Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ask Slashdot: Legal Advice Or Loopholes Needed For Manned Space Program

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the load-all-the-lawyers-onto-the-first-rocket dept.

Space 201

Kristian vonBengtson writes "A DIY, manned space program like Copenhagen Suborbitals is kept alive by keeping total independence, cutting the red tape and simply just doing it all in a garage. We basically try to stay below the radar at all time and are reluctant in engagements leading to signing papers or do things (too much) by the books. But now there might be trouble ahead. (Saul Goodman! We need you...) During the last 5 years we have encountered many weird legal cases which does not make much sense and no one can explain their origin. If we were to fix up a batch of regular black gunpowder (which we use for igniters) we are entitled for serving time in jail. Even a few grams. But no one give a hoot about building a rocket fueled with 12 tonnes of liquid oxygen and alcohol. Thats is perfectly legal. If Copenhagen Suborbitals fly a rocket into space for the first time there are likely legal action that must be dealt with. At my time at the International Space University we had lectures and exams in space law and I remember the Outer Space Treaty which is the most ratified space treaty with over 100 countries including Denmark and U.S. And here is the matter – in which I seek some kind of advice or what you may call it: Outer Space Treaty, Article 6 states: 'the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty.' Does this mean that Denmark (or any other country for that matter – if it was your project) suddenly have to approve what we are doing and will be kept responsible for our mission, if we launch into space?"von Bengston adds a related article about the organization's testing process. They had originally intended to burn Nitrocellulose as a way to open lids and deploy parachutes. It worked fine in the garage, but upon testing in low-pressure situations, they found that the chemical reaction slowed too much to be useful. The article includes videos of their tests.

cancel ×

201 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fucking idiot (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195717)

>slashdot
>legal advice

Pick one.

Re:fucking idiot (4, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about 10 months ago | (#45195771)

If you have the resources to put somebody in space, you can afford to pay a lawyer to answer this question....

Re:fucking idiot (4, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 10 months ago | (#45195831)

If you have the resources to put somebody in space, you can afford to pay a lawyer to answer this question....

If you have the resources to put somebody into space, but not the resources to get them back, then the lawyer you need is quite expensive...

Re:fucking idiot (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195923)

If you have the resources to put somebody in space, you can afford to pay a lawyer to answer this question....

If you have the resources to put somebody into space, but not the resources to get them back, then the lawyer you need is quite expensive...

If you have the resources to put somebody into space, but not the resources to get them back, then make sure it's a lawyer.

Re:fucking idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196117)

If you have the resources to put somebody in space, you can afford to pay a lawyer to answer this question....

If you have the resources to put somebody into space, but not the resources to get them back, then the lawyer you got was quite expensive...

Gravity's Rainbow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196287)

Really, I think these guys are doing great! They have the Schwarzgerät, a launch site in Northern Europe...they basically Get It.

Some things are lacking though. The relevant literature clearly shows you should have a lot of fucking around the launch site. Not just any fucking, either: it needs to be interracial to start with, but also involve bondage and a kind of prison cell. It's good to throw in some Imipolex G, too. This is essential to the launch! I've seen the little barge they've used so far, not sure if it has enough space for fucking to launch a rocket. Fucking = launch.

Re:fucking idiot (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about 10 months ago | (#45196059)

Also, if you are an organization that gets a ton of press, you can probably get some pro bono legal advice through a more reliable channel than posting on Slashdot. Plenty of Danish lawyers would like to be able to put Copenhagen Suborbitals on their resume.

Re:fucking idiot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196227)

If you have the resources to put somebody in space, you can afford to pay a lawyer to answer this question....

Really?

Perhaps we should avoid the whole put someone in space concept here, and think about your typical redneck engineers who simply want to launch a piece of scrap metal (a.k.a. our awesome homemade satellite) into fucking orbit, just because they did the math, and happen to be wealthy and stupid. Not saying that's the case here, but they're certainly a catalyst for the next-gen YouTubers who need to find a way to one-up Jackass stupidity.

Unfortunately, due to the massive shitstorm of debris we're currently tracking in orbit, movies like Gravity are more fact than fiction. Much like on earth, we don't clean up after ourselves worth a shit. And the majority of the debris we are currently tracking is actually the result of collisions in space.

Only a matter of time before money feeding stupidity reaches orbit. Best to not try and assume the legal or mental capacity of those operating out of a garage, regardless of the mission at hand, and when a softball-sized object can take wipe out satellite-fed communications for entire regions, it's kind of important to know when and where something (read: anything) is going into orbit.

IANL (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 10 months ago | (#45195929)

The advice "don't get your legal advice from random commentators on slashdot" is sound.

However, with the preface that the best advice is to not take advice from me: the treaty is something that your government follows. You merely have to follow the laws put forth by your government; it is up the them to put in place whatever such laws are required to make them compliant with the treaty.

Re:fucking idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195971)

>We basically try to stay below the radar at all time
>Internet
pick one

Good luck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195725)

The final frontier is off limits to all but the elites.

Antarctica (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195735)

You don't need a passport to enter.
There is no "appropriate State Party" controlling the continent.
Just be sure to take your garbage with you when you leave, not to spill anything, and not to disturb any animals.

Re:Antarctica (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 10 months ago | (#45196131)

You don't need a passport to enter. There is no "appropriate State Party" controlling the continent. Just be sure to take your garbage with you when you leave, not to spill anything, and not to disturb any animals.

Also, it's about the worst spot on the planet from which to launch.

Re:Antarctica (1)

Gorobei (127755) | about 10 months ago | (#45196259)

You don't need a passport to enter.
There is no "appropriate State Party" controlling the continent.
Just be sure to take your garbage with you when you leave, not to spill anything, and not to disturb any animals.

It's not that easy. "appropriate State Party to the Treaty" refers to the non-governmental entity doing the launch, not the location of the launch. So you don't get lob stuff into space on a whim because you are outside of territorial waters on a ship, on a private island, etc.

This was hashed out at length on the various rocketry boards when the CATS prize and XPrize were announced.

Re:Antarctica (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 10 months ago | (#45196435)

Apparently you actually do need a passport and that has caused hassles for several scientists that thought otherwise.
Weird rules are far more annoying than you can imagine.

Or you find a nation not signatory to that treaty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195741)

Seems pretty obvious - launch from sites in nations that aren't party to the outer space treaty or involved with the UN.

Of course, dealing with those nations may have other complications. IANAL.

Re:Or you find a nation not signatory to that trea (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 10 months ago | (#45195911)

You don't even necessarily need to go that far, you just need to know whether the signatory state you are launching from gives a damn or not. The treaty doesn't specify that they have to be hardasses about 'authorization and continuing supervision', just that that has to exist.

Given that any spaceflight is going to carry you through the slice of atmosphere where manned aviation is sort of a big deal, it's not as though some largely-theoretical UN treaty is the only reason that you'll be having a chat with the feds before launch...

In practice, also, I suspect that you don't really want to get clever looking for 'loopholes'; because that rarely causes the opposing party to slap their foreheads and admit defeat: In a sense, the inverse of 'loopholes' are all the laws and regulations that are either largely unenforced or simply have almost no resources devoted to looking for violators. They are still there if Officer Hardass wants to use them, though. Do you think that somebody is launching a nontrivial rocket while complying with all Danish and EU laws and regulations concerning health, safety, threat to aviation, storage of hazardous and/or flammable materials, land use zoning, pollution emissions restrictions, etc, etc, etc? I'm guessing that the answer is "not entirely". Do you want to give someone a reason to check?

Re:Or you find a nation not signatory to that trea (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 10 months ago | (#45196085)

A few countries would have post ww2 US/UK/Soviet rocket test site. Vast open spaces that can still be offered as safe debris collection zones :) Jobs for local staff, tracking by universities and all the supporting entrepreneurs with legal mil/aviation laws still in place :)

Staying under the radar? (5, Funny)

dtmancom (925636) | about 10 months ago | (#45195745)

How do you guys plan to get into space and also stay under the radar?

Re:Staying under the radar? (5, Insightful)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 10 months ago | (#45195835)

Sounds like they're following the old maxim, "It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission."

Re:Staying under the radar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196415)

How do you guys plan to get into space and also stay under the radar?

Yes, because posting the question to Slashdot is obviously the best way to stay below the radar. We're such a tiny group here.

You coming over tonight for dinner? Grandma says she's gonna make meatloaf.

Ask a lawyer (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195763)

Let me get this straight...you're asking a bunch of predominantly non-lawyers about obscure legal issues that depend on both a knowledge of Danish law and an equally obscure international treaty? And your expecting advice that is a) helpful and b) actually correct?

You need to talk to an actual lawyer. Barring that, from whatever law you can find, figure out who would be the one to decide to arrest you and start asking them questions. Any answers you get here, even if they are 100% correct, are useless if someone in a position of authority to act against you comes to a different conclusion.

Re:Ask a lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196067)

Indeed. As far as I know Denmark, their Justice Department would be happy to inform about anything like this at great length.

Don't bother with a lawyer...waste of money (5, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 10 months ago | (#45196103)

Lawyers? Fuck that.

You're about to strap yourself on top of a home-built rocket filled with 12T of LOX and Alcohol, and initiate it with homemade black powder. In the world of probabilities, I say go for it and screw the lawyer talk. Your chances of surviving to face the authorities are so small as to be laughable. And, in the unbelievable chance you actually fly high enough to violate an international treaty, there's a good chance you'll be so God-damned famous you won't care - and you'll end up a hero with a 7 figure movie deal. Or at least a 6 figure RedBull attempt at a full orbit.

Re:Don't bother with a lawyer...waste of money (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196515)

Lawyers? Fuck that.

You're about to strap yourself on top of a home-built rocket filled with 12T of LOX and Alcohol, and initiate it with homemade black powder. In the world of probabilities, I say go for it and screw the lawyer talk. Your chances of surviving to face the authorities are so small as to be laughable. And, in the unbelievable chance you actually fly high enough to violate an international treaty, there's a good chance you'll be so God-damned famous you won't care - and you'll end up a hero with a 7 figure movie deal. Or at least a 6 figure RedBull attempt at a full orbit.

This reply makes sense. Once you start asking "can I have your permission" to an entity (person or govt body), they will want to avoid responsibility and immediately draft new legislation, contracts, etc (aka red tape). It's best to go forward with good intentions and if shit happens, apologize and take full responsibility. Realize that a failure (eg your rocket veering off course and hitting a building) will mean that your rocket will be cancelled, new legislation will be drafted, you will be jailed, etc etc. So just proceed cautiously from a technical standpoint and avoid the legal crap. Once you get safety inspectors on your case, they will never leave, and your progress will be 10X slower. Just make sure that you and your staff will be the first ones to blow up if something goes wrong.

Re:Don't bother with a lawyer...waste of money (2)

psithurism (1642461) | about 10 months ago | (#45196745)

For every guy in the rocket, there has got to be a dozen support people on the ground, who all remain to go to jail for homicide of the astronaut and the destruction of whatever property the debris lands on. And they don't get to be God-damned famous either :(

Oh, I guess also Denmark might slap them on the wrist for not not getting permission first.

Re:Ask a lawyer (4, Funny)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 10 months ago | (#45196189)

If you want obscure trivia about something that most people know nothing about, ask a nerd. Statistically your chance of getting a correct answer from a nerd is the same as the chance of getting a correct answer from a lawyer, within the margin of error of 50%.

Re:Ask a lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196387)

... And your expecting advice that is a) helpful and b) actually correct?

From someone who doesn't know the difference between your and you're even.

Re:Ask a lawyer (1)

Krenair (2501522) | about 10 months ago | (#45196695)

Danish law is obscure?

Re:Ask a lawyer (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about 10 months ago | (#45196879)

In 2006, there were 4901 Danish lawyers. (Source [www.ccbe.eu] )

Anything known by less than 5000 people worldwide qualifies as obscure in my book.

Re:Ask a lawyer (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196869)

He's not asking anything, he's using the Ask Slashdot feature to (a) advertise his project without it looking like an advertisement, (b) whinge about laws that are designed to protect ordinary people, i.e. laws that make sure somebody doesn't shoot up a rocket that crashes back on top of a populated area.

Seriously? (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 10 months ago | (#45195781)

Slashdot for legal advice on an extremely complex topic?

Yes, the country of origin would be responsible. You will need their permission and follow regulations.

Re:Seriously? (2)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 10 months ago | (#45196447)

Your signature seems surprisingly accurate in this particular instance.

Re:Seriously? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 10 months ago | (#45196449)

In TFA, they mention that they'll be launching from international waters.
Which is what makes his question so interesting.

If the launch is outside the borders of any State, why would they need "authorization and continuing supervision" from a State entity?

Imagine if the effort was sufficiently international in nature, how would anyone decide which State has to give "authorization and continuing supervision"?

Re:Seriously? (4, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | about 10 months ago | (#45196597)

International waters are not some magical place where no law applies. You are still under the jurisdiction of whatever country's flag you are flying. And if you have a ship with rocketry on it you better be flying somebodies flag, or you will be boarded and seized by someone who assumes you are up to no good.

As for the international group, that is also covered in the treaty. In that case, responsibity belongs to the international organization and the states to which its members belong.

Just do it (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195819)

Just do it. You'll probably kill yourself before anyone gets around to prosecuting you. Life's too short to be afraid of bureaucrats, especially in your case.

Hi neighbour! (4, Insightful)

rueger (210566) | about 10 months ago | (#45195839)

OK, let me get this right. Buddy wants to work with high explosives in his garage, and can't understand why the people in his neighbourhood might think that "red tape" like zoning, safety, and fire regulations might be a good thing?

I grew up on Robert Heinlein and stuff like "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel," and really, really love projects like Spaceship One, but this guy frightens me.

Re:Hi neighbour! (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 10 months ago | (#45195953)

OK, let me get this right. Buddy wants to work with high explosives in his garage, and can't understand why the people in his neighbourhood might think that "red tape" like zoning, safety, and fire regulations might be a good thing?

To the contrary, he said he was puzzled why the red tape covers a few grams of gunpowder, which is pretty much harmless, and not a few tons of liquid oxygen and kerosene, which is not harmless.

Re:Hi neighbour! (2)

joe_frisch (1366229) | about 10 months ago | (#45196075)

Its a lot easier to get the gunpoweder. I think that if someone actually started putting together the system required to store tons to liquid oxygen they would find that there are a lot of laws for that as well. Kerosene and other common fuels get of easy on the law because thy are used so commonly, but again I expect that if you put them to some unusual use there are regulations to follow.

Basically though, anything that stores enough energy to get a significant payload into orbit has enough energy to do a LOT of damage, and regardless of the laws a responsible person would take all sorts of precautions, including doing their work far from populated areas.

Anyone who is able to make any significant contribution to rocket technology will need to have the resources to deal with the physical and legal issues.

Re:Hi neighbour! (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about 10 months ago | (#45196173)

I don't know a damn thing about Danish law. But I find it really hard to believe that a liquid-fuel rocket, large enough to get a person into space, is completely legal and doesn't require any sort of permit or paperwork. That sort of backyard Second Amendment project would get you in trouble in Texas, never mind Europe.

Re:Hi neighbour! (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 10 months ago | (#45196239)

I don't know a damn thing about Danish law. But I find it really hard to believe that a liquid-fuel rocket, large enough to get a person into space, is completely legal and doesn't require any sort of permit or paperwork.

It's not.

The whole thrust of the Outer Space Treaty is to put NGO's on a short leash in regards to space.

In his case, he needs to get a lawyer and start the approval process at some point, hopefully well before he gets ready for a test launch.

Because the PTB are NOT going to be happy to hear "hey, we want to launch a suborbital rocket this weekend, can you sign this permission slip real quick?"

Re:Hi neighbour! (1)

mbkennel (97636) | about 10 months ago | (#45196185)

"he said he was puzzled why the red tape covers a few grams of gunpowder, which is pretty much harmless, and not a few tons of liquid oxygen and kerosene, which is not harmless."

Because empirically, gunpowder has been used by people to commit harm to others intentionally in various criminal ways.

A few tons of LOX and kerosene is looking to have Darwin taking care of the problem.

If people start making and using LOX + kerosene weapons sucessfully, then they'll be regulated.

There is history and experience behind law. Logical consistency is not a primary design consideration.

Asking for loophole around firearms regulations... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 10 months ago | (#45196417)

To the contrary, he said he was puzzled why the red tape covers a few grams of gunpowder, which is pretty much harmless ...

It seems that they are asking for a loophole around their country's firearms regulations, the "red tape" for small quantities of black powder may be nothing more than a firearms permit?

A quick google shows that Denmark allows rifles and shotguns for hunting, a firearms permit is required. Such permits generally cover rifles. shotguns and their ammunition. Small quantities of black powder probably fall in the ammunition category, some people like to go old school and use black powder muskets.

Note, black powder and gun powder are not the same thing. The former is an explosive and the later a propellant.

The US has notoriously permissive gun laws, but... (4, Interesting)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | about 10 months ago | (#45196891)

that doesn't mean a thing to rocket hobbyists here.

As long as you are using it "for sporting, cultural or recreational purposes in antique firearms", you can purchase and possess up to 50 pounds of black powder, with no federal requirement as to proper storage, etc. 50 pounds of black powder is far more than enough to level a typical house, especially if it goes off in the basement.

If you want to use a few grams of the stuff for rocketry purposes (igniters, squibs, parachute ejection charges, etc.), you need to get a Low Explosives Users Permit (LEUP) from the BATFE, consent to regular government inspections, and provide secured storage, in an approved magazine. You also need to have a large enough piece of property to keep that few grams of powder at least 75 feet from your neighbors, get local fire marshal/police/neighbors signoff, etc, before the LEUP is issued.

Again, use it in a gun, do whatever you want more or less. Use it to deploy safety devices in a rocket, submit to a federal anal probe.

Yes, there are ways around this BS (using pyrodex or smokeless powder rather than real black powder), but those come with additional technical issues, which may make safe rocket recovery more difficult than it needs to be.

Re:Hi neighbour! (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 10 months ago | (#45196531)

To the contrary, he said he was puzzled why the red tape covers a few grams of gunpowder, which is pretty much harmless, and not a few tons of liquid oxygen and kerosene, which is not harmless.

Why? Let's go to the Simpsons for an example:
Homer reads a ticket stub - "Ticket not to be taken internally".
"They wrote that on there becuase of me" Homer states proudly.

There's usually not tiny little rules covering every aspect of industrial chemistry because the operators are expected to act like adults. The USA could be a bit of an exception due to a long list of utter fuckups when plants tried to save money by moving to "crisis maintainance" (ie. run stuff until something blows up and then fix it afterward). In a lot of places and industries you need some sort of licence to prove you are a responsible organisation or person and then after that it's assumed that you have some sort of idea of what you are doing. The rules come in when somebody decides rules are needed - whether it's a good idea, a kneejerk, empire building or a way to show that "something has been done" about drugs or potential terrorism comes down to each rule, but they don't just appear from nowhere.
Behind every stupid law is an idiot. Sometimes the law is to attempt to stop the idiot after the fact and sometimes it's drafted at the instructions of an idiot for their own ends.

Re:Hi neighbour! (1)

rueger (210566) | about 10 months ago | (#45195959)

OK, I'll make allowances for poor English. Their web site [copenhagen...bitals.com] is actually pretty cool. Still remind me a bit too much of guys who like blowing stuff up for fun, and I'm not entirely convinced by "We have no administration or technical boards to approve our work, so we move very fast from idea to construction. Everything we build is tested until we believe it will do. Then we (attempt to) fly it!"

Re:Hi neighbour! (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 10 months ago | (#45195989)

OK, let me get this right. Buddy wants to work with high explosives in his garage, and can't understand why the people in his neighbourhood might think that "red tape" like zoning, safety, and fire regulations might be a good thing? I grew up on Robert Heinlein and stuff like "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel," and really, really love projects like Spaceship One, but this guy frightens me.

Attitudes like that are what shooed Robert Goddard out of New England.

Re:Hi neighbour! (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 10 months ago | (#45196673)

But of course unsettled desert in New Mexico was a better place to test-fire rockets than New England. Anyway Goddard was massively sponsored by the government and corporate interests at that point.

Re:Hi neighbour! (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 10 months ago | (#45196155)

An even better example from Heinlein is Rocket Ship Galileo, the very first of his juveniles. Not only is it about some teenage boys converting a "mail rocket" into a space ship able to reach the moon (with help, of course, from an adult, Dr. Cargraves, Heinlein made sure that all of the ship's testing took place in a military weapons test range instead of in somebody's back yard, or farm.

Sealand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195841)

Just launch from Sealand of course.

Don't use black powder? (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | about 10 months ago | (#45195855)

I mean, if black powder is illegal, use something else that ignites easily, like gun cotton...

Find another country or get the permits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195865)

The easiest method seems to be finding a country where you can pursue your efforts without having to deal with regulations. Most of the regulations are in place for a reason. The average person should not be allowed to just launch an experimental rocket from the backyard. Many things can go wrong, they are very obvious so I will not list them.

In the US there are probably many loopholes as far as explosives/propellant go. Based on the daily entertainment I get through my paid TV service you should be able get all the heavy explosive permits/licenses you need (or hire/aquire someone that already has them) to conduct any of your experiments/research. Once you get a rocket to space you have to now deal with this treaty you talk about.

Without doing any research I would think that if you got to the point where you could cheaply get a person to space, then you wouldn't having any issues getting the required funding to acquire the permission/support from your country. I would compare this to the movie "hacker" who instead of getting punished for his evil doings makes a deal with his government and continues to do what he loves doing but now have funding and and immunity.

Both the people and the governments what to privatize space travel. So if you can prove you will be successful, are safe in the process, and keep from doing evil, I don't see you getting too much push-back from most governments.

Re: Which are you launching? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195875)

A small one man rocket or the Death Star. If its the later I would just go for it.
Once up the lawyers will probably leave you alone.

I think it's to ensure peaceful activities (4, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45195881)

Don't quote me on this... I don't know this for certain, but I would guess that this restriction is in there so that countries who may want to put stuff into space that they suspect others wouldn't like very much (use your imagination), they can't just say that some independent upstart in their country did it without government support, and they have no idea what was launched, since they will still be held directly responsible anyways.

Of course, IANAL. But why the fuck are you asking this kind of question on slashdot anyways?

Re:I think it's to ensure peaceful activities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196089)

Is there actually an appropriate forum for science-related legal questions (other than hiring a lawyer)?

Re:I think it's to ensure peaceful activities (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45196481)

You may be able to find one among the many sites shown here [stackexchange.com] .

No promises, mind you.

Re:I think it's to ensure peaceful activities (1)

xtal (49134) | about 10 months ago | (#45196331)

If you can get to LEO, you have constructed an ICBM.

Why this may be a problem for state actors is left as an exercise to the reader.

If you've made actual progress, well - props. Find someone with deep pockets (Musk; Branson, ?) to provide legal help and legitimacy. ..just be aware that actions have consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull [wikipedia.org]

Isn't it obvious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195889)

I can't see how 'the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty.' is in any way unclear. The state (your government) is obligated to monitor and approve your activities once you put a put a device into 'space'. What is the point of this question? It just sounds like you're upset you can't do whatever you like with high powered rockets and orbital devices unless your Government approves it, but any rational persion would say that's a GOOD THING because space is polluted enough without hobbyists adding to it.

Re:Isn't it obvious? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 10 months ago | (#45196247)

I can't see how 'the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty.' is in any way unclear.

Really? Seems rather vague to me. What is "the appropriate state party"? The country from which the vehicle was launched? The country in which the vehicle was made? The country where the pilot comes from? Or the mission commander? Perhaps it is the country over which the moon happens to be when they land on it. Perhaps it is the UN? Is the appropriate state party for the Moon the same one as for Phobos? Perhaps the appropriate state party is the spacecraft's mission commander, or perhaps a duly elected officer of the crew of the spacecraft.

Whose border are you in? What is your citizenship? (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 10 months ago | (#45196495)

What is "the appropriate state party"?

At a given moment whose laws are you subject to? There may simultaneously be two such states. The state in whose territory you are within, and the state to which you are a citizen of or if it is being done by an organization then the state where the organization was created.

Re:Whose border are you in? What is your citizensh (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 10 months ago | (#45196963)

If you are in space, then you are in nobody's territory.

Re:Isn't it obvious? (1)

pla (258480) | about 10 months ago | (#45196645)

What is "the appropriate state party"?

Try "the one that will shoot you out of the sky if you missed dotting a single 'i' or greasing the right PAC's accounts".

Think shooting down a civilian rocket would result in public outrage? Try picturing the press release: "Terrorist cell comes dangerously close to success, only stopped after ballistic missile launch detected".

Re:Isn't it obvious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196249)

What is the point of this question?

Copenhagen Suborbital wants to move to a new place. The rent for the new place costs more than the current place, so they need to increase the members fee and/or get more members. "[Citation needed]"? Ok... In danish, sorry... [ing.dk]

One way to get more members is to get people talking about Copenhagen Suborbital and the point of this question is cheap advertisement. Plain and simple.

Stare Party = jurisdiction you happen to be in (1)

rourin_bushi (816292) | about 10 months ago | (#45195895)

"the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" means "whichever country whose jurisdiction you are operating in". If that country hasn't signed the treaty, then you don't care about it anyway.

Generally, though, there will be actual domestic legislation forming the actual implementation of a treaty in US law, so you might still need to find the exact wording of *that* law, not just the international treaty's text.

Good luck!

Re:Stare Party = jurisdiction you happen to be in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196281)

"the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" means "whichever country whose jurisdiction you are operating in". If that country hasn't signed the treaty, then you don't care about it anyway.

Uh, you might just care...especially when people find out that it was your piece of shit homemade satellite that you haphazardly launched into orbit that managed to take out the ISS.

Re:Stare Party = jurisdiction you happen to be in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196517)

"the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" means "whichever country whose jurisdiction you are operating in". If that country hasn't signed the treaty, then you don't care about it anyway.

Uh, you might just care...especially when people find out that it was your piece of shit homemade satellite that you haphazardly launched into orbit that managed to take out the ISS.

Who cares, they don't own space. Send ISS a radio message to get the hell out of the way or your going to tear them a new portal.

Re:Stare Party = jurisdiction you happen to be in (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 10 months ago | (#45196525)

"the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" means "whichever country whose jurisdiction you are operating in". If that country hasn't signed the treaty, then you don't care about it anyway.

Its probably not that simple. The country you are a citizen of and/or the country the organization was created in probably has a say as well. For example a US citizen may travel to North Korea, have NK permission to launch a rocket, and be subject to prosecution in the US for the work done in NK.

Did You Burn Up Other People's Money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195905)

Does this mean that Denmark (or any other country for that matter â" if it was your project) suddenly have to approve what we are doing and will be kept responsible for our mission, if we launch into space?"

No, not "suddenly." That should have taken care of 5 years ago, when you started the company. You have now become the poster child for the acronym WOMBAT (waste of money, brains and time).

Copehagen Suborbitals Web Site (1)

rueger (210566) | about 10 months ago | (#45195917)

Yup, they do a have a web site. [copenhagen...bitals.com] I guess what with the big Facebook outage the Slashdot eds couldn't track it down.

Kickstart legal counceling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195921)

But since it's against their terms to kickstart a company, you can just kickstart an innovative product of lawyers for space exploration. There's your loophole. But don't quote me on that because like everyone else here, I'm not a lawyer or know much about kickstarter's ToS.

Uh, what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195961)

Suborbital... manned space program? Every time someone flies across the planet in a jetliner it's a "manned suborbital space program". You nerds REALLY need to get over this obsession with space, the grandiose promises of the Space Age have not and will not materialize, ever. Get over it!

Re:Uh, what? (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 10 months ago | (#45196273)

Every time someone flies across the planet in a jetliner it's a "manned suborbital space program"

Incorrect, Anonymous Coward. "Suborbital space flight" is a defined term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-orbital_spaceflight [wikipedia.org]

A sub-orbital space flight is a spaceflight in which the spacecraft reaches space, but its trajectory intersects the atmosphere or surface of the gravitating body from which it was launched, so that it does not complete one orbital revolution. For example, the path of an object launched from Earth that reaches 100 km (62 mi) above sea level, and then falls back to Earth, is considered a sub-orbital spaceflight.

Commercial jetliners sure as heck don't reach 62 miles up.

Re:Uh, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196615)

Yeah but the difference is tens of thousands of people fly in jetliners every day, but almost no one has flown in space. Hurts, eh? You loony space cadet...

Re:Uh, what? (1)

khallow (566160) | about 10 months ago | (#45196677)

As noted it's not actually in space. And a suborbital trajectory is a free fall, zero acceleration trajectory which only a few aircraft fly.

Law and you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45195973)

There is ***NO*** international Law, because there are no international police forces or courts. There are only VICTORS COURTS, and war machines used by stronger nations to threaten weaker ones. This being so, the issue comes down to national law.

Your national laws are (almost entirely) written laws, and for the purposes of your experiments with rocketry, can be considered arbitrary. You are thus either working within the law, or breaking the law, with the INTENT of your engineering being of no issue. If you think a law is stupid, like the one you mentioned against 'black powder'- tough. Those laws are in place to disarm the sheeple, and ensure your masters rule over you with no concern over "peasants' revolts".

It gets worse (for you). If your amateur space program can be considered to be negligently risking the lives of your neighbours, no specific written law will be needed to take you out, and punish you.

It gets worse for you again. All modern rocket research is considered to be military grade work, directly linked to issues of guided missile design. As such, you CANNOT be doing this work outside the system of national security without being perceived (sadly correctly) as a threat.

If you claim to be independent, then you lack all national protection, and are effectively a highly dangerous freelance missile developer. That situation usually ends with a bullet in the head.

To put it simply- this kind of work can ONLY be done by people with direct licence from their national government, and even then if psychopathic powers like Israel or the USA see your work as useful to their 'enemies', they will engage in the most murderous fashion. If your nation isn't prepared to regulate any kind of space program, then you shouldn't even try to launch missiles into space, and stick with balloons.

To be honest, the fact you are asking such stupid and naive questions in the first place makes me think you are the last people on Earth who should be operating outside of governmental control and oversight.

Cockroaches made it into space (2)

Lucky_Pierre (175635) | about 10 months ago | (#45195987)

Why would lawyers be any different?

From that snippet of the treaty... (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 10 months ago | (#45195991)

Yes you would need Danish permits. Even going to another country to do it might get you into trouble in Denmark. As their citizen you are their responsibility, and if you make everyone look like idiots by putting the entire world on Defcon 3 with a do-it-yourself launch they probably won't respond by appointing you Greve af Stjernerne. It won't matter if you do it from Mozambique or Copenhagen.

As an American with an iffy grasp of American law I'm not a great authority on Danish space law. So if you think there's a possibility you will actually get enough fuel to get of the ground you should start talking to a lawyer today. If you don't have a plan to get that fuel then you should probably be focused on the fuel, not the permit.

Seems pretty straight forward (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 10 months ago | (#45196013)

ianal, but...

It just means that a State Party (government) is still responsible for the activities of organizations within their international jurisdiction. If someone in Alberta, CA manages to fire a rocket rocket into orbit without the knowledge of the Canadian government, for example, the government would still be considered liable for any damages done. Not to mention having not disclosed the launch in the first place, which could create a nice bit of tension when other countries see something randomly getting launched into orbit...

So yes, Denmark would be held responsible for your mission, including any and all political fallout. Shit rolls downhill, so if you decided to do something like this without legal authorization for Denmark, I wouldn't be surprised to see the lot of you jailed or fined out the ass.

Re:Seems pretty straight forward (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 10 months ago | (#45196063)

Sure government will be responsible before other governments that signed the treaty, but if they did not adjust their national laws, it is not obvious the individual that fires a rocket is liable of anything. A court will tell us...

No case law (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 10 months ago | (#45196053)

There is no case law, which means they will have to go in court (sued by or suing the government), do learn what they can and cannot do. Save money for that time!

What the.... (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 10 months ago | (#45196057)

This has got to be the most bizarre Ask /. question I have ever seen posted.

A Danish amateur space/rocketeer is looking for legal advice on a primarily American site. Wow. Is it April 1st already?

Re:What the.... (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 10 months ago | (#45196113)

Are you kidding? The chances of this guy living through his attempt makes pink unicorns seem commonplace.

Re:What the.... (1)

Swave An deBwoner (907414) | about 10 months ago | (#45196801)

No, I think he has a reasonable chance of living through his attempt as you put it. You may note that the "Personnel" section of their web site [copenhagen...bitals.com] does not list any "Astronaut" and their Mission Statement [copenhagen...bitals.com] says in the 2nd paragraph:

Our mission is to launch human beings into space on privately build rockets and spacecrafts.

So for all we know there's a skid row somewhere in DK whose inhabitants will soon be riding high with promises of "lots of beer" onboard.

New endeavors require human education. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196079)

Endeavors that affect other people require taking the time to get other people comfortable with what you are doing.

Usually doing what you can and asking permission afterwards is an effective strategy. However sometimes you must have those discussions ahead of time.

Which ultimately means that launching a rocket is purely a technical challenge at this point. You need to deal with your government critters and create the process for getting a permit to launch. That is a big part of what the commercial space companies in the US have been doing the last couple of years.

Just Do It! (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | about 10 months ago | (#45196143)

We basically try to stay below the radar

Well, somehow your geocities-like and wtf-player is that for video, you've managed to stave off any kind of /.'ing so far - you're doing something right!

I say go for it, and don't ask the public about their opinions about something "below the radar" - suddenly, the wrong concerned citizen hears about it and now your government, wherever you are, really cares about it - get to space while you can!

black powder??!! (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 10 months ago | (#45196169)

good grief man, that stuff is unstable, don't use it. There are plenty of ways to ignite LOX and alchohol without explosives. some of the "big boys" use hydrogen and oxygen gases with electrical sparker.

Re:black powder??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196341)

good grief man, that stuff is unstable, don't use it. There are plenty of ways to ignite LOX and alchohol without explosives. some of the "big boys" use hydrogen and oxygen gases with electrical sparker.

Dude that sounds awesome! Send me the YouTube link? Need to know how many sparklers to buy. K, thx...

(Not quite sure what's worse here, the OPs question, or this answer...)

Re:black powder??!! (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 10 months ago | (#45196471)

uh, the word I used was "sparker" not sparkler, used in a certain type of igniter tube that some big rockets and also some gas-fed turbine generators use

      -- former rocket hobbyist

Trouble Ahead (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196197)

I'm with everyone else - if your spacecraft project is just now figuring out that there is law regulating spaceflight, you are in deep trouble.

I am a damn lawyer, but - I am not your damn lawyer and I have no experience in space law. Oh, and I don't know anything about non-US law.

But, reading the treaty with a lawyer's eye - you have a problem.

Article VI of the treaty says a couple of things you conveniently glossed over:
"States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization."

Lets look at the first sentence: "States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty."

I read the first sentence to mean:
A) The nation in which you build your spacecraft "bears international responsibility" for what you do. So, if your spacecraft explodes above my house raining down toxic waste - your home country will have something to say about it. Because it has agreed to this treaty to be responsible.
B) The nation in which you build your spacecraft has the right to regulate your operations to ensure compliance with the Treaty generally.

Now, lets think about the second sentence: "The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty."

The second sentence says pretty much the same sort of thing as the first sentence. A nation which has ratified the treaty has a duty under the treaty to make you comply with the Treaty and to supervise your space operations.

The treaty is only part of your problem. In fact, the treaty isn't really your problem. Your homebrew spaceflight organization is not a party to the treaty. But - treaty or no, your home nation has the right to regulate spaceflight, just like it already regulates aircraft.

If you nation has national law regulating spaceflight, you have to comply with that. I'd guess that even if your nation has no national law specifically aimed at spacecraft, it has law governing aircraft - you'd better worry about that too.

Plus, in my home country of the US - the export (such as to a launch site in another country) of spacecraft is a dicey proposition - requiring careful compliance with law related to international arms trafficking. Screwing that up can land you in jail, or at the least on the receiving end of ruinous fines.

So - yes. You'd jolly well better figure out what the law is and start complying with it. Otherwise the penalties for unlicensed possession of blackpowder will look mild in comparison.

Do not assume that because your nation hasn't complained so far that you are OK. That is a fool's hope. If you were required to get a license to fly the thing, you are required to get a license to fly the thing. Even if your project has been all over the internet for years. You could easily end up with a spacecraft but no way to legally launch it or to take it out of your country to launch it.

Plus, do you have proper permits or license to handle, store and transport the chemicals used to fuel the rocket? What about permits or approvals needed to put a real-live human being into that spacecraft and launch it. That your astronaut is a volunteer, and willing to die, doesn't answer the question of whether you need a license to carry people in that rocket.

Re:Trouble Ahead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196267)

You stopped reading too soon. You missed Article VII.
"Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts on the Earth, in air or in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies."

So, if you launch your spacecraft and it blows up raining debris down on my house - your home nation is clearly responsible under Article VII.

You may safely assume that your home nation will require your organization to prove that it can pay for any damage, in order to get a launch permit. So, find someone willing to put up real money - say $100,000,000USD (or a similar sized insurance policy.) Assume that the insurance policy route will not be easy. You will have to convince the insurance company that your spacecraft is perfect, and the insurance company is not at risk for having to pay out. Under Article VII - both your home nation and the nation from which you launch the spacecraft are at risk if the things blows up causing pollution or other damage. So - expect to have to deal with launch license and financial guarantees with both nations.

Re:Trouble Ahead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196915)

TL;DR

Experimental aircraft (3, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 10 months ago | (#45196209)

In the US, the regulations on "experimental" aircraft are quite lenient. [ecfr.gov] The main limitation is that you can't operate an experimental aircraft in a densely populated area or major airway without special permission. Permission is usually granted after successful flight tests.

The main place for testing unusual civilian aircraft and rockets in the US is Mojave Air and Space Port. [mojaveairport.com] They're authorized as both a launch site and an airport. SpaceShip One, the Voyager, and the EZ-Rocket first flew there. There's plenty of room over the desert in case things go wrong.

"You want to test a rocket engine? This is a place where you can do that." - Mojave Air and Space Port Board of Directors

Re:Experimental aircraft (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | about 10 months ago | (#45196389)

There are a couple other states that would even compete for the business. The one in New Mexico would probably welcome the publicity of people coming from Denmark to launch a prototype.

My take on this (5, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about 10 months ago | (#45196361)

Let's start by observing the inevitable. Large rocket launches even when they aren't orbital are heavily regulated. You can't escape it even if you're doing covert launches out of a third world wilderness. The Man gets real uptight over unauthorized rocket launches and that's that.

I have indirect experience with US regulation for launching rockets and other things via my work for JP Aerospace [jpaerospace.com] . There are a bunch of things to consider here. First, regulators love a good track record. That means among other things you need to have a record of regulation-compliant launches before you try anything big or urgent.

Doing that gives you cover in a number of ways. If they decide you did something wrong, you have the good faith defense that you did this way in the past few launches without incident.

Similarly, if someone tries to block your activity via bogus regulatory or safety concern (the aerospace industry has long been notorious for using such techniques to harass competitors), then you have the means to contest these obstacles (by pointing out successful launches in the past). If you want to have access to multiple sites, you need a good track record for each site and its bureaucratic requirements. Finally, you can push the regulatory envelop and try (legally and safely of course) new technologies or techniques in order to establish a history for those.

So a track record is good.

Second, take this regulation seriously and come up with ways to do it efficiently rather than bypass it illegally. For example, US regulators want you to fill out every form. So no photocopying the old launch paperwork even though the new one is exactly the same. Learn the quirks of each process you have to do.

I would also refrain from asking publicly about ways around regulation as you did above. That's huge fail right there should you end up in an audit or trial at some point.

Third, treat such paperwork as a launch requirement. You have to have this paperwork at such and such stage before launch or it's "no go". You should have a really good idea how many man-hours it takes to fill out the forms for a give location and level of regulatory compliance.

There's probably certain paperwork that some inspector can ask for that would nix your flight, if it comes up missing. Treat it like you would your rocket or your payload and never leave home without it and perhaps a copy or two.

If you have regulatory obstacles to a particular technology, like your gunpowder igniter, you can either get a waiver for that (which is a whole lot easier to obtain IMHO with a good track record) or develop an alternate technology that bypasses the regulation. Just do it, don't risk your flight, program, and personal freedom on cutting that particular corner.

Finally, you have some ability to shop around for launch sites. Always have backup sites scoped out in case you can't use the original site.

To summarize, don't play games with this stuff, make it a part of your launch process every time, and good luck.

Is all about money stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196451)

Any sufficiently complex axiomatics system can not be both complete and consistant. In this case the law is the sufficiently complex axiomatic system. This means the law does not make sense and necessarily contradicts itself. What is to be done then. You need to have lots and lots of money. Lawyers for one, if you give them enough money will present the correct arguements that will get your situation looked at in a favorable light. You also however have to have the appropiate amount of money to allow the civil authorities and legal entities to see your situation as agreeing with the current sytem of laws they have set up. In short major players like NASA and the ESA which have an enormous economic footprint get to participate. Your little group will no doubt be declared a terrorist organization (I heard you were messing with black poweder). You are enormously naieve if you believe the law is some kind of legal receipe and if you just follow all the rules and do everything by the books, you will be allowed to do what you are trying to do. You need Money. Did I mention you need lots of money. More specifically you need to be able to give lots of money to the right people. Then the magic can be allowed to happen.

The barriers to space are not legal, nor engineering. It is all about politics. You just don't have play. The sytem is corrupt. The only solution is revolution. Are you willing to kill some mother fuckers and possibly die to get into space. If not maybe you should sell your soul and work for the ESA.

Re:Is all about money stupid (1)

khallow (566160) | about 10 months ago | (#45196747)

Any sufficiently complex axiomatics system can not be both complete and consistant.

Rather it can't be provably consistent within the context of the axiom system. It can be consistent, you just can't prove it.

But we don't need to worry about consistency rearing its pretty head with respect to legislative sausage making.

IANAL - But I'll suggest a starting point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45196835)

Obviously, run this stuff by your lawyer because he/she will ultimately be your bridge into your home countries legal/governming system.

Launching from 12 nautical miles from the costline will put you in International waters governed by Maritime law. Your lawyer needs to know Maritime law and be comfortable with it's workings. Just because you have not had problems thus far, does not mean that eventuality will result in you confronting the legal issues associated.

Just because something is ratified as a treaty and held as an obligation in your country does not exempt it from novations and presumptions established through the course of business; that is to say that if you can establish that an agreement with terms that are favorable to your position have been established directly or indirectly, you have legal ground to work with. Because codified law does not exist regarding an area does not mean legal recourse is absent, only that the status quo as they presume it to be is unchallenged. These underlying principles become relevant: http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/bouvier/maxims.shtml

If your country does not actively pursue an agenda in space, beyond the mere administrative participation of a treaty, it makes sense for you to establish a presumption that you and your organization are themselves an authority in the area. This can be done by registering an Affidavit in negative averment stating something to the effect of, "There is no evidence or recognition that directly performs or participates in any activity that would establish their authority in the nation of as being at the forefront of space exploration or activities thereof, and believes that no such evidence exists;".

Even if the "space agency" does not respond within the framework of your offer and acceptance correspondence, does not mean an agreement has not been reached. But it does provide a Judge with a valid point supporting your position. The reason to register your position in language written in the form of a Negative averment come from this Maxim: "Affirmati, non neganti incumbit probatio. The proof lies upon him who affirms, not on him who denies." Merely stating that there is no proof of activity creates a presumption that stands in the lack of proof. The presentation of real evidence and proof is then required by he who needs to overcome that presumption. A burden of proof.

"There is no evidence DASA or any other Danish authority has restricted any activity directly associated with our exploration of space, celestial bodies, or the technologies therewith, any we believe no such evidence exists;"

If they don't respond to your official communications, how can they then claim they are an authority? And if they do respond to your Affidavit, move for a mutually beneficial agreement. Your objective is only to come to an understanding where the legal/administrative groundwork is not unfavorable or unknown. It might even be negligent not go through [or create] the necessary hoops. Do not go into this with the idea of circumventing procedure or law.

100 countries isn't all of them (1)

holophrastic (221104) | about 10 months ago | (#45196903)

Move to a country not on that list.

What a story! (1)

Kimmo Rouvari (2891723) | about 10 months ago | (#45196967)

Anyway, I bet there is many more legal issues to tackle than just usage of gun powder :) Based on your story, you might endanger other people, infrastructure, aviation safety etc. Also, that kind of activity can be quite easily interpreted as some kind of terrorist plot or something. Outer space treaty is the smallest issue in this case. Gun powder can be replaced to some other method so no problem there.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>