Artemis Accords leave big questions on space mining largely up in the air - CTech | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Science

Artemis Accords leave big questions on space mining largely up in the air – CTech

Published

 on


This past week the U.S., Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom signed the relatively terse Artemis Accords,
a set of fairly vague acknowledgements regarding the future of space exploration. NASA has supposedly been working for some time, bilaterally with each of the signatories, to hammer out the details (or lack thereof) of the agreement. While Russia, which has been a longstanding U.S. partner in space exploration has not yet signed, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine is hopeful that
it will do so soon.

 

Artemis is the goddess of the Moon in Greek Mythology, and the accords seem interested, at least initially, in the upcoming similarly named US Artemis Lunar Exploration Program, set to resume manned missions to the moon by 2024. In addition to its immediate focus on the moon, the agreement supposedly further cements the principles agreed upon in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and its progeny. Thus, the Accords—despite their broad, albeit superficial range of subject matter—seem to have a singular purpose: the signing of the bilateral agreements, which is a prerequisite for inclusion in those NASA manned lunar missions, is meant to create legal support for the mining of the moon and other celestial bodies.

 

Eight countries sign accords on the future of space exploration. Photo: Getty Images

While it is ironic that on the eve of the anniversary
of 20 continuous years of human residence in space in the aptly named International Space Station, the U.S. seems to have gone it mostly alone in spearheading these bilateral agreements, it is understandable why that choice was made. NASA administrators have essentially admitted that while the U.N.’s Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) is probably the best forum to determine what we can and cannot do in space vis-à-vis things like lunar mining and resource extraction, there isn’t time to wait for the consensus driven body to come to a determination, especially if diplomacy necessitates a sub-par determination from the U.S. perspective, which sees resource extraction from the moon as
a necessity for future lunar bases.

While the issues of space mining are relatively new to Space Law, much of the other agreed upon language in the Accords reiterates long-standing customary practice, if not outright international law, as spelled out in the first four of the five space treaties, and as practiced by most space faring nations for the past half century. These reiterations include, for example, the obligation to register relevant space objects, as well as a reaffirmation of the obligation to assist personnel in space who are in distress.

 

Notably in the text of the new agreement, the term “astronaut” from the earlier space treaties was replaced with the more generalized term “personnel.” It is possible that this was intentional in light of the emerging reality that future space travel will include civilian tourists and
other unconventional passengers that are not astronauts in the conventional sense.

 

Notwithstanding that particular appreciation that billionaires like Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic will be playing an increasingly important role in space travel, there is little other acknowledgement, if any, that much of the space exploration beyond Branson’s sub-orbital tourist flights, will also be private in nature.

 

Richard Branson’s reflections on an astronaut’s helmet. Photo: Getty Images

In fact, the only outright acknowledgment of the increasingly central role of private space actors seems to be a small carving out of a data-sharing exemption for those private actors. That’s it. It is even unclear as to whether the lack of other private actor carve-outs in the rest of the document imply that there are none, and whether the private sector is equally bound to them, or is simply not part of the deal. The latter seems more likely.

 

One especially interesting aspect of the treaty is the obligation to preserve older landing sites as the shared heritage of mankind, as if the bags full of astronaut excrement that were unceremoniously dumped on the moon have some sort of sacred value. But this has been the goal of a number of non-governmental organizations for
some time, so it is no surprise that it finally made it into a multinational document. In a similar vein, regarding the protection of the space environment, the last two substantive, albeit short and vague, paragraphs, have the parties agree to tackle one of the biggest issues in outer space —orbital debris, aka space junk. Clearly, the Accords distinguish the space junk that we left on the moon,
and is now protected under the Accords, from the orbiting space junk that needs to be taken out with the trash.

 

The most surprising part of the Accords, however,was the none-too-subtle burying of the lead. Deep down at the end of the document, the parties finally agree to the aforementioned primary purpose of the document: that mining of celestial bodies is legal under international law, and that countries have the right to carve out ‘safety zones’ seemingly akin to the exclusive economic zones of the sea that protectsprivate and national interests far off shore.

 

The contentious issue of space mining has been bouncing around (like a lunar astronaut in an eigth of Earth’s gravity) for some time. The Outer Space Treaties are somewhat ambiguous on the subject. They clearly state that space is the “province of all mankind” and that national appropriation is discouraged, but it is not clear whether that means you can’t extract any resources at all. For example, the Antarctic Treaty System,
which similarly regulates the nearly as remote Antarctica, had to specifically spell out a ban on mining, as it wasn’t deemed clear enough from the other texts of the treaty.

 

Another inhospitable location, the deep sea, is also considered a universal resource, and like Antarctica, we are allowed to
extract fish from the deep sea. Moreover, deep sea laweven allows for
the extraction of minerals under international law, although none have been extracted yet. To some degree, the U.S. is attempting to create the
same understanding for space with the support of a handful of other international actors.

 

At least two countries, the U.S., in 2015 under President Obama, and Luxembourg, in 2017, and perhaps, most recently the UAE,
already have laws that provide for the extraction of minerals from extra-terrestrial bodies. The signing of these new accords simply further concretize this U.S. understanding of international space law in the Artemis Accords. This U.S. understanding of the law could become settled law, especially if other nations do not oppose NASA’s mining activities on the moon.

To get the ball started early, in September NASA transparently offered to
buy extracted moon regolith from private companies in an effort clearly designed to set precedent to further bolster their pro-mining position in international law. NASA is hoping that nobody makes an international fuss when that happens.

 

Maybe this lucrative commercial opportunity can help finance the next Israeli moon shot and
provide some much needed financial support for the growing Israeli civilian space industry.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Science

The body of a Ugandan Olympic athlete who was set on fire by her partner is received by family

Published

 on

 

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — The body of Ugandan Olympic athlete Rebecca Cheptegei — who died after being set on fire by her partner in Kenya — was received Friday by family and anti-femicide crusaders, ahead of her burial a day later.

Cheptegei’s family met with dozens of activists Friday who had marched to the Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital’s morgue in the western city of Eldoret while chanting anti-femicide slogans.

She is the fourth female athlete to have been killed by her partner in Kenya in yet another case of gender-based violence in recent years.

Viola Cheptoo, the founder of Tirop Angels – an organization that was formed in honor of athlete Agnes Tirop, who was stabbed to death in 2021, said stakeholders need to ensure this is the last death of an athlete due to gender-based violence.

“We are here to say that enough is enough, we are tired of burying our sisters due to GBV,” she said.

It was a somber mood at the morgue as athletes and family members viewed Cheptegei’s body which sustained 80% of burns after she was doused with gasoline by her partner Dickson Ndiema. Ndiema sustained 30% burns on his body and later succumbed.

Ndiema and Cheptegei were said to have quarreled over a piece of land that the athlete bought in Kenya, according to a report filed by the local chief.

Cheptegei competed in the women’s marathon at the Paris Olympics less than a month before the attack. She finished in 44th place.

Cheptegei’s father, Joseph, said that the body will make a brief stop at their home in the Endebess area before proceeding to Bukwo in eastern Uganda for a night vigil and burial on Saturday.

“We are in the final part of giving my daughter the last respect,” a visibly distraught Joseph said.

He told reporters last week that Ndiema was stalking and threatening Cheptegei and the family had informed police.

Kenya’s high rates of violence against women have prompted marches by ordinary citizens in towns and cities this year.

Four in 10 women or an estimated 41% of dating or married Kenyan women have experienced physical or sexual violence perpetrated by their current or most recent partner, according to the Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2022.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

The ancient jar smashed by a 4-year-old is back on display at an Israeli museum after repair

Published

 on

 

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — A rare Bronze-Era jar accidentally smashed by a 4-year-old visiting a museum was back on display Wednesday after restoration experts were able to carefully piece the artifact back together.

Last month, a family from northern Israel was visiting the museum when their youngest son tipped over the jar, which smashed into pieces.

Alex Geller, the boy’s father, said his son — the youngest of three — is exceptionally curious, and that the moment he heard the crash, “please let that not be my child” was the first thought that raced through his head.

The jar has been on display at the Hecht Museum in Haifa for 35 years. It was one of the only containers of its size and from that period still complete when it was discovered.

The Bronze Age jar is one of many artifacts exhibited out in the open, part of the Hecht Museum’s vision of letting visitors explore history without glass barriers, said Inbal Rivlin, the director of the museum, which is associated with Haifa University in northern Israel.

It was likely used to hold wine or oil, and dates back to between 2200 and 1500 B.C.

Rivlin and the museum decided to turn the moment, which captured international attention, into a teaching moment, inviting the Geller family back for a special visit and hands-on activity to illustrate the restoration process.

Rivlin added that the incident provided a welcome distraction from the ongoing war in Gaza. “Well, he’s just a kid. So I think that somehow it touches the heart of the people in Israel and around the world,“ said Rivlin.

Roee Shafir, a restoration expert at the museum, said the repairs would be fairly simple, as the pieces were from a single, complete jar. Archaeologists often face the more daunting task of sifting through piles of shards from multiple objects and trying to piece them together.

Experts used 3D technology, hi-resolution videos, and special glue to painstakingly reconstruct the large jar.

Less than two weeks after it broke, the jar went back on display at the museum. The gluing process left small hairline cracks, and a few pieces are missing, but the jar’s impressive size remains.

The only noticeable difference in the exhibit was a new sign reading “please don’t touch.”

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

B.C. sets up a panel on bear deaths, will review conservation officer training

Published

 on

 

VICTORIA – The British Columbia government is partnering with a bear welfare group to reduce the number of bears being euthanized in the province.

Nicholas Scapillati, executive director of Grizzly Bear Foundation, said Monday that it comes after months-long discussions with the province on how to protect bears, with the goal to give the animals a “better and second chance at life in the wild.”

Scapillati said what’s exciting about the project is that the government is open to working with outside experts and the public.

“So, they’ll be working through Indigenous knowledge and scientific understanding, bringing in the latest techniques and training expertise from leading experts,” he said in an interview.

B.C. government data show conservation officers destroyed 603 black bears and 23 grizzly bears in 2023, while 154 black bears were killed by officers in the first six months of this year.

Scapillati said the group will publish a report with recommendations by next spring, while an independent oversight committee will be set up to review all bear encounters with conservation officers to provide advice to the government.

Environment Minister George Heyman said in a statement that they are looking for new ways to ensure conservation officers “have the trust of the communities they serve,” and the panel will make recommendations to enhance officer training and improve policies.

Lesley Fox, with the wildlife protection group The Fur-Bearers, said they’ve been calling for such a committee for decades.

“This move demonstrates the government is listening,” said Fox. “I suspect, because of the impending election, their listening skills are potentially a little sharper than they normally are.”

Fox said the partnership came from “a place of long frustration” as provincial conservation officers kill more than 500 black bears every year on average, and the public is “no longer tolerating this kind of approach.”

“I think that the conservation officer service and the B.C. government are aware they need to change, and certainly the public has been asking for it,” said Fox.

Fox said there’s a lot of optimism about the new partnership, but, as with any government, there will likely be a lot of red tape to get through.

“I think speed is going to be important, whether or not the committee has the ability to make change and make change relatively quickly without having to study an issue to death, ” said Fox.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 9, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version