[GA - Passed] International Aero-Space Administration

Status
Not open for further replies.
TlomzKrano

TlomzKrano

Just a blob chasing cars
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Kranostav
Discord
Tlomz

ga.jpg

International Aero-Space Administration
Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Educational
Proposed by: Separatist Peoples | Onsite Topic​

Recognizing space as the final frontier;

Admiring the spirit of exploration and curiosity that drives us to boldly go where none have gone before;

Believing international cooperation is only way to truly develop space science research, and;

Seeking to remedy the significant shortcomings of preceding attempts,



  1. The World Assembly establishes the International Aero-Space Administration (IASA), and empowers it with the following mandate:

    1. To coordinate and publish public research in the field of space exploration, aerospace science and engineering, and other disciplines related to the pursuit of space science;



    2. To liaise with the WA Scientific Programme and coordinate the release of non-classified research and development within the disciplines of aerospace research and space exploration;



    3. To further liaise with the International Meteorological Organisation (IMO) on coordination and safety issues involved with terrestrial space launches;



    4. To provide on request both technical assistance and advisors for developing and building civilian space programs within member states by sharing technical, organizational, and administrative data with those programs to keep fledgling space programs safe and effective.



    5. To research and disseminate best management practices regarding space exploration and research safety;



    6. To act as an intermediary, upon request, for international cooperation on joint space programs.




  2. Member states must liaise with IASA, the IMO, and parallel national authorities governing airspace in foreign territory so as to coordinate flight plans to avoid conflict, collision, or other unintended risk to other spacecraft. Where reasonably practical, member states will so liaise for all nonmilitary spacecraft launched from their suborbital space which might cross into either international or foreign national airspace or territory;



  3. Member states are strongly encouraged to share their research with both other member states and IASA, for the betterment of all scientific development;



  4. The World Assembly renounces any direct authority over domestic space programs or their operations, and reserves them entirely to their respective national jurisdictions.
Click to expand...
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!


International Aero-Space Administration was passed 13,992 votes to 1,357.
 
Last edited:
Ministry IFV
The support of development of space research is a laudable and very important goal for the World Assembly to promote and properly legislate. The proposal addresses a swath of space, engineering, and data issues that concern the way nations interact and share this information. This includes the publishing of donated research, coordination on spacecraft launches, assisting in the development of civilian space programs, and acting as an intermediary for international joint space programs. It further requires nations to coordinate flight plans for aircraft and spacecraft while not infringing on military secrecy or unreasonably requiring corporation. Lastly, and most importantly, the proposal allows for expansion upon the many topics it hit and lays groundwork for proper space legislation in the future.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For this proposal.
 
Last edited:
Against.
On the surface, this seems pretty innocuous, but it overlooks the fact that precisely the same technology that allows rockets to travel to space also allows nations to deliver warheads between continents. Open sharing of 'aerospace science and engineering' may inadvertently accelerate fledgling nuclear nations achieving ICBM technology.
That is my single hang-up with the proposal. I would otherwise be in support.
 
bowloftoast:
Against.
On the surface, this seems pretty innocuous, but it overlooks the fact that precisely the same technology that allows rockets to travel to space also allows nations to deliver warheads between continents. Open sharing of 'aerospace science and engineering' may inadvertently accelerate fledgling nuclear nations achieving ICBM technology.
That is my single hang-up with the proposal. I would otherwise be in support.
Click to expand...
The only real similarity between aerospace technology for the purpose of space exploration and military ICBM technology is the use of a rocket. The practices are near totally different in their pursuit and application of the science. The comparison you bring about would be like being against the Automotive industry because you fear it aiding in the development of tanks.
 
I like the idea. But is this possible? In RL there is no such body or agreement. There are what they call 'International Space Agencies' but they are all nation based and have individual agreements with each other. There is a treaty, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies which you can view here http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_21_2222E.pdf but not all nations are signed up to it. Please correct me if I have erred.
 
Last edited:
bowloftoast:
Against.
On the surface, this seems pretty innocuous, but it overlooks the fact that precisely the same technology that allows rockets to travel to space also allows nations to deliver warheads between continents. Open sharing of 'aerospace science and engineering' may inadvertently accelerate fledgling nuclear nations achieving ICBM technology.
That is my single hang-up with the proposal. I would otherwise be in support.
Click to expand...

I think that before any sharing of information the nations would have to be signed up to a treaty first, with the usual checks on the nations progress etc.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm referring to it specifically as it applies to rocket technology. The addition of a weaponized payload to a rocket is the easy part. A tank is just a metal car with a cannon (not rocket science). Rocketry is a pretty complex tech but there is a commonality in things like thrust, stability, guidance, etc that are shared between exploration rockets and weaponized rockets. The very research that led to the development of V1 and V2 rockets went on to serve as the foundation for both the US and USSR space programs. It's a pretty closely guarded technology for this reason.
I guess the obvious real world example is North Korea. No one was happy when it was discovered they had nuclear capability, but when it was also determined they had long range rocket capability is when it became a more significant concern.
If you give an armed nation open access to a technology that dramatically extends their range and speed of attack, then that's a problem.
 
Last edited:
bowloftoast:
@Marcus Antonius I agree, but that's not addressed anywhere in this proposal. That's why the omission concerns me.
Click to expand...

Yes that is an important omission - If this International Aero-Space Administration (IASA) is set up then that organisation should also be responsible for ensuring the technology is for peaceful use only. Tricky.

Interesting article - Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water https://www.state.gov/t/isn/4797.htm#treaty - later states difficulties in ensuring compliance.
 
Last edited:
bowloftoast:
Well, I'm referring to it specifically as it applies to rocket technology. The addition of a weaponized payload to a rocket is the easy part. A tank is just a metal car with a canon (not rocket science). Rocketry is a pretty complex tech but there is a commonality in things like thrust, stability, guidance, etc that are shared between exploration rockets and weaponized rockets. The very research that led to the development of V1 and V2 rockets went on to serve as the foundation for both the US and USSR space programs. It's a pretty closely guarded technology for this reason.
I guess the obvious real world example is North Korea. No one was happy when it was discovered they had nuclear capability, but when it was also determined they had long range rocket capability is when it became a more significant concern.
If you give an armed nation open access to a technology that dramatically extends their range and speed of attack, then that's a problem.
Click to expand...
The engineering behind a tank is far more conplex than a Ford F150 with an rpg duct taped to it. :P

Regardless, preventing the sharing of engineering due to concerns of a very select few radical nation's figuring out how rockets work seems short sighted. Sharing Aerospace Engineering data between nations would greatly benefit those nations and their citizens. Not only with jobs, but depending on tech level, possible travel options and scientific discovery options. Sadly AE data is extremely expensive to procure, much less put to use. And as observed in North Korea, they have very quickly depleated resources and money. The very limited amount of nations who are capable of using this data to such a capacity to abuse it, and then proceed to harm other nations with their newly created weapons is extremely limited. And therefore I believe that this proposal, when supplemented by others (shameless self plug) would benefit far more than ever possibly harm.
 
@bowloftoast progress comes with costs. This is a laudable proposal and this research should not be given short shrift because some people will use them for weapons. That development could be pursued with or without this resolution, as it explicitly is concerned with non-military application. The international community likes their weapons and restricting them in this proposal, I believe, would have severely harmed its odds of success. Once again, I fear you are getting hung up on one particular facet that is beside the point of the resolution and places on it an unfair burden that subsequent resolutions could and should address.

For
 
I am swayed by Darth Palliath - I think Bowl Of Toast may look more at what is not there - than what the proposal is trying to achieve - He makes a persuasive argument.

The International Aero-Space Administration (IASA) must be formed first - extra legislation can be added later - am I correct in this assumption?

My vote is ........FOR
 
TlomzKrano:
The engineering behind a tank is far more conplex than a Ford F150 with an rpg duct taped to it. :P
Click to expand...

Okay, a souped up bulldozer with a cannon then.

I genuinely think you are both downplaying the likelihood that this technology would immediately be considered for its military applications, if widely shared. The first ICBM launch and the first Sputnik launch took place within months of each other, meaning both were in development simultaneously. Rockets were, first and foremost, developed as weapons. Essentially, you're suggesting that if the WA hands everyone guns, the vast majority can be trusted to use them only as paperweights and doorstops. I'm not convinced of that, and think it needs to be addressed in the legislation.

@Pallaith I also don't think that adding a simple phrase like 'for scientific and exploration purposes only' would necessarily scuttle this proposal. If it did, it means that a majority of nations wouldn't want regulations placed over the military application of the technology...which kind of cements the point above.
 
No it doesn’t. The point I made was twofold: that this resolution is concerned with space research and development apart from military application, and that if you went hardline on restricting military you would create a backlash from enough people to hurt the chances of passage. There is a hard to determine line where most people feel something is too regulated. I don’t believe it would be impossible to pass a resolution regulating military space technology or weapons. But that deserves its own debate and doesn’t have to be a do or die on this one.
 
Fair enough. I do like it for the most part. Definitely requires a follow up to address the elephant in the room, but I'll change my vote to FOR
 
Would be interested to know if this breaks the committee only rule.

Otherwise FOR. The proposal is fairly uncontroversial, though unambitious.
 
Stoskavanya1:
Would be interested to know if this breaks the committee only rule.

Otherwise FOR. The proposal is fairly uncontroversial, though unambitious.
Click to expand...
Committee rule has since been changed to allow for non binding legislation to sufficiently accompany it.
 
For

Although I think that only through competitive attitudes is achieved a major breakthrough, and that is usually next to secrecy...

bowloftoast:
I genuinely think you are both downplaying the likelihood that this technology would immediately be considered for its military applications, if widely shared. The first ICBM launch and the first Sputnik launch took place within months of each other, meaning both were in development simultaneously. Rockets were, first and foremost, developed as weapons. [...]
Click to expand...

On the other hand, civil aviation would not develop with such speed without the support of research for military purposes...

But I think it's a good idea that there is an agency to share what can be useful for aero-space development.
 
TlomzKrano:
The only real similarity between aerospace technology for the purpose of space exploration and military ICBM technology is the use of a rocket.
Click to expand...

Did a bit more research last night, and that statement is not at all true. Satellite launch technology and ICBM technology are pretty much the same thing. So much so that satellite launch technology is considered in most jurisdictions as a weapons technology (including in the US: Part 122 of the United States Munitions List) and is highly classified for this reason.
I get that the spirit of this proposal is based in some Star Trek fantasy that involves dilithium crystals, but the practical reality here is that space exploration is in it's infancy. It relies exclusively on rocket technology, and no matter how you spin it, rockets are still WMDs.
Noting that the proposal states that classified information (basically, everything relating to satellite launch technology) need not be shared, what, exactly is this proposal going to achieve?
 
After deliberation, I'm back AGAINST (and really should learn not to go against my first instincts).
I think this proposal is pointless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top