I did a 1100m passage from Puerto Rico to Miami. Anchored in the Bahamas bank but didn't step on land. And when we arrived in the US we weren't required to clear in since our last port of departure was PR. Pretty sure they were tracking us by drone, blimp, AIS, and radar the entire way because they weren't suspicious enough compared to my previous experiences.

Curious why Apollo 11 would have to clear customs since the moon isn't a foreign country and they just did a there and back.

▲

ethan_smith 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the moon is considered international territory ("province of all mankind"), so technically they were returning from outside US jurisdiction, triggering customs requirements.

▲

soneil 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's the whole point of the parent comment - you don't trigger customs requirements by leaving and re-entering the country. You trigger them by entering from another country.

for example - you don't need a passport to travel from the US mainland to Hawaii. It doesn't matter that the aircraft cross international waters, it matters what country you were in last.

▲

bdamm 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is all kind of too reductionist.

The US DHS agents in the US make a choice not to fuss over the airplanes or even cruise ships sailing from US ports to Hawaii and back. They could, but they don't. They probably validate the ship or plane's location via transponder, but it wouldn't even surprise me if they don't do that for regular commercial transport.

This kind of local and specific policy is great and it is enacted in lots of places within US jurisdiction.

▲

mytailorisrich 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You are entering from "another country" if you are coming from the Moon.

For this purpose "country" has to be interpret as stepping on any land outside of the US.

▲

9rx 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> For this purpose "country" has to be interpret as stepping on any land outside of the US.

"Land" is legally (and generally) defined as pertaining to planet earth. In this case the crew did not step on any land outside of the US. The moon does not have land.

	▲	mytailorisrich 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I wrote in general and generic terms. Apollo 11 demonstrated that one can "set foot" on the Moon. So don't call it 'land' if that creates issues with existing laws and treaties on property rights but the point remains.
	▲	vntok 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> "Land" is legally defined as pertaining to planet earth. Interesting. Where have you read this? Intuitively, it seems very weird for a lawmaker to specify the planet the law would apply to.

▲

zaps 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

THE MOON BELONGS TO AMERICA

▲

umanwizard 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The trip as described passed through foreign territorial waters and probably also international waters.

▲

csomar 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Pretty sure they were tracking us by drone, blimp, AIS, and radar the entire way because they weren't suspicious enough compared to my previous experiences.

Probably none of that. The border check is a bureaucratic operation. Modern day border checks are 0% contraband, 1% terrorism and 99% just messing with the public.

▲

tempodox 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They could have smuggled moonshine.

	▲	burnt-resistor 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Freshly bottled from the edge of the dark side where it's sweetest.

▲

jedberg 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Due to international treaty the moon is considered international land, like Antarctica.

▲

lucianbr 3 days ago | parent [-]

You think some other country would have objected to the US not requesting cusoms declarations from their own citizens, reasoning it breaks the treaty obligations?

	▲	jedberg 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think it was more about the US insisting the rules get followed no matter what. Sort of like how astronauts today going to ISS have to fill out international travel forms, even when they leave from the USA.