Outer Space Treaty

It was 40 years ago today, April 25, 1967, that the U.S. Senate ratified the Outer Space Treaty by a vote of 88-0. Known formally as the "Treaty on Principles Governing Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies," the treaty bans nuclear -- but not conventional -- weapons in space, and forbids "national appropriation by claim of sovereignty" of any territory found beyond Earth's atmosphere. Subsequent events have placed some strains on the old document, which remains in effect today.

The new Bush Administration space policy and the Jan. 11 Chinese test of an anti-satellite test has reopened -- again -- the long-running debate about conventional weapons in space. And some entrepreneurial "new space" interests have questioned the treaty theory that space "shall be the province of all mankind," arguing that there’s less motivation to pursue commercial space ventures if you can’t claim territory.

Is it time to redraft what has been called "the Magna Carta of outer space" to reflect new realities, or to reaffirm the views of the original generation of spacefarers. What do you think?

-- Frank Morring, Jr.

Comments

[Juhani Westman]

The Treaty as it stands, is certainly an impediment for commercial exploitation of the moon, asteroids, Mars etc. Amendments, that give entities right to use natural resources and thus proprietary rights on surfaces of heavenly bodies, should be implemented, but claims should be restricted to the parts of surfaces actually occupied and used. Preemption of an area for possible exploitation in the future, thus preempting others to use said area more immediately, should not be possible.
An international governing body registering and administering claims should be set up for each of the heavenly bodies where activity is imminent. Claims should lapse after the activity has ceased.
There should also be a rewiew of the planned activity as to the impact on the local and global environment, which clearly will turn out as the bone of contention. Well, that is what diplomats and negotiators are hired for.

[Jared Bailey]

While new admendments can be used to advance space exploration no national or international body has the right to govern space. Open up the heavens to exploration as we did the new world. I think things worked out pretty well in the end. Certainly governments here have a right to keep the space over their heads clear of danger. However, no one on Earth has the right to tell me what I can or can not do on Mars or with an asteroid. The great explorers gathered resources, patrons, and willing participants and set out to discover for profit and fame. So will the next generation of explorers. The best way to open up space to humankind is to let people know its there for the taking and good luck. Anyone who is daring enough can claim it.

[Olav Grasvik]

I believe it is quite idealistic to think we can have a "great space race" for colonization in space, without the possibility to claim territories. It is also idealistic to think that all nations are able to put the common and peaceful good in front of their national interests in the conquest of space (even as this is the most desireable approach). No doubt are the availability of resources on celestial bodies a key element in the interests of each nation together with their own protection (as it is on Earth) - these two issues are the main "reason" for any war in our history.

It is extremely difficult to close the opportunity for claiming territories, so there must be other solutions instead. I believe a solution for this may be to open for the possibility for territorial claims, but to have it regulated by international treates and negotiations - with some sort of simple common guidelines (some have already been mentioned in the other comments).

I also believe that conventional and nuclear weapons do not belong in space. But that may just be a hope that when we go to space we can leave most of our differencies and all our weapons on Earth. "If you don't bring your gun, I will not bring mine..."