Moon Express becomes first private company to get US approval for lunar mission

[Tyrianth]

I can understand needing US permission to launch from the US, but to land on the moon? Maybe that's just poor wording, but the US has no right to the moon, no-one does.

It's too ensure that all parties involved in space exploration are following the stipulations of the various treaties put in place. These treaties are there for a reason, one of which I've already mentioned is the cross contamination of planetary biology.

Lets say the ESA is spending billions of dollars on research on their moon.

A private company launches their rover to the moon, but didn't properly decontaminate, bringing along earth microbial life.

The ESA rover detects this life and now the ESA thinks they've discovered life on the moon. When in reality it was just traces left over from the US companies rover.

[AeneasBK]

I can understand needing US permission to launch from the US, but to land on the moon? Maybe that's just poor wording, but the US has no right to the moon, no-one does.

I dunno, it's got their flag on it. I think that's pretty much how the Brits did it for centuries...

[May90]

AFAIK, the approval requirement is based on safety demands. If everyone is allowed to build a rocket in their yard and launch it at their own leisure, then... Well, imagine if people could fly their personal jets without any authorization and proper preparation/training: the sky would be a mess, and plane collisions wouldn't be unheard of. Launching a mission to the moon without proper preparation might result in collision with debris in the orbit.

It is not as much about "permission to land on the Moon", as it is about "permission to launch the mission".

[Medusa Cascade]

I dunno, it's got their flag on it. I think that's pretty much how the Brits did it for centuries...

The flag is white now so France owns it.

[Tyrianth]

AFAIK, the approval requirement is based on safety demands. If everyone is allowed to build a rocket in their yard and launch it at their own leisure, then... Well, imagine if people could fly their personal jets without any authorization and proper preparation/training: the sky would be a mess, and plane collisions wouldn't be unheard of. Launching a mission to the moon without proper preparation might result in collision with debris in the orbit.

It is not as much about "permission to land on the Moon", as it is about "permission to launch the mission".

I would think it's both. Private organizations are expected to follow the terms outlines in the treaties their country has signed. The only way to do that is through a regulatory/approval process.

[Hyve]

It's too ensure that all parties involved in space exploration are following the stipulations of the various treaties put in place. These treaties are there for a reason, one of which I've already mentioned is the cross contamination of planetary biology.

Lets say the ESA is spending billions of dollars on research on their moon.

A private company launches their rover to the moon, but didn't properly decontaminate, bringing along earth microbial life.

The ESA rover detects this life and now the ESA thinks they've discovered life on the moon. When in reality it was just traces left over from the US companies rover.

As I said though, it's poor wording on the part of the article. You don't need permission from the US to land on the moon, but you do need to follow international rules and regulations and such. The wording made it come across as if the US has the right to determine if you are allowed to land on the moon, which clearly isn't the case.

[Tyrianth]

As I said though, it's poor wording on the part of the article. You don't need permission from the US to land on the moon, but you do need to follow international rules and regulations and such. The wording made it come across as if the US has the right to determine if you are allowed to land on the moon, which clearly isn't the case.

They do though. You need permissions from any government (assuming they signed the treaties) to perform any mission in space. This is not unique to the US.

The government is responsible for ensuring that any outer space mission originating from within their boundaries meets international regulations. This is why approval is needed.

Situation A
Company: "We'd like to land on the moon, for reasons"
Government: "Do you plan on following all these strict regulations without cutting corners, and are you willing to accept government observation to ensure this?"
Company: "Yup"
Government: "Go ahead!"

OR

Situation B
Company: "We'd like to land on the moon, for reasons"
Government: "Do you plan on following all these strict regulations without cutting corners, and are you willing to accept government observation to ensure this?"
Company: "Nope"
Government: "Then good luck trying to launch your rocket within our borders"

This is no different than requiring permission from the local government to build an attachment to your own home.

[I Push Buttons]

Private organizations do not use goverment money.

SpaceX
Northrop Grumman
Boeing
Lockheed Martin
Newport News Shipbuilding
Etc.
Etc.
So on...
So forth...
Would like a word.

These "private organization" are heavily subsidized by government money... If not beholden to it entirely.

[Hyve]

This is no different than requiring permission from the local government to build an attachment to your own home.

Not sure why you feel the need to explain. I thought I made it clear that I know that's how it worked, but the article made it seem like you needed US Government Approval. As if a UK, German or any other nationally based company would also have to seek US approval.

That's all my point was.

[Tyrianth]

Not sure why you feel the need to explain. I thought I made it clear that I know that's how it worked, but the article made it seem like you needed US Government Approval. As if a UK, German or any other nationally based company would also have to seek US approval.

That's all my point was.

Ah, sorry, that was not the impression I got from the article so I thought you were saying it's stupid that a US company requires approval from the US government to perform a moon mission.

[IIamaKing]

I can understand needing US permission to launch from the US, but to land on the moon? Maybe that's just poor wording, but the US has no right to the moon, no-one does.

Pft, these guys disagree