Words, I know words, I have the best words.
Donald J. Trump, campaign rally, December 20, 2015
Named after the new Artemis moon program, the purpose of the Artemis Accords will be to formalize a number of co-operative aspects of space exploration as part of NASA's plans to return to the Moon by 2024. (Albeit for a given value of co-operative, as Terry Pratchett would say.)
Based on NASA's outline for the Accords, for the most part they're simply restating existing agreements and practices. There's a lot of language like "reaffirms", "reinforces", and "consistent with", as in the Emergency Assistance section, which reaffirms NASA's commitment to the Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, as well as committing to take "all reasonable steps”* to “render assistance to astronauts in distress".
Other sections will discuss practical issues. For example, the section on Interoperability will call for international standards for systems - which makes perfect sense, you really don't want to find out that a critical connector needs an adapter when you're in a hurry to provide an oxygen supply in an emergency.**
It all sounds very equitable: Peaceful Purposes, Transparency and Release of Scientific Data, Protecting Heritage Sites - well, let's be honest here, this is a bit self-serving, it's mostly NASA who's been leaving tracks and flags on the Moon, but still a good idea.
And then we get into what feels like the real purpose of this whole exercise: the sections on Space Resources and Deconfliction of Activities. Up until now, I didn't even realize that deconflict was a word, but the internet seems to recognize it as both a noun and a verb, although my Concise Oxford Dictionary doesn't include it.
The Space Resources section “reinforces that space resource extraction and utilization can and will be conducted under the auspices of the Outer Space Treaty, with specific emphasis on Articles II, VI and XI.” This strikes me as an obvious follow-up to last month’s Executive Order endorsing commercial exploitation of resources in outer space – making the Accords the next paving stone on the road to Hell, as it were, although in the case, I don’t think they qualify as good intentions.
Because, unfortunately, none of those three articles actually say anything about extraction and utilization – instead, they talk about celestial bodies (like the Moon) “not being subject to national appropriation…by means of use or occupation (Article II), or that all the signators to the Treaty are responsible for ensuring that “national activities in outer space…are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty” (Article VI) and last but not least, that any States conducting activities in outer space should let everyone know the “nature, conduct, locations and results of such activities.” (Article XI).
How about Article I? “The exploration and use of outer space…shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries”?
Equally strangely, the Article from the Outer Space Treaty cited for Deconfliction of Activities doesn’t really match with NASA’s apparent intentions. This part of the Accords suggests that they’ll provide information regarding the location and “general nature” of operations which will inform the scale and scope of “Safety Zones”, zones which would be “respected” to “prevent harmful interference”.
"Safety zones" - I love a good euphemism. Obviously this doesn't mean that the US would be claiming any territory, heavens no, they just want other astronauts to be SAFE, to avoid “harmful interference” with their activities – and who exactly is interfering with whom? The initial phrasing makes it sound like respecting the safety zones will stop the other partners from interfering. Sorry, but the shoe is on the other foot - Article IX stipulates that if any party to the Treaty is going to do anything that might cause harmful interference, they are obliged to consult with the other parties before proceeding with said activity, rather than calling on them to “respect” independently established zones. In fact, just referring to this as Deconfliction seems to be the wrong terminology – is this about safety or conflict?
It’s easy to see the hand - or perhaps pen - of the Trump government in action yet again, the same pen that has rolled back close to one hundred environmental rules in order to make life easier for industry: safety regulations for offshore drilling, controls on methane leaks, clean-water rules, reductions in coal-powered plants, and so on.
The Accords are currently in draft and haven't been officially discussed with any of NASA's partners in space exploration. There will be no United Nations involvement, because the US administration sees no need to involve non-spacefaring countries in the discussion and wishes to expedite the process by bypassing the UN. Sigh. the first lines of Article I again, in their complete form:
The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.Press coverage of the new Accords includes any number of references to the fact that up until now, NASA has been all about science, technology and discovery, rather than a tool of diplomacy. How sad to see that come to an end.
- Sid
* "Reasonable steps" being measured on a scale from 1 to Matt Damon.
** That being said, I would think that there must already be agreed upon standards in place to ensure that different manufacturers in different countries are building connectors and hatches to the same set of specifications to permit docking with the International Space Station.
No comments:
Post a Comment