| ▲ | andrewinardeer 3 months ago |
| I take it if SpaceX debris hit and destroyed a boat the owner can claim damages from SpaceX? Does international space law allow for this? |
|
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 months ago | parent | next [-] |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention Only used once, when the Soviets dropped a nuclear reactor on Canada. > States (countries) bear international responsibility for all space objects that are launched within their territory. This means that regardless of who launches the space object, if it was launched from State A's territory, or from State A's facility, or if State A caused the launch to happen, then State A is fully liable for damages that result from that space object. |
| |
| ▲ | walrus01 3 months ago | parent | next [-] | | As I recall a village in Australia also billed NASA with their standard municipal littering fine, for skylab debris that landed there, and the bill was paid 20+ years later by a radio station as a publicity stunt. | |
| ▲ | krick 3 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I feel like it should be updated. When it was written it wasn't like every Musk could launch high-orbit rockets on sundays. Only actual states did. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 3 months ago | parent | next [-] | | The convention does not prevent national law from providing private liability which may come into play between entities subject to the jurisdiction of the same state or between the state who is liable to other states under the convention and entities operating within the state. So, there is no need to update the convention; the states from which private launches operate simply need adequate domestic law to cover both fully-internal liability and private launcher liability for claims against the government under the convention. (And the US generally does, with the basic regulatory regime being adopted and the private space launch industry operating in the 1980s; it is not an issue that arose with Musk/SpaceX.) | |
| ▲ | condiment 3 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | FAA launch licenses require substantial liability insurance. 500 million in this case. https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID17389... | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | States can set whatever rules they like internally. The US can make SpaceX pay them back if they want. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 3 months ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 3 months ago | parent [-] | | The President has very little case-by-case authority over civil liability between private parties. I suppose Trump could advocate that Congress pass a new liability regime more favorable to SpaceX speciically or private launchers generally, though. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 3 months ago | parent [-] | | Time and time again, we have seen GOP congress critters kowtow to Trump even before he won the election. You think any of them are going to suddenly grow a backbone and stand up to him now? You think if Musk picks up the phone and starts "asking" people they will push back? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tcmart14 3 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No expert, but I would assume, the USA would front it, but then take a case against SpaceX. So it would be Boat Owner v. USA, then USA v. SpaceX shortly after. Although I could be totally wrong. But yea, seems appropriate to update it or if that is going to be the process, write it in stone. | |
| ▲ | oskarkk 3 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Every rocket flight has to be approved by the government. No launch until FAA (and also FCC) OK's it. |
| |
| ▲ | twic 3 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Does the thing have to have got into space and then come back for this to apply? | |
| ▲ | dr_orpheus 3 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But don't forget about a local government in Australia fining NASA $400 for littering after debris from Skylab re-entry landed there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab#Re-entry_and_debris | |
| ▲ | bigiain 3 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
| ▲ | somenameforme 3 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Most things put into space are designed to burn upon uncontrolled descent through orbit. And then the overwhelming majority of Earth is water and even on land the overwhelming majority of land is either completely uninhabited or sparsely inhabited. And then even if against all odds somehow something doesn't burn up in the atmosphere, and somehow lands in a densely populated area - the odds of hitting a spot with somebody or something relevant on it is still quite low. The overall odds of actually hitting somewhere really bad are just astronomically low. Nonetheless, recently NASA won the lottery when part of some batteries they jettisoned from the ISS ended up crashing through a house in Florida. [1] Oddly enough there are treaties on this, but only from an international perspective - landing on your own country was not covered! But I'm certain NASA will obviously make it right, as would SpaceX. If they didn't, then surely the family could easily sue as well. [1] - https://www.space.com/space-debris-florida-family-nasa-lawsu... |
|
| ▲ | HPsquared 3 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's probably similar to if a US ship crashed into your yacht. |
| |
| ▲ | dylan604 3 months ago | parent [-] | | Rules of the water says smaller ship yields right of way to bigger ship. Sounds like you screwed up if your yacht got hit by a bigger ship. Of course that applies when the vessels are not tied up. If a big ship his a docked boat, that's an entirely different scenario | | |
| ▲ | cdbyr 3 months ago | parent | next [-] | | There is a whole hierarchy of right of way on the water, but a better rule of thumb is that the less maneuverable boat generally has priority. https://www.whoi.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Abbreviated-... | | |
| ▲ | ta1243 3 months ago | parent [-] | | And of course there's the old tale: Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision. Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision. Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course. Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course. Americans: This is the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in the United States' Atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that YOU change your course 15 degrees north, that's one five degrees north, or countermeasures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship. Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_and_naval_vessel_ur... |
| |
| ▲ | lmm 3 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Rules of the water says smaller ship yields right of way to bigger ship. Sounds like you screwed up if your yacht got hit by a bigger ship. Not necessarily. Steam is obliged to give way to sail, even when the sailing ship is much smaller. | | |
| ▲ | krisoft 3 months ago | parent | next [-] | | There is a lovely bit of complication with it! Not saying to correct you, just because i think it is a lovely bit of trivia even though it has nothing to do with space debris. Both sailing and power driven vessels need to give ways to (among other things) “vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver”. And an aircraft carrier launching or recovering aircraft is considered to be restricted in her ability to maneuver (quite rightfully so, it is hard enough to land on them without the ship swerving left and right). So that means that a mighty aircraft carrier needs to (at least according to the regulations) dodge tiny sailing ships, but once they start launching or recovering aircraft it is the responsibility of the sailing ship to avoid them. Source: Rule 18 of the ColRegs (The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972) | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 3 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Where do Methalox-powered vehicles lie in this hierarchy? And if the Starship is not under power yet falling and using the flaperons for control, is that considered "under sail" for purposes of right of way? | | |
| ▲ | krisoft 3 months ago | parent [-] | | For funsies i would call it a “vessel not under command”. At least after the breakup that feels to fit. But for real, i think the simple answer is that debris falling from space is outside of the scope of the ColRegs. Simply speaking they come too fast so you can’t maneuver your vessel out of their way, and unless you are a warship you don’t have the tools to even know where exactly they will hit. If you try to run you might even put yourself in their path. After all from the most unlucky position they would be just bright stationary spots on the sky getting ever so slightly bigger. Until they start to get bigger faster and faster. (Constant bearing and decreasing range being the hallmarks of an impending colision.) |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | hnburnsy 3 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://www.npr.org/2024/06/23/nx-s1-5016923/space-debris-na... |
|
| ▲ | delichon 3 months ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Musk said that part of the launch licensing was a requirement to estimate the potential damage to whales in the ocean. He said that the odds turned out to be so low that in his opinion if a whale gets hit it had it coming. https://jabberwocking.com/did-elon-musk-really-have-to-study... |
| |
| ▲ | slippy 3 months ago | parent [-] | | If a whale got hit, would the whale be able to file for damages? | | |
|
