|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
152390
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Space exploration is a mechanism whereby, with the use of astronomy and space technology, humans are able to explore outer space and the universe at large. In this article, the authors address space debris issues with a discussion of future space law issues along with a brief elaboration of how the adaptation took place for space debris mitigation guidelines. The history of space law formulated during the United Nations’ General Assembly is justified, along with the resolutions that took place throughout recent years. The authors also elaborate on the importance of theoretical modeling and how it could be adopted into practice utilizing the established debris mitigation guidelines. Legal and political constraints are also highlighted, along with where the future focus on legal factors should be when considering space debris mitigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
152388
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Shuttle-Mir, the joint space exploration effort between NASA and the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos), faced a wide variety of challenges throughout its five-year run between 1993 and 1998. These included institutional differences, high costs to both the American and Russian governments, and poor public reception. The focus herein is on the personal reflections and experiences of American men and women who participated directly in the program: the seven Shuttle-Mir astronauts from the United States. These men and women joined an unprecedented exchange in which they had to train for and serve aboard a foreign space station for extended periods of time. This article utilizes archival records, official oral histories, and personal memoirs to outline three specific challenges faced in common by all of the U.S. astronauts. Primarily, they had to master both the everyday and technical intricacies of the Russian language, live in Russia during the post-Soviet economic collapse, and adapt to new institutional procedures and training methods under Roscosmos. Combined, these experiences presented serious difficulties in working with their Russian counterparts aboard the space station Mir, and made crisis situations even more hazardous. Overall, these experiences introduced yet another cost to the Shuttle-Mir program—a human one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
152389
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Military space technology is both stabilizing and destabilizing in international relations in respect to the distinction between passive and active applications. Space has been militarized from the dawn of humanity’s entry to space, but it is presently not weaponized. Although the benefits of passive military space technology are vast and promising, access to these benefits is exclusive and dominated by certain actors, leading other states to possible destabilizing influences of insecurity. Also, the failures of space law and treaties in regulating active military space technology stand to undermine the stabilizing effects of passive military space technology if not addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
152387
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The U.S. assertion of a right to own resources harvested from space is consistent with the distinction in international law governing analogous res communis areas between resources harvested from a common area and the common area itself. Under the Outer Space Treaty regime, private entities do not have any more right to appropriate celestial bodies than governments do. However, U.S. law does not give private entities such a right. The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act’s chapter on Space Resource Commercial Exploration and Utilization generally avoids taking a position on exactly how to deal with disputes in the event the activities of entities from the United States and other states interfere with each other. The U.S. law does not assert a right to declare safety zones or otherwise exercise jurisdiction outside space objects, but doing so can, under some circumstances, be consistent with international law. Many of the specifics of what rules will govern the gathering of space resources remain undetermined, yet the act’s basic premise is correct: international law and the treaty obligations of the United States allow for the U.S. government to authorize its citizens to own resources obtained from space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
152392
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Mars One is an ambitious, private plan to begin colonizing Mars using comprehensively screened volunteers who will make a one-way journey to the Red Planet. Its budget will be partially offset by broadcasting the adventure as a reality-TV program, beginning with the training of the astronauts, and ending with their settlement and, presumably, their deaths on the surface of Mars. In essence, the volunteers being sought for the Mars One project are human subjects in an experiment and ought to be treated as such under international provisions for the protection of human subjects or, at the very least, under a concern for the ethical conduct of a potentially groundbreaking project. In this article, I explore the question of whether the volunteers for Mars One are subject to standard protections for human subjects in scientific research, or to broader ethical concerns and protections for unique reasons, and whether they are being given the appropriate protections. I contend that, because of the individual and social impacts of the proposed project, and the nature and degree of risks, ethical concerns need to be addressed for this project to continue. Moreover, I recommend that an ethics committee be created to permanently oversee the project and provide guidance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
152391
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The availability of low-cost, high-performance miniaturized electronics, and rocket ride-share capabilities and other factors, have generated a significant increase in the development of small spacecraft. Over a hundred entities and thousands of individuals are now working on numerous small satellites. However, these entities and individuals lack the operations legacy and risk posture of existing satellite manufacturers. Although these new entrants have much less to lose, small satellites may be in a position to damage other, more expensive spacecraft, including manned spacecraft. This article considers the need for and benefits of a community-generated set of small spacecraft operating standards. A prospective pathway to their refinement and adoption, specific elements in such a set of standards, the increased confidence this provides larger operators, and the additional opportunities advanced by standards are discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|