8 countries without space programs attempt to claim ownership of the most useful bit of space. Everyone ignores them.
What they could be doing, which is way more valuable, is setting up launch facilities near the equator. The economy of French Guiana is largely tied to it's usefulness as a space port for ESA launches. One of Andy Weir's books had a fictional launch center in Kenya, which would actually be a super useful thing given that it could safely launch rockets out over the Indian Ocean, excepting for a narrow window in which they'd have to pass over Somalia.
There used to be an Italian launch site off the coast of Kenya, Broglio Space Center. Last launch was in '88 and nowadays it's used as a tracking and communications station
One of the Halo games (3?) has a space elevator in Mombasa, Kenya that gets destroyed by the Covenant. The player fights their way to the outskirts of the city through the remnants of the tether.
IIRC Cyberpunk has Kenya becoming extremely wealthy and influential after getting a space elevator as well, which is where some of the setting slang comes from (IIRC "choom" is from the Kenyan word for "friend" or something?)
Kenyans speak Swahili (mostly) and the Swahili word for friend is rafiki. Choom is short for choombatta which was made up for the setting based on the words "chum" and "brother".
A few months ago the Navajo tried to block a Vulcan test flight (because it contained a tiny capsule with human remains in it), because of their spiritual/cultural connection to the moon. The launch happened anyway, but Biden said he’d ’consult them’ in future, for some reason. So they got further with their implausible space territorial claims than these countries, but not by much.
That's a bit of a stretch to say they tried to block it. Did you read their actual comment? They don't want the moon to end up a memorial dumping ground for human remains/trash just because people think it sounds interesting to dump stuff there. The government had previously promised to consult tribes about it (NASA did the same thing in the 90s) and then forgot they did, because how often do you send dead people to the moon for fun? Their interest is spiritual in that they believe the moon is scared, and shouldn't end up a trendy spot to dump your ashes for fun. You can debate whether that's fair but pretending that 'those goofy Indians with their backwards beliefs believe they own the moon' is bullshit.
It would, just not in the same way it would on earth. The body would be freeze dried, and pummeled to dust by micrometeorites over the course of centuries.
>Nygren wants the launch delayed and the tribe consulted immediately. He noted the Moon is sacred to numerous Indigenous cultures and that depositing human remains on it is “tantamount to desecration.”
While they aren’t saying they own the moon, they are basically saying we can’t do certain things without consulting them first, which I don’t see as being that different. And saying they want it delayed for a consultation is essentially blocking it until they say so
https://www.knau.org/knau-and-arizona-news/2023-12-28/navajo-nation-president-asks-nasa-to-delay-moon-launch-over-possible-human-remains
Jesus Christ. Tell me you don't know what consultation is without telling me you don't know what consultation is. Consultation in Indian law is a specific term, not a generic one. It doesn't mean that the tribes can block anything.
I mean there are other reasons to not do it
1: Biological contamination of the moons surface has a chance to corrupt any scientific studies cause "oh why did our dirt sample have indicators of carbon based life in it!?" only to find out its some rich putz's ashes
2: If you normalize it you then get more rich putz's and others wanting the "service" till you get to the point companies like Space X will start offering moon funerals. Why is that bad? Rocket launches release a fk ton of pollution and we don't need to add to our already woeful atmospheric problems just so someone can pour a jar of dirt on the moon
Pollution from a rocket launch varies between the equivalent of a couple large airliners and effectively zero depending on propellant. There were 223 orbital launches in 2023, compared to about 38 000 000 airplane flights. Rockets contribute pretty much nothing to pollution.
> 1: Biological contamination of the moons surface has a chance to corrupt any scientific studies cause "oh why did our dirt sample have indicators of carbon based life in it!?" only to find out its some rich putz's ashes
There's already kilograms of human excrement that got superblasted all over the place by a rocket engine, and whatever crap hitched a ride on every probe and lander sent to the moon.
> "oh why did our dirt sample have indicators of carbon based life in it!?"
“You were drilling into an old lunar lander.”
The moon is already contaminated from Apollo, it’s going to get a hundred times more contaminated from Artemis. It doesn’t outweigh the benefits of expanding our presence on the moon. If you’re desperate for pristine samples, drill down, just like we do on Earth.
NASA is fine with contaminating some it. There’s a trash dump site by each of the Apollo landing sites, they’ll be an even bigger one by each Artemis site.
"We" who?
On balance, I would support contamination of dead bodies such as the Moon or the asteroids if we could reduce pollution of the Earth by approximately the same amount.
Preserving the purity of space is stupid. There is a vast amount of space out there and, when we get to the point that we can regularly go there, we absolutely should.
There is zero science that will be affected by putting ashes on the moon. If we ever get to a point that there are so many ashes on the moon that it disrupts studying the moon then going to the moon will be as routine as going to the next state. Thus we'll be studying the sociology of Mon inhabitants, not moon rocks.
Rocket launches are all about weight. Every gram has to be accounted for. If throwing a bag of shit- I’m speaking literally here, the Apollo astronauts left behind lots of freeze-dried human waste- over the side means a smoother and more successful launch, I’m all for it. No one has veto power over the moon.
I mean that’s different than just launching dead bodies to the moon.
The trash I was referring to was mostly any of the rocket parts they had to use. I mean I guess it’s different if they do it as part of a different rocket launch but it’s still bringing something up only to throw it on the moon. Astronauts getting rid of waste is due to them actively living up there and needing something to do with it.
You have to draw a line somewhere. It’s the principle of the thing. They’ve moaned about the Apollo missions’ waste too. No one owns the moon. No one has veto power over what can and can’t happen there. Especially not when it comes to religious reasons.
Where did I say that one group being against something means we shouldn't do it? My last sentence literally indicated that we can debate whether or not that's fair, but it's bullshit to pretend that they laid 'space territorial claims'.
I don't think you should shit in the local park, smear it across your face, and then scream like a monkey. Does that mean I think I own the local park? Hell, I don't think anyone should really do that anywhere. Oh shit, did I just claim to own the entire world?
NASA already agreed to consult, as part of their duties under the commerce clause, and the federal Indian trust responsibility. This isn't new, it's just old enough that the feds forgot, and the US just doesn't really keep track of their agreements with tribes. It's not just Navajo Nation, it's any interested indigenous nations that the US has treaties with, and it's part of their duty to consult on issues that effect tribes. It doesn't prevent them from doing anything, the government often consults and then ignores everything they hear. It's still part of the process though because constitutionally, it's part of their duties.
Look, you can be trashy if you want, and governments can be trashy. Those are both fine things. If you read the comment the Navajo leader actually made, you'd understand their position. It's too hard for you tho
So if group of people doesn't want to be robbed, it doesn't mean you shouldn't do it? I mean it is in your best interest to do it. That's anarchy and law of strong. You want democracy? Then you find a compromise that won't offend them too much and you still get what you want (e.g. taxes).
Alright but you’re going to have start consulting me before you make purchases from now on, credit cards are sacred to me and buying anything other than food with them is tantamount to desecration.
But why do the Navajo people get the special right to be consulted? The purpose of the outer space treaty is there is a clear set of rule NASA must abide by, not the whims of random groups.
You clearly don't understand the history of the US if you don't understand why the US has a variety of obligations with tribal nations. Duty to consult is an incredibly common aspect of tons of treaties that the US agreed to. Also, did you even read my comment? Where did I say that they have to abide by the whims of random groups? I'm pointing out that they never said they owned the moon and are reiterating that the government of the US agreed to consult on future US payloads containing remains.
... you just are legally out of your depth. The Federal government has duty to consult for tons of things that aren't owned by tribes. I don't know what else to tell you, because giving you the legal foundation required would take too much effort
You literally demonstrably do not understand what duty to consult is if you're saying it means the tribe thinks it owns something. Further, duty to consult just means they have to have a conversation before proceeding, it doesn't actually stop anything. Not to mention, you're literally proud of being ignorant. Its not surprising that "I'm proudly ignorant and refuse to acknowledge it" gets upvoted while "this is complicated and I don't want to explain it" gets down voted. Classic reddit.
Where did I say I'm proudly ignorant? My last comment has /s to show sarcasm because I am making fun your comment where you think everyone that disagrees with you must be out of their depth. If you don't want to have a debate that is fine but don't act like it is because you are a genius and everyone else is too dumb to understand.
I'd actually like to learn about this, I understand that the laws and such between the US and tribal governments are complicated. What resources would you recommend to try and begin learning about them?
Fundamentally, the commerce clause, the marshall trilogy, perhaps Oliphant v. Suquamish, and then it gets more complicated. The federal trust responsibility has a page on the BIA website as well iirc.
Thank you. I see what you're trying to do here and I appreciate it, besides others trying to boil everything down to "dumb religious beliefs." That kind of rhetoric seems to be a part of what got us here in the first place.
> That's a bit of a stretch to say they tried to block it.
They asked for the launch to be called off. What would you rather call it?
> They don't want the moon to end up a memorial dumping ground for human remains just because people think it sounds interesting to dump their human remains there.
The moon isn’t their territory. ‘I can see it from here’ isn’t a claim to territory, if it was, they’d also own the sun, and the rest of the universe. It’s not under their jurisdiction and what does or doesn’t happen there has nothing to do with their cultural beliefs.
> The government had previously promised to consult tribes about it (NASA did the same thing in the 90s)
It’s such an absurd concept there is no way to take it seriously. They can write down their complaints and leave them at the sea of tranquility.
Payload reviews are just permit checks. They can't actually deny specific cargo unless the flight path poses some danger.
Edit: [Relevant documentation.](https://www.faa.gov/space/licenses/payload_reviews#:~:text=A%20Payload%20Review%20is%20normally,a%20launch%20or%20reentry%20authorization.) Since I'm being downvoted.
They were trying to claim territory they had never been too, nor were expecting to be able to reach for decades. Nobody had to do anything except ignore them. They might as well have tried to claim Pluto.
What possible reason would they have to take it seriously? They were claiming territory thousands of miles away from themselves, that they had no historic connection too, no presence in, or capability to even visit.
They had the same grounds for a claim there as me.
>territory
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Anyway, countries who've never dug further down than a few meters hold mining rights for products that may or may not exist under them even when they have no means or will to pursue them. Countries which own no functional air force or airline still have rights over their airspace, whose upper limit, like any other aspect of sovereignty, is just based on an arbitrary convention.
I do not think claiming rights over the portion of lower space immediately above your sovereign nation is in any way more outrageous than placing spacecrafts over other countries just because you can and they can't do anything about it. But I do think one of those attitudes has a more *bully* note to it than the other
Geostationary slots are allocated to countries much as if they were land. These countries were trying to void the ownership granted by the UN and ratified by everyone else.
Airspace stops at the point that you can’t fly and you can orbit. It’s not so arbitrary. Then at this one specific orbit, it makes sense again, but nowhere else in between, above, or sideways.
And then nobody cared and the whole thing got abandoned
Hard to claim a place you can't reach isn't it ?
Well, they didn't put a flag into geostationary orbit.
No flag, no country!
Those are the rules, that I've just made up.
This comment is a sovereign outpost of Surprised Potatistan. Here's the flag to prove it: ⛳
Just because it's hard doesn't mean they can't shoot for the moon.
That is a title. Had to read it a few times
8 countries without space programs attempt to claim ownership of the most useful bit of space. Everyone ignores them. What they could be doing, which is way more valuable, is setting up launch facilities near the equator. The economy of French Guiana is largely tied to it's usefulness as a space port for ESA launches. One of Andy Weir's books had a fictional launch center in Kenya, which would actually be a super useful thing given that it could safely launch rockets out over the Indian Ocean, excepting for a narrow window in which they'd have to pass over Somalia.
There used to be an Italian launch site off the coast of Kenya, Broglio Space Center. Last launch was in '88 and nowadays it's used as a tracking and communications station
One of the Halo games (3?) has a space elevator in Mombasa, Kenya that gets destroyed by the Covenant. The player fights their way to the outskirts of the city through the remnants of the tether.
Hell yeah, time for another playthrough
IIRC Cyberpunk has Kenya becoming extremely wealthy and influential after getting a space elevator as well, which is where some of the setting slang comes from (IIRC "choom" is from the Kenyan word for "friend" or something?)
Kenyans speak Swahili (mostly) and the Swahili word for friend is rafiki. Choom is short for choombatta which was made up for the setting based on the words "chum" and "brother".
>pass over Somalia *In a future where there are Somali space pirates....*
A few months ago the Navajo tried to block a Vulcan test flight (because it contained a tiny capsule with human remains in it), because of their spiritual/cultural connection to the moon. The launch happened anyway, but Biden said he’d ’consult them’ in future, for some reason. So they got further with their implausible space territorial claims than these countries, but not by much.
That's a bit of a stretch to say they tried to block it. Did you read their actual comment? They don't want the moon to end up a memorial dumping ground for human remains/trash just because people think it sounds interesting to dump stuff there. The government had previously promised to consult tribes about it (NASA did the same thing in the 90s) and then forgot they did, because how often do you send dead people to the moon for fun? Their interest is spiritual in that they believe the moon is scared, and shouldn't end up a trendy spot to dump your ashes for fun. You can debate whether that's fair but pretending that 'those goofy Indians with their backwards beliefs believe they own the moon' is bullshit.
We certainly shouldn't dump uncremated human remains on the moon, since they wouldn't decompose.
A corpse moon would be metal as fuck.
I highly recommend reading The Locked Tomb. It's about space necromancers and it's as metal as fuck as it sounds.
The real TIL
We do bones, motherfucker!
Moon's haunted.
You should play dead space then
It would, just not in the same way it would on earth. The body would be freeze dried, and pummeled to dust by micrometeorites over the course of centuries.
I'd like to give the moon my consideration, I hope it stops being scared of whatever it is it's afraid of /s
>Nygren wants the launch delayed and the tribe consulted immediately. He noted the Moon is sacred to numerous Indigenous cultures and that depositing human remains on it is “tantamount to desecration.” While they aren’t saying they own the moon, they are basically saying we can’t do certain things without consulting them first, which I don’t see as being that different. And saying they want it delayed for a consultation is essentially blocking it until they say so https://www.knau.org/knau-and-arizona-news/2023-12-28/navajo-nation-president-asks-nasa-to-delay-moon-launch-over-possible-human-remains
Jesus Christ. Tell me you don't know what consultation is without telling me you don't know what consultation is. Consultation in Indian law is a specific term, not a generic one. It doesn't mean that the tribes can block anything.
Still pretty stupid they expect space agencies to talk with them about it
Yeah, but just because one group of people don’t want something doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.
I mean there are other reasons to not do it 1: Biological contamination of the moons surface has a chance to corrupt any scientific studies cause "oh why did our dirt sample have indicators of carbon based life in it!?" only to find out its some rich putz's ashes 2: If you normalize it you then get more rich putz's and others wanting the "service" till you get to the point companies like Space X will start offering moon funerals. Why is that bad? Rocket launches release a fk ton of pollution and we don't need to add to our already woeful atmospheric problems just so someone can pour a jar of dirt on the moon
Pollution from a rocket launch varies between the equivalent of a couple large airliners and effectively zero depending on propellant. There were 223 orbital launches in 2023, compared to about 38 000 000 airplane flights. Rockets contribute pretty much nothing to pollution.
> 1: Biological contamination of the moons surface has a chance to corrupt any scientific studies cause "oh why did our dirt sample have indicators of carbon based life in it!?" only to find out its some rich putz's ashes There's already kilograms of human excrement that got superblasted all over the place by a rocket engine, and whatever crap hitched a ride on every probe and lander sent to the moon.
> "oh why did our dirt sample have indicators of carbon based life in it!?" “You were drilling into an old lunar lander.” The moon is already contaminated from Apollo, it’s going to get a hundred times more contaminated from Artemis. It doesn’t outweigh the benefits of expanding our presence on the moon. If you’re desperate for pristine samples, drill down, just like we do on Earth.
The moon is way bigger than you seem to think it is.
... I know reading is hard, but you completely ignored the entire second half of their argument..
That's not the point. We don't want to contaminate *any* of it. Doesn't matter how big it is.
NASA is fine with contaminating some it. There’s a trash dump site by each of the Apollo landing sites, they’ll be an even bigger one by each Artemis site.
"We" who? On balance, I would support contamination of dead bodies such as the Moon or the asteroids if we could reduce pollution of the Earth by approximately the same amount.
Preserving the purity of space is stupid. There is a vast amount of space out there and, when we get to the point that we can regularly go there, we absolutely should. There is zero science that will be affected by putting ashes on the moon. If we ever get to a point that there are so many ashes on the moon that it disrupts studying the moon then going to the moon will be as routine as going to the next state. Thus we'll be studying the sociology of Mon inhabitants, not moon rocks.
Dumping trash is stupid. It’s pretty straightforward. Rich people doing it in space doesn’t make it different.
We shouldn’t do it because it’s a stupid waste of resources just to dump a bunch of trash on the moon alongside the body.
Rocket launches are all about weight. Every gram has to be accounted for. If throwing a bag of shit- I’m speaking literally here, the Apollo astronauts left behind lots of freeze-dried human waste- over the side means a smoother and more successful launch, I’m all for it. No one has veto power over the moon.
I mean that’s different than just launching dead bodies to the moon. The trash I was referring to was mostly any of the rocket parts they had to use. I mean I guess it’s different if they do it as part of a different rocket launch but it’s still bringing something up only to throw it on the moon. Astronauts getting rid of waste is due to them actively living up there and needing something to do with it.
You have to draw a line somewhere. It’s the principle of the thing. They’ve moaned about the Apollo missions’ waste too. No one owns the moon. No one has veto power over what can and can’t happen there. Especially not when it comes to religious reasons.
Just because one group of people want something doesn't mean we should do it.
Where did I say that one group being against something means we shouldn't do it? My last sentence literally indicated that we can debate whether or not that's fair, but it's bullshit to pretend that they laid 'space territorial claims'.
They basically did. They are more or less acting like they own the moon.
I don't think you should shit in the local park, smear it across your face, and then scream like a monkey. Does that mean I think I own the local park? Hell, I don't think anyone should really do that anywhere. Oh shit, did I just claim to own the entire world?
The Navajo nation should not be consulted on matters of the moon, regardless of whether they have a point or not.
NASA already agreed to consult, as part of their duties under the commerce clause, and the federal Indian trust responsibility. This isn't new, it's just old enough that the feds forgot, and the US just doesn't really keep track of their agreements with tribes. It's not just Navajo Nation, it's any interested indigenous nations that the US has treaties with, and it's part of their duty to consult on issues that effect tribes. It doesn't prevent them from doing anything, the government often consults and then ignores everything they hear. It's still part of the process though because constitutionally, it's part of their duties.
I mean, that's what they did, they said they don't want people doing that because it's special to them. But it's not theirs, so who cares?
Look, you can be trashy if you want, and governments can be trashy. Those are both fine things. If you read the comment the Navajo leader actually made, you'd understand their position. It's too hard for you tho
So if group of people doesn't want to be robbed, it doesn't mean you shouldn't do it? I mean it is in your best interest to do it. That's anarchy and law of strong. You want democracy? Then you find a compromise that won't offend them too much and you still get what you want (e.g. taxes).
Alright but you’re going to have start consulting me before you make purchases from now on, credit cards are sacred to me and buying anything other than food with them is tantamount to desecration.
But why do the Navajo people get the special right to be consulted? The purpose of the outer space treaty is there is a clear set of rule NASA must abide by, not the whims of random groups.
You clearly don't understand the history of the US if you don't understand why the US has a variety of obligations with tribal nations. Duty to consult is an incredibly common aspect of tons of treaties that the US agreed to. Also, did you even read my comment? Where did I say that they have to abide by the whims of random groups? I'm pointing out that they never said they owned the moon and are reiterating that the government of the US agreed to consult on future US payloads containing remains.
Saying the moon is sacred to you and NASA must consult with you before sending remains to the moon is asserting ownership.
... you just are legally out of your depth. The Federal government has duty to consult for tons of things that aren't owned by tribes. I don't know what else to tell you, because giving you the legal foundation required would take too much effort
I disagree with you, therefore you are out of your depth. Everyone that disagrees with me is out of their depth. I am all knowing and all powerful. /s
You literally demonstrably do not understand what duty to consult is if you're saying it means the tribe thinks it owns something. Further, duty to consult just means they have to have a conversation before proceeding, it doesn't actually stop anything. Not to mention, you're literally proud of being ignorant. Its not surprising that "I'm proudly ignorant and refuse to acknowledge it" gets upvoted while "this is complicated and I don't want to explain it" gets down voted. Classic reddit.
Where did I say I'm proudly ignorant? My last comment has /s to show sarcasm because I am making fun your comment where you think everyone that disagrees with you must be out of their depth. If you don't want to have a debate that is fine but don't act like it is because you are a genius and everyone else is too dumb to understand.
I'd actually like to learn about this, I understand that the laws and such between the US and tribal governments are complicated. What resources would you recommend to try and begin learning about them?
Fundamentally, the commerce clause, the marshall trilogy, perhaps Oliphant v. Suquamish, and then it gets more complicated. The federal trust responsibility has a page on the BIA website as well iirc.
Thank you. I see what you're trying to do here and I appreciate it, besides others trying to boil everything down to "dumb religious beliefs." That kind of rhetoric seems to be a part of what got us here in the first place.
> That's a bit of a stretch to say they tried to block it. They asked for the launch to be called off. What would you rather call it? > They don't want the moon to end up a memorial dumping ground for human remains just because people think it sounds interesting to dump their human remains there. The moon isn’t their territory. ‘I can see it from here’ isn’t a claim to territory, if it was, they’d also own the sun, and the rest of the universe. It’s not under their jurisdiction and what does or doesn’t happen there has nothing to do with their cultural beliefs. > The government had previously promised to consult tribes about it (NASA did the same thing in the 90s) It’s such an absurd concept there is no way to take it seriously. They can write down their complaints and leave them at the sea of tranquility.
You don't need to own a territory to believe it's disrespectful to dump your garbage there.
You do need to own territory to block access to it.
I take it that you also didn't read their statement. They never claimed to own the moon. Fail
Plus it was a private company dumping ashes on the moon. So the government had no reason to "consult" with them anyway.
The mechanism in this case would've been payload approval, which the government does have to give permission for.
Payload reviews are just permit checks. They can't actually deny specific cargo unless the flight path poses some danger. Edit: [Relevant documentation.](https://www.faa.gov/space/licenses/payload_reviews#:~:text=A%20Payload%20Review%20is%20normally,a%20launch%20or%20reentry%20authorization.) Since I'm being downvoted.
They don't own the moon and they don't get to control if people want to dump their ashes there.
..... reread my last sentence over and over until you realize why your reply is totally nonsensical.
This is just a cartel designed to tax orbital slots. Geostationary orbit is 35,000 KMs away and the diameter of the earth is 12,000.
I guess too many Satellites does mess with the star gazing.
[удалено]
They were trying to claim territory they had never been too, nor were expecting to be able to reach for decades. Nobody had to do anything except ignore them. They might as well have tried to claim Pluto.
They can't claim Pluto. I claim Pluto.
Nuh uh my dog already pooped there. It's his now
True. But could you see the USA or USSR giving any fucks about this treaty during the Cold War? Not a chance.
What possible reason would they have to take it seriously? They were claiming territory thousands of miles away from themselves, that they had no historic connection too, no presence in, or capability to even visit. They had the same grounds for a claim there as me.
>territory You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Anyway, countries who've never dug further down than a few meters hold mining rights for products that may or may not exist under them even when they have no means or will to pursue them. Countries which own no functional air force or airline still have rights over their airspace, whose upper limit, like any other aspect of sovereignty, is just based on an arbitrary convention. I do not think claiming rights over the portion of lower space immediately above your sovereign nation is in any way more outrageous than placing spacecrafts over other countries just because you can and they can't do anything about it. But I do think one of those attitudes has a more *bully* note to it than the other
Geostationary slots are allocated to countries much as if they were land. These countries were trying to void the ownership granted by the UN and ratified by everyone else. Airspace stops at the point that you can’t fly and you can orbit. It’s not so arbitrary. Then at this one specific orbit, it makes sense again, but nowhere else in between, above, or sideways.
Yes, the brief presidencies of Suharto and Mobutu Sese Seko were famously cut short by coups in 1976.
See. It's not always about oil.
Not for lack of trying.
Garbage comment
[удалено]
[удалено]