Why clandestine creatures on the moon confuse the international law of space

This month, space enthusiasts were shocked to learn that an Israeli lunar lander that crashed on the moon's surface in April did indeed have a few passengers on board: a tiny capsule filled with Dehydrated microscopic organisms, called tardigrades. These little "water bears", known to withstand very extreme environments, may have survived the wreckage. Almost nobody knew that they were on board until a recent report in wired revealed that they had been added to the mission at the last minute – and without any government approval.

The news has met a mixture of surprise and dismay, with some fearing that these life forms will contaminate the moon. The good news is that this is not likely to happen. "At best, the tardigrades will survive dormant for a period of time, depending on their level of vacuum exposure, temperature cycling and radiation," writes Lisa Pratt, NASA's Global Protection Officer. The edge.

L & # 39; incident Is raise many questions about protocols for approving space-related payloads. Technically, international guidelines on interplanetary contamination do not prohibit the shipment of biological materials and organisms to the lunar surface, as most living things can not survive. But no governing body had any say on the late issue. The tardigrades have been added to the LG by a non-profit American organization called Arch Mission Foundation, whose goal is to create a digital and biological "planet Earth safeguard" in the space. The team received approval to add a digital library on the LG, but did not inform Israel or the United States of the addition of aquatic bears.

"We did not tell them we were bringing this project to life," said Nova Spivack, co-founder of the Arch Mission Foundation. Mashable. "Space agencies do not like last-minute changes. So we just decided to take the risk. Spivack did not want to comment further The edge.

Some are now wondering if new international guidelines should be put in place to prevent imitation missions in the future. "This creates a dangerous precedent that it is acceptable to do without a broader scientific consultation," says Christopher Newman, professor of law and space policy at the University of Northumbria in the United Kingdom. . The edge.

Although the Arch Mission Foundation has not violated any formal international regulations regarding the contamination of space, the NPO may have put Israel and the United States in a vulnerable position by not asking not explicitly their permission beforehand. And the tardigrades are part of the growing trend of companies that send into space objects that have no scientific value without prior authorization. All this opens up a new, long-debated question: who should ultimately have a say in what we send in space?

Pirates of space

With the high radiation of the moon, violent temperature changes and an almost non-existent atmosphere, it is likely that the tardigrades will suffer the same fatal fate as other biological materials sent to the moon. "Although excessive and uncontrolled biological contamination of the Moon's surface is not scientifically desirable, small amounts of amber-encapsulated tardigrades will likely have minimal impact on the environment" , writes Pratt The edge.

Despite the near-certainty of death for the tardier, NASA still prefers to perform an inventory check of the biological material sent for each mission on the lunar surface, according to Pratt. This is not provided for by international law, but most countries with space systems adhere to this planetary protection policy in accordance with guidelines established by an international group known as the Committee on Space Research. These guidelines determine the amount of biological material that you can send in space based on your destination. And the Arch Mission Foundation has denied Israel and the US the opportunity to do so by adding the tardigrades without telling anyone. "Technically, I'm the first space pirate," Spivack said Mashable.

By secretly putting on board the tardigrades, Spivack also escaped an army of other agencies and government policies in the United States and Israel. The Outer Space Treaty – a 1967 agreement between 109 countries providing general guidelines on how countries should explore space – states that countries must oversee and supervise all activities carried out by non-governmental entities. Since this launch took place in Florida, the Federal Aviation Administration had to approve the launcher. FAA Is looks at least the payloads that are launched when it licenses, but it is likely that the agency knew nothing about tardigrades. "We are looking at the issue," said an FAA representative The edge. "We do not have a timetable to know when we will have additional information."

In addition, the US Department of State is responsible for ensuring that the United States and its entities comply with the Outer Space Treaty. Since the Arch Mission Foundation is a US non-profit organization, this may be within its jurisdiction. When The edge reached, the State Department refused to comment on the situation.

But ultimately, it is up to Israel to approve the payload since the lander was built and operated by an Israeli non-profit organization called SpaceIL. Yoav Landsman, SpaceIL Senior System Engineer, alluded to on Twitter the team did not know the payload at all. By adding the tardigrades in secret, the Arch Mission Foundation did not allow Israel, the United States or SpaceIL to properly oversee the mission. The edge Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but did not receive a reply.

"It's not up to them to decide what are the international obligations of the United States," says Christopher Johnson, space law advisor at the Secure World Foundation, a non-profit organization specializing in space security. The edge. "It's not up to them to decide what are Israel's international obligations. The real worrying precedent is that private entities put governments at the mercy of their actions under space law. "

This is not the first time a private entity has sent something into space without explicit permission. In January 2018, a US aerospace startup, Swarm, launched four tiny satellites into space, launched on an Indian rocket that had 31 payloads. A license had been refused to Swarm by the Federal Communications Commission, which feared that satellites would be too small to be tracked in space. But Swarm challenged the FCC and still launched its satellites at launch. In response, the FCC fined Swarm and the company promised to abide by all appropriate licensing procedures in the future.

These examples illustrate how private entities have found ways to evade the system and international law. And experts fear that other companies do the same. "I think that, individually and nationally, all of these countries need to think about these issues," said Elsbeth Magilton, executive director of the Space Law, Cyberspace and Telecommunications Law Program at the Faculty of Law. 39, University of Nebraska. The edge"And wondering what kinds of standards of behavior are we going to establish based on what we approve of sending in space?"

Time to change?

The US licensing regime was put in place at a time when the private space industry was not very mature. It has been designed to supervise satellites launched in Earth orbit and not in space. But recently, commercial space companies have become much more ambitious and capable, offering to send landing gear to other worlds and habitats in the space for people to visit. In the face of these growing ambitions, the US government has recognized the need to put in place a framework to regulate missions that travel in space and in other worlds.

The Trump administration has proposed that the Commerce Department become a "one-stop shop" for space travel, overseeing such missions. But this is only the beginning of a wider international discussion. Some experts argue that this recent late-night fiasco highlights the need for further discussion of the types of payloads in acceptable far-off spaces and the type of behavior with which we all agree.

"What is the point?" Linda Billings, a former consultant to NASA's Planetary Protection Office and current consultant to NASA's astronomical and astrobiological defense programs, told The Verge. "For me, it's the height of arrogance to say that's what I want to do and that I'm going to do it even if it does not serve any public purpose. The Arch Mission Foundation says it's safeguarding the history of humanity, but Billings notes that other organizations, like the Lifeboat Foundation, are already embarking on this endeavor.

The United States has been relatively quiet about the fact that people are sending objects to space that are not used for scientific purposes. Numerous art projects, such as Rocket Lab's disco ball satellite, Humanity Star, or Trevor Paglen's orbit reflector, a giant inflatable balloon connected to a satellite, have been put into orbit. Those who annoyed the astronomers, fearing that these reflective objects ruin their sensitive images of the night sky. SpaceX launched its CEO's sports car in the big space during the inaugural launch of the Falcon Heavy, placing it in an orbit around the Sun that crosses Mars' orbit.

Billings argues that the lax approach stems from a desire not to overload the industry. "There has been an ongoing dialogue about regulation and space activity," she says. "And you still hear that" light touch, light touch, minimal regulation, light touching. "And this has been going on for decades."

Johnson of the Secure World Foundation says that even though these missions have been approved by the United States, they risk damaging the reputation of our country vis-à-vis other members of the international community. "They look at what the West is doing and say, 'They can not even control their own private entities,'" he explains. "Do we really trust what they can supervise and authorize and ensure that their national activities respect international law?"

However, others warn against excessive regulation, which could turn into an exhaustive list of do's and don'ts. "Do we have to be so precise that we list what you can and can not do in space?" Says Magilton. "And I think it's a real concern, and it's not a healthy and helpful way to regulate, and it does not provide that security. On the other hand, if you are too vague, they do not have this security, they do not know what's wrong and what's wrong. "

It is unlikely that the international community will come together to create another great space treaty, as was the case in the 1960s with the Treaty on Outer Space. But the private space industry will only grow and the possibilities for more bad space actors increase as costs decrease and capabilities increase. It is clear that many more discussions are on the horizon about who and what should be released from Earth's gravity.