Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 66

Thread: USA’s Artemis Accords

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    8,396

    USA’s Artemis Accords

    Reading the article, it seems the accord has to be led by USA. Can not see China or Russia agreeing to it.

    https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4009/1

    On May 15, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine presented the critical points of The Artemis Accords Principles for a Safe, Peaceful, and Prosperous Future (the Artemis Accords) publicly (see “What’s in a name when it comes to an ‘accord’?”, The Space Review, July 13, 2020). The Artemis Accords attempt to clarify basic principles and rule frameworks in international law for the sake of lunar activities which are led by the US, and then to influence and promote the international community to reach a consensus on the legality of space resources activities. It shows that the US carries on the rationale of the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015, along with the Presidential Decree No.13914, and continues to promote the construction of legal and political certainties on space resource activities. In this way, more countries will be attracted to participate in not just the Artemis program, but also future space resources activities on other celestial bodies, such as extracting and utilizing resources on Mars or asteroids. This will have a certain impact not just on the nature of space activities and the relations between spacefaring countries, but also on the discussion of relevant international rules. The main question to be discussed here is whether it will bring to a united space law or a divided one.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    Reading the article, it seems the accord has to be led by USA. Can not see China or Russia agreeing to it.

    https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4009/1
    I think the writer should use shorter sentences to disambiguate for biased readers.

    "...for the sake of lunar activities which are led by the US".

    LOL

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,306
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    Reading the article, it seems the accord has to be led by USA. Can not see China or Russia agreeing to it.

    https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4009/1
    Yes its an accord designed to cover the activities of the US and its partners under the Artemis program, who else would be leading it? Perhaps you should read the articles you link in a little more detail.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,018
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    Reading the article, it seems the accord has to be led by USA. Can not see China or Russia agreeing to it.

    https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4009/1
    Why would Russia or China need to agree with it?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    8,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Why would Russia or China need to agree with it?
    It is supposed to work within the framework of the Outer Space Treaty but it seems to want to replace it.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,018
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    It is supposed to work within the framework of the Outer Space Treaty but it seems to want to replace it.
    ??? It's not applicable to the whole world, and it says so.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    8,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    ??? It's not applicable to the whole world, and it says so.
    It has to fit into the Outer Space Treaty.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,018
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    It has to fit into the Outer Space Treaty.
    OK. And if it does not, then what?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,470
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    It is supposed to work within the framework of the Outer Space Treaty but it seems to want to replace it.
    I'm not sure if "replace it" is the right term. It seems that it is an attempt to go beyond the Outer Space Treaty but in a way that does not violate the treaty. Specifically, I think that the Outer Space Treaty does not clearly state the status of things like mining resources in space. I think that it specifies that countries cannot own outer space bodies, and specifies that spaceships belong to whoever launched them even when they are in space, but I don't think it has clear guidance on the ownership of moon rocks, for example. So I think the Artemis Accords are an attempt to create an international consensus that space mining is legal, and that in the typical fashion of the current US administration, the US is trying to do it not through a new international treaty but by getting a consensus among its allies.
    As above, so below

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    8,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    OK. And if it does not, then what?
    Them it is void.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,306
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    Them it is void.
    How exactly? As it stands the accord is supposed to work within the boundaries of the current treaty. Separate to that the US wants to revise or replace the treaty, which given the potential rapid expansion of commercial activities in space makes sense. The OST was written at a time when spaceflight was dominated by two nations and their respective government agencies. Circumstances have changed and the treaty will need to as well.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    8,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
    How exactly? As it stands the accord is supposed to work within the boundaries of the current treaty. Separate to that the US wants to revise or replace the treaty, which given the potential rapid expansion of commercial activities in space makes sense. The OST was written at a time when spaceflight was dominated by two nations and their respective government agencies. Circumstances have changed and the treaty will need to as well.
    You yourself say "the US wants to revise or replace the treaty" but without the agreement of both Russia and China, it is a non starter.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,018
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    Them it is void.
    And how will that be enforced? What would be the consequences?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    8,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    And how will that be enforced? What would be the consequences?
    That is like asking - how is the "Outer Space Treaty" going to be enforced and what would be the consequences if one broke it.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,470
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    You yourself say "the US wants to revise or replace the treaty" but without the agreement of both Russia and China, it is a non starter.
    My understanding is that NASA’s hope is that once ESA gets on board that Russia will consider joining as well. I don’t know if it’s realistic, but I think that is the strategy.
    As above, so below

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,306
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    You yourself say "the US wants to revise or replace the treaty" but without the agreement of both Russia and China, it is a non starter.
    Well they have no input to the accord so that's irrelevant. As to revising the treaty its a thing that needs doing, if Russia and China don't want to deal with reality that's no reason for the USA and their partners not to try.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    You yourself say "the US wants to revise or replace the treaty" but without the agreement of both Russia and China, it is a non starter.
    you start the thread by misinterpreting an article and you morph into the same misrepresentation against those pointing out your original mistake. This is absurd. Straw man and a bunch of other deceptive argumentation techniques. You can end the squabble by admitting to your error.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,018
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    That is like asking - how is the "Outer Space Treaty" going to be enforced and what would be the consequences if one broke it.
    Yes, I'm asking that.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,470
    Since everyone seems to be getting on selvaarchi's case about this, I would just kind of wonder, the original statements:

    Reading the article, it seems the accord has to be led by USA. Can not see China or Russia agreeing to it.
    It is supposed to work within the framework of the Outer Space Treaty but it seems to want to replace it.
    Are those really wrong? They seem fairly OK. I mean, my reading of it is that the eventual aim seems to be to replace the Outer Space Treaty.

    An article by Reuters has this quote from a US official:

    The Artemis Accords are part of the Trump administration’s plan to forgo the treaty process at the United Nations and instead reach agreement with “like-minded nations,” partly because a treaty process would take too long and working with non-spacefaring states would be unproductive, a senior administration official told Reuters.
    Are people really disagreeing with that initial point?
    As above, so below

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Since everyone seems to be getting on selvaarchi's case about this, I would just kind of wonder, the original statements:





    Are those really wrong? They seem fairly OK. I mean, my reading of it is that the eventual aim seems to be to replace the Outer Space Treaty.

    An article by Reuters has this quote from a US official:



    Are people really disagreeing with that initial point?
    I'm just asking questions.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I'm just asking questions.
    Sorry, I should have used a quote, because although yours was the last question before mine, in fact I was responding to the post before it, and specifically to the quote:

    you start the thread by misinterpreting an article and you morph into the same misrepresentation against those pointing out your original mistake.
    But also, I hope I'm not being unfair, but I interpreted your questions as being what is called the Socratic Method, I'm not sure how well known it is. It is a way to make an argument by asking questions of the other person. And that's not meant as a criticism--the Socratic Method is often a very good way to clarify a point, so I'm not knocking it.

    For example, asking the about whether the Outer Space Treaty is enforceable seems to me to be making the valid point that international law is by its nature not enforceable, but I'm not sure where you are trying to go with that. Implicitly you are making the argument that the Artemis Accords are a positive development because international law is ineffective? If that's so, I think it's fine to state it.

    Also, just about the whole issue, I think that the points made by Garrison are very well thought out and constructive, as they really get into the actual issue about what the Accords are.
    As above, so below

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Implicitly you are making the argument that the Artemis Accords are a positive development because international law is ineffective? If that's so, I think it's fine to state it.
    It's not so. I'm asking what are the implications if Selvaarchi's statements are in fact the case.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    8,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Yes, I'm asking that.
    Then we get what is happening in the South China Sea See the video attached to the CNN article.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/28/a...cli/index.html

    Why it matters who owns the seas
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,018
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    Then we get what is happening in the South China Sea See the video attached to the CNN article.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/28/a...cli/index.html
    I'm having trouble getting it to play. Can you summarize?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    8,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I'm having trouble getting it to play. Can you summarize?
    If one country ignores the United Nations Convention On The Law Of The Sea (UNCLOS) what is stopping the rest.

    Same question you were asking on the "Outer Space Treaty".
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,470
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    If one country ignores the United Nations Convention On The Law Of The Sea (UNCLOS) what is stopping the rest.

    Same question you were asking on the "Outer Space Treaty".
    The video was actually quite interesting, and well explained. It is basically giving a history of how territorial waters have evolved over the past couple of centuries. And pointing out that nations clash over ownership of the ocean because there are benefits to get from it. But I don't see that as really leading to any direct thinking either in support or opposition to the Artemis Accords. Rather, my view would be that, just as thinking about ownership of the ocean is evolving, ideas on the ownership of space resources is evolving, and the US is putting out a position, but eventually I suppose that an international treaty will emerge that will deal more authoritatively with the issue. The issue of whether international law is enforceable is sort of a side argument as far as I see it, because that's a fact that all international law has to deal with. I also think that while the issue of the ownership of the seas is an urgent one, as conflicts are currently arising over it, the ownership of space resources is a much more abstract one because there are currently (as far as I know) no actual conflicts. It seems that they are "exploring the territory" to see what reaction they will get. So I don't see the Artemis Accords as something good, really, but also as something fairly innocuous. If it actually encourages space mining company to be willing to make an investment, then it might not be a bad thing. I think that renegotiating the Outer Space Treaty would be a better way forward, and hope that that will get on the agenda.
    As above, so below

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,018
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    If one country ignores the United Nations Convention On The Law Of The Sea (UNCLOS) what is stopping the rest.

    Same question you were asking on the "Outer Space Treaty".
    I'm not entirely sure in what ways the Accord violates the Treaty.

    There's no way to get into details without being political, but depending on circumstances, it's possible the Accord may end up as a basis for re-negotiation of the Treaty, rather than a repudiation of it. There's also the question of how the Accord would be enforced, as well.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    8,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I'm not entirely sure in what ways the Accord violates the Treaty.

    There's no way to get into details without being political, but depending on circumstances, it's possible the Accord may end up as a basis for re-negotiation of the Treaty, rather than a repudiation of it. There's also the question of how the Accord would be enforced, as well.
    If you start off by excluding two of the major players in space exploration and then expect them to accept the Accord as the basis of re-negotiation of the "Outer Space Treaty" - I would say it is laying the foundation of failure of any agreement.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,306
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    If you start off by excluding two of the major players in space exploration and then expect them to accept the Accord as the basis of re-negotiation of the "Outer Space Treaty" - I would say it is laying the foundation of failure of any agreement.
    The USA is putting forward its proposals for the Accords which would be binding only on the USA and its partners and separately suggesting renegotiation of the OST, and you clearly failed to read the original article properly and missed this important distinction, why is it so hard for you to admit this? Even if the USA sees the accords as a basis for renegotiation of the treaty that is simply their proposal, let's see what alternatives the Russians and Chinese have to offer, if any. If the Chinese and Russians want to stubbornly refuse to negotiate until SpaceX is opening a Starbucks on Mars and Blue Origin is slapping Amazon logos on half the asteroids in the solar system that's their own failing.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    8,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
    The USA is putting forward its proposals for the Accords which would be binding only on the USA and its partners and separately suggesting renegotiation of the OST, and you clearly failed to read the original article properly and missed this important distinction, why is it so hard for you to admit this? Even if the USA sees the accords as a basis for renegotiation of the treaty that is simply their proposal, let's see what alternatives the Russians and Chinese have to offer, if any. If the Chinese and Russians want to stubbornly refuse to negotiate until SpaceX is opening a Starbucks on Mars and Blue Origin is slapping Amazon logos on half the asteroids in the solar system that's their own failing.
    Then why is the USA complaining of China not complying with UNCLOS ( a treaty that the USA has not ratified).

    Will not be posting any more on this discussion as it is becoming political.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •