outer Space Treaty include prohibiting nuclear weapons in space; limiting the use of the Moon and all other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes; establishing that space shall be freely explored and used by all nations; and precluding any country from claiming sovereignty over outer space or any celestial body.” (Dembling, page 419)
Between 1968 and 1984, the OST led to another four rules, including “rules for activities on the Moon; liability for damages caused by spacecraft; the safe return of fallen astronauts; and the registration of space vehicles.” (Buono, 2020). The OST was at the nexus of a number of international treaties and power talks to realize the optimal conditions for world security based in nuclear weaponry. The OST also makes it clear that space is available to all people, from all countries, for all humankind. It is based largely on the Antarctic Treaty of 1961, which explicitly stated that not only could there be no ownership, but no build up of military forces. (OST, 2021). Because of this, space law is largely unsettled around newer space activities such as mining of celestial bodies such as the Moon or asteroids. Despite this, it is foundational to space law, and forms the basis for international objectives both present and future, including the International Space Station, and the US Artemis Program, which seeks to return astronauts to the moon.
For the purposes of this piece, we are most interested in Article II of the OST, in which it is forbidden that any governing body ‘appropriate’ any celestial body including asteroids, planets and moons, “whether by declaration, use, occupation, or any other means.” (Frakes, 2003). Artificial objects in space, however, are considered to be within the jurisdiction of the country that launched it into space, (OST Article 8) and further, said state is considered responsible for any damages which the artificial object may have caused. (OST Article 7). The OST is primarily an arms treaty which puts forward the peaceful use of outer space and its objects, and as such doesn’t speak to mining or ownership of objects in space. Therefore, it is up for debate whether the mining and removal of resources in space falls under the purview of the OST which prohibits taking ownership of things in space, or is considered commercial use. (Koch, 2008).
In 2015, private companies in the US questioned the US government, which in turn put forward the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015, which legalized mining in space. (McCarthy, 2015). Luxembourg, Japan, China, India and Russia are introducing similar legislation. The US has also put forward a number of bilateral negotiations called the Artemis Accords, which attempt to make clear some of the ambiguous language of the OST, part of which includes the use of resources found in space.
The Client
The client to which this piece is addressed is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, which is an agency of the US federal government which is independent in nature. Its mandate includes the civil space program, and research within both space and aeronautics. NASA was founded in 1958 following the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, with the aim of making development of space exploration more civilian based, with a focus on science and peaceful operations in space. It has led the space exploration programs of the US. This included Projects Mercury, and Gemini, the Apollo Moon landing missions, Skylab, the Space Shuttle, and currently gives support to the International Space Station, as well as the above mentioned Artemis Program.
The headquarters of NASA is in Washington, DC. Employees are required to be US citizens, unless exceptional circumstances are met. The administrator is a Presidential nominee and is confirmed by the US Senate. There are four strategic goals, including
· Expand human knowledge through new scientific discoveries
· Extend human presence to the Moon and on towards Mars for sustainable long-term exploration, development, and utilization
· Catalyze economic growth and drive innovation to address national challenges
· Enhance capabilities and operations to catalyze current and future mission success
In terms of resources, NASA’s budgets are constructed by NASA and given approval by the governing administration, and then passed on to the US Congress. Below is a breakdown by year:
Year
Budget Request
in bil. US$
Authorized Budget
in bil. US$
U.S. Government
Employees
2018
$19.092[223]
$20.736[224]
17,551[225]
2019
$19.892[224]
$21.500[226]
17,551[227]
2020
$22.613[226]
$22.629[228]
18,048[229]
2021
$25.246[228]
$23.271[230]
18,339[231]
2022
$24.802[230]
$24.041[232]
18,400 est
NASA’s resources are not simply monetary, however. The organization has a wealth of intellectual capital in its workforce, a history of accomplishment, and a recognizable brand synonymous with elite performance of its mission.
The strategic position of NASA in the exploration of Space and conduct of Space science cannot be overstated. With perhaps the exception of the Russian space program, there has been no other entity so responsible for the development of resources in Space, and the surpassing of hurdles to exploration. NASA, however, is not nearly as highly funded as the general public believes. There was for sometime a movement entitled ‘a penny for NASA’ which sought to give NASA one percent of the entire federal budget. In reality, as stated above, their budgets have been far below this, despite people believing it to be multiple times higher. As space exploration becomes privatized, NASA can return to its mission of pushing the envelope of exploration and technology. They therefore have an existential impetus to encourage the movement of established technology and methods to the private sector, so that they can focus on what they do best.
The obstacles that lay in the way of NASA’s return to an emphasis on exploration through privatization of all other missions are primarily budget and PR related. Many believe that spending money on the space program at all is foolish, and maintain that such money should be spent here at home. They seek to defund NASA, and mothball all of its programs. Alternatively, there are those who maintain that privatization of anything, particularly something that previously had been government provided, is tantamount to evil and allowing the greedy to take over yet another industry, this time turning space into a trash heap or strip mine. The capabilities NASA has to meet these obstacles, and to push forward new legislation, is primarily based in its expertise to date, and its articulation of the mission of exploration as paramount to the human experience. Without exploration, what are we? We would never have stood upright to look at the horizon, or developed tools to make our thriving easier. In a more nuts and bolts perspective, NASA can point to spin offs of technology developed originally for space exploration, such as electric motors, solar power, and energy efficiency. Should it fully support privatization, it can point to further development of new technologies and the decrease of price to established methodologies, as this is what competition engenders.
Recommendations
NASA wants to explore space. This can be accomplished through a number of ways, such as increasing their budget, devoting more people to the organization, increasing ties with other space organizations abroad, and so on. The best way for them to go about getting this goal, in my opinion and as I have put forward above, is privatizing as much of the space exploration infrastructure as possible. Don’t just allow SpaceX and Blue Origin to fly capsules to the International Space Station. Allow companies to mine asteroids for precious metals. Allow people or organizations to purchase real estate on Mars. Allow the bounty of exploration fall not just to the general public in the form of increased scientific knowledge, but also the provision of profits to private companies the public can invest in. NASA already partners with European Space Agency, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Roscosmos, China National Space Administration, and Indian Space Research Organization. Let this partnership set the stage for new international law around privatization.
How can NASA accomplish these goals? What actions can be taken? NASA can pursue a multi-pronged approach to the legalization of privatization, which would facilitate exploration. Legalization of privatization could be pursued at both the international and domestic levels. This could be done via both the UN, as the original OST was, and through the US Congress, as domestic funding is done. The negotiation strategy would build on NASA’s history as an elite organization that accomplishes moon-shot goals. In both venues, NASA could make a similar argument, but targeted at different segments of society. Domestically and internationally, NASA could cite the rich history world powers have of initially financing exploration, such as the exploration of the New World, followed by privatization of activities once the large expenditure of exploration has been completed by a government. Columbus may have been the first to reach the New World, but it was the Dutch East India company which truly began the development of it. This argument could be put forward both for the US, and internationally for other countries. In fact, in terms of NASA’s objectives, the more entities that enter into the competitive sphere the better, for that will bring down prices and increase need for further pure science exploration, just what NASA seeks. Hence this argument is truly international in scope.
The obstacles NASA would face would primarily be, as stated above, from those who would prioritize other activities for research and development dollars. NASA could counteract this by putting forward that NASA is simply doing what it has always done; facilitating exploration. That many people would gain financially is simply an added bonus, one that is in no way related to the amount of money spent on NASA. NASA could again emphasize the value of spin offs, as well as the importance of exploration for humankind, as well as make clear that, through the legalization of privatization of space resources, the whole world would stand to benefit.
Conclusion
It is here that I leave my piece. Exploration is something that humans have always done, and excelled at. It may be one of the few attributes that make us truly unique as a species. As such, there is little that excites the mind more than finding what is beyond the nearest horizon, and how we can conquer it and flourish there. Were NASA and international governments to privatize all space exploration, humanity would enter a new era. An era of scientific exploration mixed with entrepreneurial development. An era the likes of which we can scarcely imagine today.
References
Dembling, Paul G., Arons, Daniel M., The Evolution of the Outer Space Treaty, Journal of Air Law and Commerce 33 (1967) pp. 419 - 456
President Lyndon B. Johnson. U.S./U.N. Press Release 5011, reprinted in 2 PRESIDENTULZ. DOCUMENTS 1781 (1966); 11 DEP'T STATE BULL. 912 (1966); N.Y. Times, 9 Dec. 1966, at 1, col. 8.
"Treaty on Principles Governing the. Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Ocher Celestial Bodies," annexed to a resolution of the General Assembly. U.N. Doc. A/C.l/L.396 (1966). The text of the treaty is reproduced in 33 J. AIR L. 8r COM. 132 (1967)
Buono, Stephen (2 April 2020). "Merely a 'Scrap of Paper'? The Outer Space Treaty in Historical Perspective". Diplomacy and Statecraft. 31 (2): 350-372
"The Outer Space Treaty". www.unoosa.org. Retrieved 24 September 2021.
Frakes, Jennifer (2003). "The Common Heritage of Mankind Principle and the Deep Seabed, Outer Space, and Antarctica: Will Developed and Developing Nations Reach a Compromise?". Wisconsin International Law Journal (21 ed.): 409
Koch, Jonathan Sydney (2008). "Institutional Framework for the Province of all Mankind: Lessons from the International Seabed Authority for the Governance of Commercial Space Mining". Astropolitics. 16 (1): 1–27
U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (H.R.2262). 114th Congress (2015–2016) Sponsor: Rep. McCarthy, Kevin. 5 December 2015
Heiney, Anna (14 August 2020). "NASA, SpaceX Targeting October for Next Astronaut Launch". blogs.nasa.gov. Retrieved 27 August 2020.
Mann, Adam; Harvey, Ailsa (August 17, 2022). "NASA's Artemis program: Everything you need to know". Space.com.
"NASA FY2022 Strategic Plan" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on September 7, 2022