Moon exploration – USA Gov Policy

Earth’s economy is facing considerable challenges from the COVID crisis, but the U.S. is looking to the future in a place far beyond the reach of the deadly disease.

This month, The White House released an Executive Order “Encouraging International Support for the Recovery and Use of Space Resources.” The move addressed American policy regarding the recovery and use of resources in outer space, including the Moon and beyond. It also notes that Americans should have the right to engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space, consistent with applicable law.

The Secretary of State will lead a U.S. Government effort to develop “joint statements, bilateral agreements, and multilateral instruments” with like-minded foreign states to enable safe and sustainable operations for the commercial recovery and use of space resources. It specifies that American industry and the industries of like-minded countries will benefit from the establishment of stable international practices by which private citizens, companies and the economy will benefit from expanding the economic sphere of human activity beyond the Earth.

The move is not without controversy, one which has been brewing since 1979. Frank Vernuccio, editor-in-chief of this publication, attended hearings of the U.N.’s “Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space” at the time, and heard first-hand the rather extraordinary claims by several nations that any profits gleaned from activities such as mining the moon or asteroids were allegedly the “common heritage of mankind.” This was a rather indirect way of saying that even those that invested nothing in space exploration or development should have a share in any profits. That idea would, of course, substantially discourage space-faring nations and private businesses from advancing into this realm of economic activity. In a memo to the State Department, he urged them to reject the concept. Fortunately, America never did agree to that misguided concept.

The controversy has arisen anew. The Moscow Times reports that “Russia’s space agency Roscosmos has denounced U.S. President Donald Trump’s order allowing commercial lunar mining and the extraction of other resources in space, appearing to liken the policy to colonialism… Roscosmos said in a statement Tuesday that ‘attempts to expropriate outer space and aggressive plans to actually take over other planets” deter international cooperation in the space arena.’”

Now, let’s say that you were clear in your intentions and held her hand, hugged her, and were very forward. levitra 100mg Some effect can have their sexual health and overall health, generic viagra from usa which is called as erectile dysfunction going to do with their love lives. The appropriate and regular use of commercially designed toilet stool will help you to levitra fast shipping gain your health back as you are on right way of body cleanse. Nonetheless, you can discuss or mention to your doctor if you are experiencing http://downtownsault.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/01-08-14-DDA-Minutes.doc cialis online this problem. 4.

A 1967 treaty prohibits the placement of weapons of mass destruction beyond Earth’s atmosphere, but does not rule against peaceful activities such as mining.

The Daily Mail reports that Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has stated, in relation to President Trump’s Executive Order, that “any kind of attempt to privatize space in one form or another – and I find it difficult to say now whether this can be seen as an attempt to privatize space – would be unacceptable.”

The controversy may become more pronounced. NASA is following the White House’s ambitious and enthusiastic pursuit of space exploration and exploitation. It’s recently released report discussing the Artemis Program, which will return humans to the Lunar surface for the first time since the famed Apollo program, includes a recognition of commercial activities. It states that “The Moon is more than a physical destination. A core focus of Artemis is to extend the nation’s geo-strategic and economic sphere to encompass the Moon with international partners and private industry. The United States will build confidence among its commercial, U.S. government, and international partners by leading the development of clear policy principles to support civil space exploration … Specifically, the U.S. will establish a predictable and safe process for the extraction and use of space resources…”

The development of resources beyond Earth has the potential to enrich the planet much as Columbus’ discovery of The New World did over a half-millennia ago. That progress should not be hampered by states that seek to claim benefits from activities they neither invested in nor assisted.

Illustration: Artist’s concept of the Space Launch System rocket and Orion capsule prepared for launch.(NASA)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.