NationStates Jolt Archive

Orbital Space Safety Act

Environment

All Businesses

Noting the enlarging amount of obsolete satellites, space vehicles, spent rocket casing and other debris currently in orbit around inhabited planets for reasons including, but not limited to, various nations space races, orbiting weapons platforms, exploration of space, deliberate dumping of junk into orbit and visiting space faring nations jettisoning their refuse.

Further noting this debris presents a danger to all nations, whether they use orbital space or not, and worried about the possible loss of life and/or property that could occur when some of this junk survives re-entry, and crashes onto the planet, or collides with working equipment in orbit, manned or unmanned.

Convinced measures to clean up this orbital space debris are necessary to protect life and property of all nations. This will work to promote international co-operation between nations of all technological levels, reduce the economic impact caused by nations losing working equipment to collisions with space junk, and ensure orbital space can be utilized by all in as safe and equal a manner as possible.

Mandates:

1 – All UN nations are responsible for any form of equipment put into orbital space by that nation. This includes anything launched by government and/or private agencies. Nations that use another nation’s facilities for launch purposes are still ultimately responsible for their own equipment.

2 - All UN nations with equipment in orbital space must be able to identify any equipment launched from or by their nation, whether by government or private agencies, and must immediately accept responsibility for any piece of their equipment that poses a danger, at the time it is identified as a danger.

3 – All nations with equipment in orbital space must take immediate proactive measures to repair, retrieve or destroy safely any piece of their equipment that is identified as space junk and identified as posing a danger to their own and/or other nation’s people or property. Nations may delegate direct and/or financial responsibility for dealing with said equipment down to private agencies within that nation at their own discretion.

4 – Nations that have equipment in orbital space are responsible for any and all costs incurred in dealing with their own space debris. If you can afford to build it and put it up there, you can afford the clean up.

Strongly encourages all nations with equipment in orbital space to co-operate with each other and share information and technology both to reduce the amount of space debris currently in orbit, and to improve methods of repair, retrieval or safe destruction of malfunctioning equipment in the future.

Urges all UN nations to work together to clean up unidentifiable and/or small space debris currently in orbital space, as much as they are technologically and/or financially able to assist, to ensure a cleaner, safer, environment for those nations with equipment and/or personnel in that environment, to reduce the possibility of objects damaging working equipment, and to reduce the danger of large pieces of debris falling back to the planet.

Encourages space faring nations to offer their services to assist with the disposal of orbital space debris. Payments and terms of contracts for these jobs will be at the discretion of the nation concerned to negotiate with the customer(s).

I've brought this proposal up a couple of times before, but never tried real hard to get it to quorum. Now after the opposition to the space garbage proposal that was posted in this forum a few days ago, and a not so subtle nudge therein from the Gruenberg representative, I figured it may be time to try and get this puppy to quorum.

I welcome any comments to improve this, but please don't get too techy on me. I am a technical dunce, and have enough problems understanding techy talk from others without trying to write it myself :p.

I would definitely welcome it as a blocker to the space garbage proposal although I really don't think there's any danger of that even getting to a UN vote.

It wouldn't block that anyway. My proposal only affects orbital space, so if garbage was shot past obital space and into deep space, this wouldn't stop it.

I think it was just the subject that brought this to mind again :).

Space Junk

Noting the enlarging amount of obsolete satellites, space vehicles, spent rocket casing and other debris currently in orbit around inhabited planets due to various nations space races, orbiting weapons platforms, exploration of space, deliberate dumping of junk into orbit, visiting space faring nations ect.

<Puts on Grammar Nazi Hat> "etc"

Worried about the possible loss of life and/or property that could occur when some of this junk survives re-entry, and crashes onto the planet, or collides with working equipment in orbit, manned or unmanned.

I may be worrying needlessly, but shouldn't we specify "crashes with personnel" as well, as at the moment it only appears to specify equipment and property and only considers loss of life when in conjunction with damage to property/equipment. Just a small concern.

Mandates:

1 - Any UN nation that uses space is responsible for anything put into orbit from that nation.

What about multiple-liability? i.e. a collision between two spacecraft from different nations? Assuming one nation is unable to collect the resulting junk, who will bear the greater part of responsibility for cleaning it up?

2 - All UN nations using space must be able to identify any equipment put into orbit from their nation, whether by government or private agencies, and must immediately accept responsibility for any piece of their equipment that poses a danger, at the time it is identified as a danger.

For private agencies, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the agency to clear up? Equally, should the agency's nationality be based on where it is registered or where it launches from?

3 – All nations using orbital space must take immediate proactive measures to repair, retrieve or destroy safely any piece of their equipment that is identified as posing a danger to their own and/or other nations people or property.

Fine, but I think private agencies should also be specified here.

4 - Nations that have orbiting weapons platforms must regularly check the viability of the weapons, and service, repair or replace any that pose a danger of a decaying orbit that could result in the weapon crashing down onto the planet below.

Not to mention accidental discharge of weaponary.

7 – Nations that use space are responsible for any and all costs incurred in dealing with their own space debris. If you can afford to build it and put it up there, you can afford the clean up.

I think this is slightly unfair. Some nations may not have the necessary technology and resources to 'clean up' which can a complicated and time consuming venture. Shouldn't the onus be to provide technical assistance where this is the case rather than leaving them to their own devices, which may result in the problem simply not being dealt with at all.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

What about multiple-liability? i.e. a collision between two spacecraft from different nations? Assuming one nation is unable to collect the resulting junk, who will bear the greater part of responsibility for cleaning it up?

I'd say that the nation that can collect the junk should do so, and the courts should then decide how much of the bill they can pass on to the other nation... but this might need a UN court to work properly...

For private agencies, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the agency to clear up? Equally, should the agency's nationality be based on where it is registered or where it launches from?

Fine, but I think private agencies should also be specified here.

If the resolution makes governments responsible for the clear-up, and a government then decides to let private agencies carry out launches, can't that government discharge its responsibility by making those agencies contracturally liable to clear up any mess that they cause?

I'd say that the nation that can collect the junk should do so, and the courts should then decide how much of the bill they can pass on to the other nation... but this might need a UN court to work properly...

Woo-hoo! More powers to the U.N.:)

Seriously though, I think we would indeed need a judicial body exercising oversight, maybe the Preteranama panel could be revamped and used for this purpose?

If the resolution makes governments responsible for the clear-up, and a government then decides to let private agencies carry out launches, can't that government discharge its responsibility by making those agencies contracturally liable to clear up any mess that they cause?

Fair point.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Still support it. My only two minor problems:

1. It sounds a bit negative. Perhaps greater emphasis could be made as to how this would benefit all nations (such as protecting their satellites, preventing stuff falling to Earth).

2. I still find the category an imperfect fit. Tracking Near Earth Objects was International Security (this could work, as nations would have to clean up their own stuff, which would probably require military/law enforcement aid). Or maybe Political Stability?

<Puts on Grammar Nazi Hat> "etc"

I may be worrying needlessly, but shouldn't we specify "crashes with personnel" as well, as at the moment it only appears to specify equipment and property and only considers loss of life when in conjunction with damage to property/equipment. Just a small concern.

I'm not sure what you mean with this. Do you mean the junk being manned? If so, then I could put that in, but if something is space junk then I really don't think it would have personel aboard.

What about multiple-liability? i.e. a collision between two spacecraft from different nations? Assuming one nation is unable to collect the resulting junk, who will bear the greater part of responsibility for cleaning it up?

They would bear equal responsibilty where the mess is concerned, and would each have to either clean it up themselves or organise for another nation/agency to do it for them, utilising clause 6 if necessary.

For private agencies, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the agency to clear up? Equally, should the agency's nationality be based on where it is registered or where it launches from?

That is for the nation concerned to decide. I really didn't want to micromanage how a nation decides internally to divvy up the responsibility. From an outside nations perspective, a sattilite launched from Witchcliff will be a Witchcliff sattilite, even if it is our telephone company who paid for its building and launching.

Fine, but I think private agencies should also be specified here.
Again, that is an internal thing that the nation concerned can decide for itself. I can add private agencies to that clause though if it will make it more platable.

Not to mention accidental discharge of weaponary.
Yes, I'll add that.

I think this is slightly unfair. Some nations may not have the necessary technology and resources to 'clean up' which can a complicated and time consuming venture. Shouldn't the onus be to provide technical assistance where this is the case rather than leaving them to their own devices, which may result in the problem simply not being dealt with at all.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Sorry, but if a nation can afford to put stuff into space, then they should be able to afford to clean up any mess that stuff makes. Clauses 5 and 6 do cover assistance they can ask for if needed, but in the end the onus is on them to ensure their junk doesn't endanger the rest of us.

Thanks for the input. Some food for thought here.

Still support it. My only two minor problems:

1. It sounds a bit negative. Perhaps greater emphasis could be made as to how this would benefit all nations (such as protecting their satellites, preventing stuff falling to Earth).
Ok, I'll look at doing that.

2. I still find the category an imperfect fit. Tracking Near Earth Objects was International Security (this could work, as nations would have to clean up their own stuff, which would probably require military/law enforcement aid). Or maybe Political Stability?
The whole time I was writing it, I was thinking environment because it is essentially a clean up proposal. Not sure how it could really fit into the other catagories because it really doesn't have much to do with security or political stability. I can have a closer look at those catagories tomorrow. Getting a bit late here now and I am too tired to concentrate.

3 – All nations using orbital space must take immediate proactive measures to repair, retrieve or destroy safely any piece of their equipment that is identified as posing a danger to their own and/or other nations people or property.

4 - Nations that have orbiting weapons platforms must regularly check the viability of the weapons, and service, repair or replace any that pose a danger of a decaying orbit that could result in the weapon crashing down onto the planet below.

We fail to see why orbital weapons platforms are singled out in the proposal. The "equipment" mentioned in the third clause would cover weapons platforms. Perhaps, though, the "decaying orbit" bit could be added to the third clause.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Glad to see you've revived this, Waterana/Witchcliff. It has the potential to be an excellent proposal. :)

EDIT: Added Witchcliff to the OOC comment. Still haven't gotten used to the new nation. ;)

Thanks for the answers Witchcliff. One last thought though:

I'm not sure what you mean with this. Do you mean the junk being manned? If so, then I could put that in, but if something is space junk then I really don't think it would have personel aboard.

I was more thinking if a collision with space-personnel resulting in the generation of space junk. Maybe it's not relevant, but I was just wondering.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

We at the Ceorana UN Office fully support this initiative. However, our Anti-Loophole Squad, part of the Suboffice of Technical Legislative and Legal Matters, Ceoranan UN Office, has detected a potential loophole that could possibly be exploited. It could be debateable whether flying a spacecraft into space is actually "using space", therefore a nation could say that even though it goes into space, it isn't actually using space. We believe that this and similar potential loopholes can be closed easily by removing "that uses space" from clause 1, "using space" from clause 2, "using orbital space" from clause 3, adding "in orbital space" after "equipment" in clause 3, and removing "that use space" from clause 7. I believe the effect will not change.

Ellen Perionas
Director, Suboffice of Technical Legislative and Legal Matters, Ceoranan UN Office

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

We fail to see why orbital weapons platforms are singled out in the proposal. The "equipment" mentioned in the third clause would cover weapons platforms. Perhaps, though, the "decaying orbit" bit could be added to the third clause.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
I singled them out because unlike the vast majority of stuff in orbit, the weapons platforms are built to be dangerous, in a controlled manner, and if something happens with them the danger they would present is increased because of what they are carrying. If, for example, a space station crashed back to earth, it could cause death and destruction in the nation it lands on through debris, but if an orbital weapons platform stuffed full of nuclear weapons crashed back to earth, it could not only result in death and destruction through debris, but present a nuclear/radiation hazard to all the nations in the region of the crash. I didn't have any sort of agenda reason to single them out, just the increase in danger because of what they are.

OOC: Glad to see you've revived this, Waterana/Witchcliff. It has the potential to be an excellent proposal. :)

EDIT: Added Witchcliff to the OOC comment. Still haven't gotten used to the new nation. ;)
Thanks for the support. I appreciate it :).

Sorry about the confusion with the new nation. Got bored with Waterana so decided it was time for a change.



Draft updated taking into account most of your suggestions.
Ceorana, my proposal is only supposed to be covering the orbital space areas around inhabited planets, so I've changed all instances of "space" to "orbital space". Think I got all of them. It may need a definition of orbital space now, so if anyone has a scientific bone in their body, which I don't, and can think up a good one, please post it :).

Environment?

Mild?No such animal. Woodchipping, Uranium Mining, Automobile, or All.

<Puts on Grammar Nazi Hat> "etc"Shall we be excessively pedantic? "Et cetera" :p

No such animal. Woodchipping, Uranium Mining, Automobile, or All.
Yeah, I know. I put it in the list under "environmental, All" the last couple of times I submitted it. The catagory question came up because Gruenberg mentioned above he is a bit iffy about environmental. I am a bit iffy about the two he mentioned :p.

Shall we be excessively pedantic? "Et cetera" :p
No need, I got rid of the "ect" in the latest rewrite,so it is all gone http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/Kyronia/fd340c95.gif.

Yeah, I know. I put it in the list under "environmental, All" the last couple of times I submitted it. The catagory question came up because Gruenberg mentioned above he is a bit iffy about environmental. I am a bit iffy about the two he mentioned :p.
To clarify...if the mods deem it legal, then Environmental is fine by me. I don't care too much statwise about categories. Legality was the problem I was raising.

Hm. Category's a little iffy, ja. Of course, Gruen's suggestions are a little iffy too.

Shall we be excessively pedantic? "Et cetera"

OOC: Drat! Foiled again in my quest to become the master pedant of the NSUN. ;)

Hm. Category's a little iffy, ja. Of course, Gruen's suggestions are a little iffy too.

Ok, I'll have a close look tomorrow and see what I can do/change/add to push it back into the environmental catagory, which is where I want it.

If any of the traffic trying to pass through the zone where the junk is located is commercial then the junk is a barrier to trade, so that the 'Free Trade' category could arguably be justified... No? ;)

I singled them out because unlike the vast majority of stuff in orbit, the weapons platforms are built to be dangerous, in a controlled manner, and if something happens with them the danger they would present is increased because of what they are carrying. If, for example, a space station crashed back to earth, it could cause death and destruction in the nation it lands on through debris, but if an orbital weapons platform stuffed full of nuclear weapons crashed back to earth, it could not only result in death and destruction through debris, but present a nuclear/radiation hazard to all the nations in the region of the crash. I didn't have any sort of agenda reason to single them out, just the increase in danger because of what they are.

We still see no need to single out weapons platforms. Danger is danger, whether it be a weapons platform or a weather satellite (like that -- whether/weather? :p). We still maintain that clause three covers the issue sufficiently and did not intend to suggest that the esteemed representative of Witchcliff had any "agenda" in mind when drafting the fourth clause. We apologise if we may have suggested differently.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN


Thanks for the support. I appreciate it :).

OOC: I'll always support a good proposal. ;)

Sorry about the confusion with the new nation. Got bored with Waterana so decided it was time for a change.

OOC: Understandable. You've been around quite a bit longer than I have. I haven't gotten bored with this nation yet. Yet. I've got a few puppets waiting in the wings, though, that could make for interesting UN RP. Just pray that when I do get bored with Cluichstan that I don't decide to bring in Dalek Domination. No one wants to be constantly threatened with extermination if they don't vote my way. :D

Ceorana, my proposal is only supposed to be covering the orbital space areas around inhabited planets, so I've changed all instances of "space" to "orbital space". Think I got all of them. It may need a definition of orbital space now, so if anyone has a scientific bone in their body, which I don't, and can think up a good one, please post it :).
I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that if a nation could figure out how to say it was putting stuff in orbital space without actually *using* space (after all, space doesn't actually consist of anything), then it could get around the resolution, so to eliminate the parts that say it only applies to nations that use orbital space and add parts that say it only applies to stuff in orbital space.

I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that if a nation could figure out how to say it was putting stuff in orbital space without actually *using* space (after all, space doesn't actually consist of anything), then it could get around the resolution, so to eliminate the parts that say it only applies to nations that use orbital space and add parts that say it only applies to stuff in orbital space.

Yes, I did misunderstand you. Sorry about that.

I get it now, and will have a look at fixing that later today, after I've woken up properly and had my second cup of coffee.

Cluichstan, I understand what you are saying. Weapons platforms are mentioned in the preamble and do come under 'equipment', so I'll remove that clause. That will work both to get rid of the redundancy and free up some characters. Something tells me I made need them later :p.

Latest redraft done.

I've made some big changes, such as removing the weapons platforms clause and replacing it with a new clause urging all nations to work together to clean up the space junk up there now. I'm hoping that clause, and the additions/changes to the preample will be enough to push the proposal back into the environmental catagory and make it legal.

Have also tried to address Ceorana's concern about the "using space" loophole. It has been replaced with "have equipment in orbital space".

Love and esterel support this usefull proposal, as LAE's industry is more and more concerned by the debris.

Just, I hope the author can confort me, but I worry about the clause 3, is this easily possible technically? Id on't know much in this area and will be happy to learn more about that. in particular my point is about small but dangerous (because of their high speed) debris.

Maybe the proposal had to states a miminum of size (1 mm or 1cm) of the debris to be Identified, and a minimum of size to be destroyed.

Also just an idea, we would favour that the UN coordinate/supervise/choose a secured and encrypted IT potocol in order nations may easily share and use informations about the positions of most space debris - a sort of globally decentralized shared database.

Cluichstan, I understand what you are saying. Weapons platforms are mentioned in the preamble and do come under 'equipment', so I'll remove that clause. That will work both to get rid of the redundancy and free up some characters. Something tells me I made need them later :p.

Just trying to help with a proposal that I think has excellent potential. ;)

Love and esterel support this usefull proposal, as LAE's industry is more and more concerned by the debris.

Just, I hope the author can confort me, but I worry about the clause 3, is this easily possible technically? Id on't know much in this area and will be happy to learn more about that. in particular my point is about small but dangerous (because of their high speed) debris.

Maybe the proposal had to states a miminum of size (1 mm or 1cm) of the debris to be Identified, and a minimum of size to be destroyed.

Also just an idea, we would favour that the UN coordinate/supervise/choose a secured and encrypted IT potocol in order nations may easily share and use informations about the positions of most space debris - a sort of globally decentralized shared database.

I can see your problem with clause 3. I rewrote that clause in the last redraft, and unintentionally demanded nations be up there collecting every lost screw, nut and bolt. That is just plain impractical and impossible. How the heck can anyone be expected to be able to recognise and claim responsibilty for something that small. I'll fix that in the next rewrite. This is essentially about largish peices of debris that present the most danger. While very small objects can too, I just don't think it is fair to expect nations to account for every last paint chip.

As for the IT idea. It sounds ok, and I don't want to pour cold water on it, but my knowledge of IT can be summed up in one word, and that word is...'huh?'. I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to write up something like that with the lack of know how on the subject I have. As the proposal is written now, nations are encouraged to exchange information and how they do that is up to them. If they want to set up a database they can, with or without it being mentioned in this :).

I can see your problem with clause 3. I'll fix that in the next rewrite. This is essentially about largish peices of debris that present the most danger. While very small objects can too, I just don't think it is fair to expect nations to account for every last paint chip.

Thanks;)
An idea I'have just taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris
is the creation of graveyard orbits around planets when it's not easily possible to get back a satellite on a planet (for various reasons)

Also I think it's important to state clearly in clause 2 that every space debris (I don't know the best measurements, maybe 5 cm, i don't know) had to be indentified (if a nation is technologically able to send satellite in space it's technologically available to track debris or to pay another nation to do it)

I think identification is nowadays more important than destruction; identification is pretty easy and allow new launchs to avoid debris. Destruction is pretty difficult to realize.

As for the IT idea. It sounds ok, and I don't want to pour cold water on it, but my knowledge of IT can be summed up in one word, and that word is...'huh?'. I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to write up something like that with the lack of know how on the subject I have. As the proposal is written now, nations are encouraged to exchange information and how they do that is up to them. If they want to set up a database they can, with or without it being mentioned in this :).

Ok, but obviously, this information exchange will be over IT networks (internet or private ones), so the idea was just simply for the UN to support the use of a common IT networks protocol between nations for this information exchange (nothing more technical)

Newest draft posted. Just a few small changes this time.

Am still not sure about the catagory. Think I have pushed it back into environmental, but aren't sure.

If no-one has anymore suggestions for change/improvements, and the catagory proves ok, then I think this may be just about ready for submission. Can't think of anything else that should be added. I've just about run out of characters, so can't do any big additions anyway :p.

I think just a bit of re-ordering is in order (no pun intended) to separate the mandatory clauses from the others. Parhaps like this:

Mandates:

1 – All UN nations are responsible for any form of equipment put into orbital space by that nation. This includes anything launched by government and/or private agencies. Nations that use another nation’s facilities for launch purposes are still ultimately responsible for their own equipment.

2 - All UN nations with equipment in orbital space must be able to identify any equipment launched from or by their nation, whether by government or private agencies, and must immediately accept responsibility for any piece of their equipment that poses a danger, at the time it is identified as a danger.

3 – All nations with equipment in orbital space must take immediate proactive measures to repair, retrieve or destroy safely any piece of their equipment that is identified as space junk and identified as posing a danger to their own and/or other nation’s people or property. Nations may delegate direct and/or financial responsibility for dealing with said equipment down to private agencies within that nation at their own discretion.

4 – Nations that have equipment in orbital space are responsible for any and all costs incurred in dealing with their own space debris. If you can afford to build it and put it up there, you can afford the clean up, utilizing the provisions in clauses 5 and/or 6 if necessary.

Strongly encourages all nations with equipment in orbital space to co-operate with each other and share information and technology both to reduce the amount of space debris currently in orbit, and to improve methods of repair, retrieval or safe destruction of malfunctioning equipment in the future.

Urges all UN nations to work together to clean up unidentifiable and/or small space debris currently in orbital space, as much as they are technologically and/or financially able to assist, to ensure a cleaner, safer, environment for those nations with equipment and/or personnel in that environment, to reduce the possibility of objects damaging working equipment, and to reduce the danger of large pieces of debris falling back to the planet.

Encourages space faring nations to offer their services to assist with the disposal of orbital space debris. Payments and terms of contracts for these jobs will be at the discretion of the nation concerned to negotiate with the customer(s).

See? I can be helpful once in a while. ;)

Thanks for that, it does read better. Do you want co-author status for it?

Now all I have to do is think up a new title because I just don't think the current one suits the proposal as written now, it may have suited the off the cuff first versions, but not the fleshed out one.

Thanks for that, it does read better. Do you want co-author status for it?

Glad I could help. And thanks for the offer, but I hardly think that swapping around a few clauses warrants a co-authorship. ;)

Now all I have to do is think up a new title because I just don't think the current one suits the proposal as written now, it may have suited the off the cuff first versions, but not the fleshed out one.

True. Something like the Orbital Safety Act perhaps? People like safety acts.

I'm about ready to submit this if no-one has anymore suggestions to improve it. I am still a bit usure about its legality, though I've done my best to push it back to environmental. Gruen, what do you think of its catagory now? (don't mean to pressure you, but you picked up the legality problem in the first place, so I'm interested in your opinion, if you would like to give one :)).

Will go with Cluichstan's new title suggestion, with one small change. It will be Orbital Space Safety Act.

Personally, I'd say this is very definitely an Environmental proposal as written.

I think it fits Environmental fine now. Good luck. (I'd offer to help TG, but I'm about to be afk for a week.)

I'm about ready to submit this if no-one has anymore suggestions to improve it. I am still a bit usure about its legality, though I've done my best to push it back to environmental. Gruen, what do you think of its catagory now? (don't mean to pressure you, but you picked up the legality problem in the first place, so I'm interested in your opinion, if you would like to give one :)).

Will go with Cluichstan's new title suggestion, with one small change. It will be Orbital Space Safety Act.

Yeah, that's better than my suggestion. And I suggest waiting to submit until after the list is purged on Monday. NS seems to get a lot less traffic on the weekends, so you'd be wasting a couple of days in the proposal list on a slow period, during which you're less likely to pick up approvals.

Yeah, that's better than my suggestion. And I suggest waiting to submit until after the list is purged on Monday. NS seems to get a lot less traffic on the weekends, so you'd be wasting a couple of days in the proposal list on a slow period, during which you're less likely to pick up approvals.

Yep, agreed. I was thinking either monday or tuesday after update.

Thanks for the help with this everyone.

I've just submitted this proposal. It can be found here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=orbital).

Can any delegates who like the idea endorse it, please.

Best of luck with this. It's an excellent proposal. I hope it reaches the floor.

I've just submitted this proposal. It can be found here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=orbital).

Can any delegates who like the idea endorse it, please.

Approved.

Our regional delegate has just approved this fine proposal. We would respectfully urge our colleagues who are delegates to do likewise.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Congratulations on reaching quorum.

Congratulations on reaching quorum.

I could check myself, but then, as you've said, Gruen, I'm lazy. :p Any idea when this bad boy will hit the floor?

Any idea when this bad boy will hit the floor?

After Gruen's UN Educational Aid Act proposal.

Congrats on quorum. :D

(post 666, zOMG)

After Gruen's UN Educational Aid Act proposal.

Congrats on quorum. :D

(post 666, zOMG)

Oh, so Monday then. I'll have to see, but I might be able to help with TGs.

I'm really happy this has made quorum, and just a tad surprised it managed it resonable easily considering I was pretty lazy with the TGing. Only managed about half the "for" delegates for the last resolution.

Thankyou to everyone who supported/endorsed it :).

Only a couple of days until this proposal hits the floor, so it is time to bump this thread I guess.

We have voted for this proposal, as it seems sensibly international in scope to us.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

-this come directly from our god and empeor(the fool who think he controls the country)-
the propasl is good!!!! we need more fish!!!
(in other word we vote for)

As Delegate for Farktopia, we of Krankor are forced to vote against this proposal. Some unenlightened nations regard our coal-fired Space Broilers, which fire deadly negative scratches, as Space Junk, and we cannot risk losing our fleet just because someone considers it all trash.

The Holy Republic of Vercher votes for this proposal. Safety of space travel is a matter of international concern, and this resolution further holds each nation responsible for its own actions regarding space debris. It is our opinion that this resolution needs to be passed.

Ausserland has cast its vote in favor of the resolution. It is a sound, carefully thought-out piece of legislation which will achieve a commendable goal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This is the one of most ridiculous items to come out of the UN :headbang:
I for one will be voting against it:gundge:.

Why not clean up your own garbage by yourself verses having every other nation pay for your negligence and lack of forethought of how to reduce or completely eliminate the space crap before you launched anything. :upyours: :upyours:

This is the one of most ridiculous items to come out of the UN :headbang:
I for one will be voting against it:gundge:.

Why not clean up your own garbage by yourself verses having every other nation pay for your negligence and lack of forethought of how to reduce or completely eliminate the space crap before you launched anything. :upyours: :upyours:

Brilliant first post. You're going to do well here.

This is the one of most ridiculous items to come out of the UN :headbang:
I for one will be voting against it:gundge:.

Why not clean up your own garbage by yourself verses having every other nation pay for your negligence and lack of forethought of how to reduce or completely eliminate the space crap before you launched anything. :upyours: :upyours:

Why don't you try reading the resolution. The whole bloody thing is about nations taking responsibility for and cleaning up their own mess. My nation doesn't have a space program, and we don't paticularly want to be on the receiving end of falling pieces of junk from those of you who do.

Why don't you try reading the resolution. The whole bloody thing is about nations taking responsibility for and cleaning up their own mess. My nation doesn't have a space program, and we don't paticularly want to be on the receiving end of falling pieces of junk from those of you who do.

Yeah, sorry about that orbital missile platform of ours that crashed in Witchcliff last month. At least we were nice enough to send a clean-up crew, though.

Why not clean up your own garbage by yourself

Hmm, you post has size, color and smilies. I see you managed to use the various features of the posting window for your first post. Now on to the argument.

I was under the impression that this is exactly what the resolution does. Nations are required to clean up their own garbage, or pay others to do it for them. I would suggest reading the proposals might be more productive than trying to figure out what every button on the edit window does.

Yes, well, there has been a slight problem with your clean up crew. Sending an all male group into a mostly female nation isn't really a good idea. We've tracked some of them down, but the rest have been spirited away and hidden. I'm sure you'll get them back when our women have finished with them, if there is anything left to send back that is ;).

Yes, well, there has been a slight problem with your clean up crew. Sending an all male group into a mostly female nation isn't really a good idea. We've tracked some of them down, but the rest have been spirited away and hidden. I'm sure you'll get them back when our women have finished with them, if there is anything left to send back that is ;).

Well, if they don't make it back, as least they'll have gone with smiles on their faces.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Bortolia is disappointed by UN wasting time discussing on this negligible thread while there are a lot of more important things to debate.
We voted against because we don't think there's a real danger for our region in at least the next ten years.

We voted against because we don't think there's a real danger for our region in at least the next ten years.

Would you rather we talk about this ten years from now when some piece of space junk, that could have been taken care of under this resolution, is about to impact your region kiling millions and there's no time to stop it?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

After some thought, The UN Changing Force of Pro-Sovereignty Babes has voted FOR this resolution. We see it basically saying that every nation needs to pick up their toys and be responsible for them. We do not see this as encroaching upon national sovereignty. It is a well thought out resolution that we feel is part of the purpose of the United Nations.

I'm really happy this has made quorum, and just a tad surprised it managed it resonable easily considering I was pretty lazy with the TGing. Only managed about half the "for" delegates for the last resolution.

Thankyou to everyone who supported/endorsed it :).

Your welcome, Witchcliff, and I think you owe me a lunch or something :)

Basically, your proposal followed the "definition of marriage" repeal and I did a huge telegram campaign for that one. Unfortunately, I could not supply a direct link because Shackleton's was ahead of mine. So I had to supply the general proposal link, and many of the delegates that responded to my telegram, approved Shackleton's and others on that same page. So I feel partly responsible for this one reaching quorum.

Well, if they don't make it back, as least they'll have gone with smiles on their faces.

Obviously, someone has never seen the women in Witchcliff before (scary stuff)!!!!:p

The Constitutional Monarchy of Bortolia is disappointed by UN wasting time discussing on this negligible thread while there are a lot of more important things to debate.
We voted against because we don't think there's a real danger for our region in at least the next ten years.


You really have no idea how much stuff Cluichstan alone already has in orbit, do you?

I vote FOR. Although it will cost Razat extra money when we manage to get anything into orbit, it will also cost nations that already have stuff in orbit and perhaps help us to catch up. Also, it will reduce the threat of someone else's junk falling into Razat.

We of Dhâna second the above. How can we, being aware of ourselves and our environment, not, and still regard ourselves as sentients of worth? We would, in any case, have dealt with our own "space junk", but we have no doubt that there are nations who would not, surely those who have so far voted against.

And OOC: Excellent proposal. Much better than the last one. Are proposals ever not passed here?

And OOC2: A random thought occurred to me as I was writing this. If it doesn't pass, why not just leave your "space junk" over the nations that voted against? Let your orbital weapons platforms drop on them!

The Congressional Republic of Ceorana has voted in favor of this legislation, on the grounds of it being a generally good idea that doesn't have too many loopholes.

NOT because Squamouth Frontier Technologies, inc. is developing a space-junk catcher that it expects to rake in some profit on if this passes.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

I honestly don't understand why anyone would vote against this resolution. It only holds you responsible for what you yourself put into orbit, and that's a matter of common decency. Vercher doesn't have a space program yet, but we certainly don't want to be harmed by someone else's junk falling on our cities. We would be willing to help with the clean-up, though, in any way we can.

The King of Bortolia thinks that this resolution is the example of someone who wrote something random just to have his name on an UN resolution.
If there's nothing to decide let's leave the situation as it is, there's no need of worrying people with false dangers

second: by the laws of PHYSICS nothing orbiting earth could just fall down in a given time.
There's a law explaining this. And neither one orbiting object could hit another orbiting object because they ALWAYS move in the same direction at the same speed, no matter size, no matter weight, never.

Bortolia offers physics lessons to all nations who didn't get this.

Best regards,
King Bortolo.

Bortolia offers physics lessons to all nations who didn't get this.

Best regards,
King Bortolo.

We thank the king for his offer, but we would prefer to learn correct physics. It seems the king doesn't understand that orbits can degrade over time.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We thank the king for his offer, but we would prefer to learn correct physics. It seems the king doesn't understand that orbits can degrade over time.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

if you'd be able of explaining me the law i'd vote FOR, but in our physics books nothing similar is discussed.

if you'd be able of explaining me the law i'd vote FOR, but in our physics books nothing similar is discussed.

Erm...let me see if I can explain this properly...

In an orbit, an object constantly falls towards a planet, but goes at a speed so that it falls at the same rate that it moves forward, resulting in a circular orbit around the planet.

However, it gets slowed down by friction of dust or space junk. When it slows down enough, it falls faster than it moves, so it falls into the atmosphere.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

There's also the risk of a meteor or other object that is not in a stable orbit, colliding with an orbital object and perhaps knocking it out of orbit.

if you'd be able of explaining me the law i'd vote FOR, but in our physics books nothing similar is discussed.

I suggest your country reforms its education system, then.

The Commonwealth supports this Resolution. We find nothing wrong with it. Well done.

The King of Bortolia thinks that this resolution is the example of someone who wrote something random just to have his name on an UN resolution.
If there's nothing to decide let's leave the situation as it is, there's no need of worrying people with false dangers

second: by the laws of PHYSICS nothing orbiting earth could just fall down in a given time.
There's a law explaining this. And neither one orbiting object could hit another orbiting object because they ALWAYS move in the same direction at the same speed, no matter size, no matter weight, never.

Bortolia offers physics lessons to all nations who didn't get this.

Best regards,
King Bortolo.
None of this is correct. Firstly, orbits are capable of decaying. For a King willing to lecture the General Assembly on the laws of physics, you seem awfully unaware of "drag".

Furthermore, I know of no physical principle that weould mean orbiting objects would always move in the same direction at the same speed, regardless. It's simply not true. Orbital speed is a function of specific orbital energy. Think about it: if an astronaut were to release two marbles, and push one harder, one has a greater specific orbital energy, and will travel faster.

Ironically, your very own statements highlight the impossibility of what you're saying: on the one hand, you're saying that there is no such thing as drag, and thereby nothing to create orbital decay; on the other hand, you're saying there must be some magical space drag in order to slow down faster moving objects.

Either you're right or I am (physics counsellor has his mobile phone turned off) we think this isn't a problem worth of UN attention that's why our vote will still be NO

Either you're right or I am (physics counsellor has his mobile phone turned off) we think this isn't a problem worth of UN attention that's why our vote will still be NO
Ok. Don't let the facts get in the way, huh?

Do you mean besides the fact there is no known existing technology that can recover debiris even if you wanted to? You cant exactly hop in a rocket roll down a window and stick a net out to catch pesky debris moving at 10,000 mph or whatever, haul it inside a ship or find a way to propell it out of orbit. Its quite simply beyond the ability of current technology.Its quite simply beyond technology of 20 years or 40 years from now too.

Do you mean besides the fact there is no known existing technology that can recover debiris even if you wanted to? You cant exactly hop in a rocket roll down a window and stick a net out to catch pesky debris moving at 10,000 mph or whatever, haul it inside a ship or find a way to propell it out of orbit. Its quite simply beyond the ability of current technology.Its quite simply beyond technology of 20 years or 40 years from now too.

OOC: Fortunately, some nations, including several of mine, have technology easily good enough to do the job.

OOC: Fortunately, some nations, including several of mine, have technology easily good enough to do the job.'

I double dare you to send scematics of it ;) Is it parked next to your Death Star? If your just going to throw out impossible technology as a reality then no worries i will volunteer my countrys services and i will clear the entire atmosphere every few weeks with my new Super Space Sweeper Broom TM patent pending. Its waste products are high octane gasoline and butterflys. So you can drop the resolution now ive got it covered.

I voted no. Besides the fact that the technology to acomplish the task of collecting all space debris is still being developed, there is quite a lot of room up there, or is outer space just a name? In addition, there isn't anything that a nation could do war/danger wise using space based technology that they couldn't do using earth based technology.

'

I double dare you to send scematics of it ;) Is it parked next to your Death Star?

Attention:
The inevitable Death Star comment when talking about space based weaponry has just been made.

Attention:
The inevitable Death Star comment when talking about space based weaponry has just been made.

Yes but how many people also mention Super Space Sweeper Brooms all in the same post?

'

I double dare you to send scematics of it ;) Is it parked next to your Death Star? If your just going to throw out impossible technology as a reality then no worries i will volunteer my countrys services and i will clear the entire atmosphere every few weeks with my new Super Space Sweeper Broom TM patent pending. So you can drop the resolution now ive got it covered.

OOC: Actually, check out the RP forums. They have nations there that have surprisingly detailed schematics and graphics of their technology. I was really impressed by some of their work. I probably won't be able to find the specific threads, but that's because the search function doesn't have an image search. :)

None of this is correct. Firstly, orbits are capable of decaying. For a King willing to lecture the General Assembly on the laws of physics, you seem awfully unaware of "drag".

Furthermore, I know of no physical principle that weould mean orbiting objects would always move in the same direction at the same speed, regardless. It's simply not true. Orbital speed is a function of specific orbital energy. Think about it: if an astronaut were to release two marbles, and push one harder, one has a greater specific orbital energy, and will travel faster.

First of all, most elementary physics courses always eliminates friction and drag from the discussion. Most people also falsely believe that things orbit in the complete vacum of space. Considering how thin the atmosphere is at most orbits and even the density of the solar wind around the distance of the planet, it's a resonable assumption. Unless you are orbiting for long periods of time, like years or decades.

Second of all, for any given orbit there is exactly one speed. The problem is that orbits can be eliptical, but in general there is a range of velocities, too slow and the orbit will be a spiral towards the planet, too high and it will spiral away from the planet, and inbetween it will form some sort of elipitical orbit.

Of course given a particular velocity there are also two other dimensions to consider. Most people can't really think in three dimensions. Or four or more.

if you'd be able of explaining me the law i'd vote FOR, but in our physics books nothing similar is discussed.

So you're still dropping apples on each other's heads, unable to figure out that whole gravity thing, too, I suppose?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

'

I double dare you to send scematics of it ;) Is it parked next to your Death Star?

We don't allow anything to be "parked" next to our Death Star for fear that it could be used to hide a rebel attack fleet. That two-meter exhaust vent is far to vulnerable to risk an attack like that.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

If your just going to throw out impossible technology as a reality then no worries i will volunteer my countrys services and i will clear the entire atmosphere every few weeks with my new Super Space Sweeper Broom TM patent pending. Its waste products are high octane gasoline and butterflys. So you can drop the resolution now ive got it covered.
OOC: I don't care if you choose to ignore the roleplay aspect of NationStates or not, but the NationStates universe is different from the real world. There are daily issues concerning space stations, space programmes, orbital weapons platforms and high-tech space-age weapons. In NationStates, this technology is far from impossible.

This is a waste of money. What's the point of cleaning up space until we've cleaned up our own planet first?

Therefore, Paradica is AGAINST.

First of all, most elementary physics courses always eliminates friction and drag from the discussion. Most people also falsely believe that things orbit in the complete vacum of space. Considering how thin the atmosphere is at most orbits and even the density of the solar wind around the distance of the planet, it's a resonable assumption. Unless you are orbiting for long periods of time, like years or decades.
I'm sorry, what are you saying? I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. But regardless of how thin the atmosphere, it is still capable of exerting a drag - as you say, most satellites are low Earth orbit. Furthermore, what about electromagnetic drag (cited here (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3957/is_200003/ai_n8898291) as a method of retrieving space junk)?

None of this is correct. Firstly, orbits are capable of decaying. For a King willing to lecture the General Assembly on the laws of physics, you seem awfully unaware of "drag".

Furthermore, I know of no physical principle that weould mean orbiting objects would always move in the same direction at the same speed, regardless. It's simply not true. Orbital speed is a function of specific orbital energy. Think about it: if an astronaut were to release two marbles, and push one harder, one has a greater specific orbital energy, and will travel faster.

Ironically, your very own statements highlight the impossibility of what you're saying: on the one hand, you're saying that there is no such thing as drag, and thereby nothing to create orbital decay; on the other hand, you're saying there must be some magical space drag in order to slow down faster moving objects.

My physics counsellor, who studies physics at university, just called me and said he didn't know of any case of things falling on Earth from their orbits, and that he tought i was right.

You really have nothing to demonstrate to me, I already took my decision, but if you want you could demonstrate you're right to those people who haven't took their decision yet and who maybe don't know physics as well as you.


I apologize if my replies were a bit aggressive.
Best Regards,
King Bortolo.

P.S.: a guy called I. Newton thinks that i'm right too :D

My physics counsellor, who studies physics at university, just called me and said he didn't know of any case of things falling on Earth from their orbits, and that he tought i was right.

You really have nothing to demonstrate to me, I already took my decision, but if you want you could demonstrate you're right to those people who haven't took their decision yet and who maybe don't know physics as well as you.


I apologize if my replies were a bit aggressive.
Best Regards,
King Bortolo.

P.S.: a guy called I. Newton thinks that i'm right too :D

Sorry to do this, but your physics proffessor is wrong. Something did fall out of orbit and parts of it did crash down on RL earth. Some bits over the western third of my country. The lack of injuries and damage was just luck because Western Australia is sparsly populated, good thing it didn't fall over the eastern third of the country, or things could have been very different. Also there are concerns about space junk orbiting the earth now. Apparently the international space station has suffered some damage from it.


Skylab (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/11/newsid_3867000/3867739.stm)

Now the RL stuff is out of the way, this is NationStates, and RL stuff really doesn't apply here. We have nations of all tech levels and the danger of space junk is a real one.

I'm all for this issue, ASSUMING ITS CLAIMS ARE TRUE! :o
I can't think how any of us could verify it, but neither can I imagine who benefits from the lie, so it's probably true.

This proposal is an embarassment. Not only is it unprofessionally worded (see phrases like: "If you can afford to build it and put it up there, you can afford the clean up), it is also nonsensical. Most space junk is not going to fall through the atmosphere and cause harm to anyone on the surface. It would have to be an exceptional piece of space junk.

Furthermore

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/banner5.gif

This is a waste of money. What's the point of cleaning up space until we've cleaned up our own planet first?

Therefore, Paradica is AGAINST.
You don't have to clean up space unless you put stuff in space. And if you think that cleaning up our planets is more important than cleaning up space, surely you'd agree that cleaning up our planets is more important than putting stuff in space in the first place?

This proposal is an embarassment. Not only is it unprofessionally worded (see phrases like: "If you can afford to build it and put it up there, you can afford the clean up), it is also nonsensical. Most space junk is not going to fall through the atmosphere and cause harm to anyone on the surface. It would have to be an exceptional piece of space junk.
Overall, the wording isn't bad, in my opinion. Space junk can fall through the atmosphere and hit people or objects. Additionally, it can hit other stuff in space.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

P.S.: a guy called I. Newton thinks that i'm right too :D

OOC: Assuming you're talking about Sir Issac Newton, he's been dead for over 200 years, and he didn't have the benefit of our current science to work with. So how do you back up that claim?

Yes, it will. According to MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761551926_3/Artificial_Satellite.html), "Satellites reach the end of their useful lives when they reenter Earth’s atmosphere or their instruments fail. Many satellites eventually fall out of orbit and burn up as they reenter the atmosphere. Others continue to orbit as “space junk” long after their instruments have ceased working. Sometimes the onboard rockets are purposely fired to slow a satellite and cause it to reenter Earth’s atmosphere. This technique is usually limited to satellites with equipment packages intended for recovery. Such satellites have shields that enable them to withstand the intense heat of reentry."

And: (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761551926_4/Artificial_Satellite.html)
"Orbit Decay and Reentry

A satellite that orbits within a few hundred miles of Earth’s surface experiences friction from the thin atmosphere that exists at those altitudes. Eventually the satellite’s altitude will decrease until atmospheric friction causes the satellite to plunge earthward out of orbit. The lifetime of a satellite depends on its orbit, the satellite’s orientation in its orbit, and the size, shape, and weight of the satellite. A large, light satellite will probably reenter Earth’s atmosphere sooner than a small, heavy satellite that orbited at the same altitude, because the large satellite has more surface area and experiences more atmospheric friction. At an orbital altitude of 200 km (120 mi), a satellite will likely last from a week to three months. At 300 km (190 mi), a satellite may stay in orbit for two years or more. Satellites that orbit above 1,000 km (620 mi) will stay aloft for thousands of years.

Disposal of Satellites

The space around Earth seems boundless, but space operations tend to take place in a limited number of preferred types of orbits. The U.S. Air Force tracks satellites and other objects within these orbits so that other satellites and piloted vehicles can avoid collisions with the objects. Radio interference between satellites can also present spacing problems. Many satellites share a limited area, called the geostationary corridor, where a satellite’s orbit takes it around Earth at the same rate that Earth rotates. Satellites in this area have to maintain certain separation distances, so that the radio signals sent to one satellite do not interfere with the signals sent to nearby satellites. A final rocket thrust is sometimes used to put old satellites into less-desirable orbits to make room for newer satellites."

So, In addition to possibly falling on us, the space junk poses another problem that means it needs to be cleaned up; That is, it endangers equipment and personnel still active in space. If nothing else, we need to clean up to protect future endeavors.

And I brought it here so you wouldn't have to look it up.

My physics counsellor, who studies physics at university, just called me and said he didn't know of any case of things falling on Earth from their orbits, and that he tought i was right.

You really have nothing to demonstrate to me, I already took my decision, but if you want you could demonstrate you're right to those people who haven't took their decision yet and who maybe don't know physics as well as you.


I apologize if my replies were a bit aggressive.
Best Regards,
King Bortolo.

P.S.: a guy called I. Newton thinks that i'm right too :DOne word: Skylab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab).

Fire your physics teacher. Orbits decay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay).

Now the RL stuff is out of the way, this is NationStates, and RL stuff really doesn't apply here. We have nations of all tech levels and the danger of space junk is a real one.It happens in NS, too. In II, the United States of Allemande had their first space station undergo decay about a year ago (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418737). The Island of Rose shot it down to avoid the possibility of damage to population downrange.

Quite frankly the this proposal is total nonsense first of all it is impossible for anything smaller than a meteor to actually penetrate the atmosphere, all the debris would end up burning up in the atmosphere. This proposal is a waste of money and a waste of the UN's time

Quite frankly the this proposal is total nonsense first of all it is impossible for anything smaller than a meteor to actually penetrate the atmosphere, all the debris would end up burning up in the atmosphere. This proposal is a waste of money and a waste of the UN's time<sigh>

Some space objects mass several tons. Skylab hit the ground, albeit in pieces. So did parts of Columbia, including ... well, never mind.

But even if you discount falling debris, there is a considerable risk to space assets (such as crucial weather, survey, and communications satellite [remember, not all communications satellites operate in geosynchronous orbits]). There is a considerable risk of space debris colliding with these assets and damaging or destroying them. That represents a cost to anyone who wants to make use of space for economic or scientific purposes, akin to the health cost people living downstream from polluters experience: they're not the ones who make the mess, but they suffer for it nonetheless.

This is a well thought-out (if not entirely grammatical) resolution. We ourselves abhor capitalism, but this is an exception that works equally well for communists and capitalists alike, in that it forces space polluters to pay the costs for their own action, avoid the usual problem with externalities suffered by free-market economies.

We vote yes.

Quite frankly the this proposal is total nonsense first of all it is impossible for anything smaller than a meteor to actually penetrate the atmosphere, all the debris would end up burning up in the atmosphere. This proposal is a waste of money and a waste of the UN's time

One word: Skylab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab).

The quote pretty much says it all.

ok so skylab fell, but other than that the chances of just a piece of debris is very minute. You have a good point and a respectable position, however there are more important matters to deal with. My sympathy goes out to any country actually getting hit by a piece of falling debris, but it should be able to handle it. I think the position whether or not to use orbital space for anything should be a Country's own descision, hence why I am against this proposal.

ok so skylab fell, but other than that the chances of just a piece of debris is very minute. You have a good point and a respectable position, however there are more important matters to deal with. My sympathy goes out to any country actually getting hit by a piece of falling debris, but it should be able to handle it. I think the position whether or not to use orbital space for anything should be a Country's own descision, hence why I am against this proposal.There is nothing better to do right now. This proposal is before the General Assembly, and you can't make it go away by saying, "we have better things to do." Vote for it, or not, or abstain - it won't change the business before this body right now.

As for every nation choosing to use space or not, this proposal allows that. We in Community property don't have a space program and never will; yet we appreciate that this proposal prevents no one from starting such a program - it just requires that they pay all of the costs of having one, including cleanup.

Do people not read earlier posts? All one has to do is read the Skylab link provided by Community Property, and recall the extremely recent and horrid destruction of the Columbia, to know that things can and have penetrated the atmosphere. And, as stated, they can also hit other things in orbit! How'd you like to be watching your satellite HDTV and suddenly have the signal vanish because some old piece of crap still orbiting lost its original orbit and crashed into your TV satellite? The satellite company would be out a fortune as well. All due to something preventable.

And, space... is around us all. If the satellites over country A have orbits that degrade, and manage to fall to the ground in country B OR hit country B's satellites/stations, it becomes an INTERNATIONAL INCIDENT. Which, I'm pretty sure, means that we ALL need to worry about it.

ok so skylab fell, but other than that the chances of just a piece of debris is very minute. You have a good point and a respectable position, however there are more important matters to deal with. My sympathy goes out to any country actually getting hit by a piece of falling debris, but it should be able to handle it. I think the position whether or not to use orbital space for anything should be a Country's own descision, hence why I am against this proposal.

Is isn't just junk falling back to the planet that this resolution seeks to clean up, but junk in orbit affects working equipment and personel there as well. If you are dead set on opposing this, nothing I can say will change your mind, but this resolution was written to protect life, property, and the economic interests of those nations who use orbital space.

Even a small chance of a piece of junk crashing down onto one of our cities is too much of a risk for us to accept. We want nations to deal with their own debris, nothing more.

If ocean going vessels were just left wherever when they broke down, clogging up our seas and waterways, would we just ignore the problem and hope it went away, or make the owners remove them and clean up the mess? Of course we would demand the clean up. My resolution isn't doing anything different, and unlike the ships, what is spinning around above our heads does have the potential to kill people.

We applaud Witchcliff for this resolution.

Votes For: 2,901

Votes Against: 1,294

Not as wide a margin as all of the fluffy nonsense that's been getting passed, but still a pretty good shot at victory.

Honestly the only countries that really have to worry about a piece of space debris hitting them are the ones that have horrible economies I know that my country would be able to recover from such "disaster" as you like to call it, and how do you expect us to figure out who's debris hit a country??? A country is responsible for its own people, and if it doesnt have the means to recover from such a small incadent then thats tough luck.

OOC: NASA and other RL entities track almost everything in orbit of ANY significance and could tell you where it came from. With the silly tech that we have, we can surely identify which astronaut left a ballpoint pen in orbit, I'd say.

IC: Such lack of compassion! You'd have no remorse if one of your companies negligently let a satellite fall upon another country? You say a country is responsible for its own people. Does that not include taking responsibility for causing a disaster, however great, in another nation?

OOC: Also, punctuation is your friend. So many runons, it's not even funny.

Votes For: 2,945

Votes Against: 1,318

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We were asked by our friends at Community Property to speak because, as their ambassador pointed out, we did have a space station fall out of orbit, and have taken steps to avoid such problems in the future as a consequence of this event. This is especially important in so far as we have begun taking steps to implement Project Vulcan, a program that will place four Orion-class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29) deep space vehicles into Earth orbit.

For those too lazy to look at the information we are providing this body, Orion-class space vehicles use sub-kilotonne nuclear devices for fue. We have developed a class of nuclear devices in the hecatonne (HT) range for this very purposel (the method used to construct such devices and security measures surrounding our production efforts are naturally classified)*. Naturally, the incident with Vesta I forced us to review our safety measures, as we have no desire to drop several hundred nuclear devices on some innocent country.

The problem is this: any nation can build such a system, and has good reason to do so - such systems are cheap and efficient. Those that do have a responsibility to make sure that they do not use them in a cavalier fashion. Not everyone will work as hard as we intend to; this resolution forces NSUN members to at least make a go of it.

If anything, this proposal does not go far enough. The fact that non-NSUN members can act in defiance of these rules (we will not, in spite of not being an NSUN member, but others might) should have motivated the NSUN to place money into deploying the systems need to protect their members from such risks and sanction non-members who don't act responsibly. Were we still members of the NSUN, we might have intervened at the time this legislation was proposed, and might oppose it in favour of something stronger. But for now, this will certainly help.

We urge the membership to vote for this measure.

Edith Mayenne
Secretary of State

*Rest assured, RP'ers - the methods used are realistic (i.e., they are based on RL engineering capabilities).

TRUTH IN POSTING NOTICE: Community Property and Allemande are run by the same player; I just didn't think it realistic to continue to have Community Property speak for this proposal while citing Allemande's experience in space. there fore, Allemande will take over Community Property's role in this debate, noting that the latter has cast its vote in favour of this measure.

Honestly the only countries that really have to worry about a piece of space debris hitting them are the ones that have horrible economies I know that my country would be able to recover from such "disaster" as you like to call it, and how do you expect us to figure out who's debris hit a country??? A country is responsible for its own people, and if it doesnt have the means to recover from such a small incadent then thats tough luck.How would you feel about several hundred nuclear devices ranging in size from 1 HT to 2 MT (for use in trips to Mars and beyond) falling on your heads?

Would you rather not be able to pursue nations like mine for reparations in the event of such an accident? Or would you just retaliate with nuclear weapons?

Personally, if this resolution fails, we will watch Katsiru very carefully. If its pursues a space programme with its current attitudes and without the protections this resolution affords the world, we will probably make it a policy to shoot their spacecraft down.

Honestly the only countries that really have to worry about a piece of space debris hitting them are the ones that have horrible economies I know that my country would be able to recover from such "disaster" as you like to call it, and how do you expect us to figure out who's debris hit a country??? A country is responsible for its own people, and if it doesnt have the means to recover from such a small incadent then thats tough luck.

What a load of rubbish, sorry to be so harsh, but you are coming across as very uncaring of other nations and their peoples. The economic impact of such an incident would be pretty easy for a nation to deal with yes, it could just figure out who owned the junk and send them the bill, my nation certainly would. What I can't deal with is you seem to expect nation to accept the preventable deaths of their citizens with a shrug.

You're right, a country is responsible for its people, which is one of the things this resolution helps them do. It assists nations to protect their people from another nations rubbish by demanding they clean it up before it becomes a disaster. I want my people protected and safe from other nations rubbish, as I said before, even a small risk is too high.

All this resolution seeks to do is tell nations that if they put stuff up there, it is their responsibility to deal with it if that stuff becomes junk and presents a danger to other users of orbital space or to the planet below. It doesn't put any restrictions whatsoever on who can use orbital space, what they can put up there, when, why or how.

If its pursues a space programme with its current attitudes and without the protections this resolution affords the world, we will probably make it a policy to shoot their spacecraft down.

This is kind of funny. How do you plan on avoiding " nuclear devices ranging in size from 1 HT to 2 MT (for use in trips to Mars and beyond) falling on your heads?" when you start shooting them down?

We'll make sure that the wreckage falls on Katsirui territory.

Honestly the only countries that really have to worry about a piece of space debris hitting them are the ones that have horrible economies I know that my country would be able to recover from such "disaster" as you like to call it, and how do you expect us to figure out who's debris hit a country??? A country is responsible for its own people, and if it doesnt have the means to recover from such a small incadent then thats tough luck.

Our economy would certainly be able to recover from such a disaster. We'd prefer to prevent it from happening in the first place. You make no sense.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Ah... the UN is always oh so amusing. Truly a font of ignorance. Personally, we're less concerned about that crap falling on our heads than having it crash into our satellites. Earth orbit is way the hell too full as is, even without all the junk.

So, yeah. Clean up your damn messes.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Honestly the only countries that really have to worry about a piece of space debris hitting them are the ones that have horrible economies I know that my country would be able to recover from such "disaster" as you like to call it, and how do you expect us to figure out who's debris hit a country??? A country is responsible for its own people, and if it doesnt have the means to recover from such a small incadent then thats tough luck.

The real point of having an international agreement to protect the orbital space around NationStates isn't to be nice, but rather to prevent ONE nation's space 'mistakes' from falling on another nation's territory, because what could be a tiny short-term annoyance for one nation, could blow up into a massive "Oh so you don't mind it when things 'fall' from the sky, so naturally you won't protest if other things 'accidently' fall over your capital forcing your government back to the stone age" scenario. Basically a really careless nation could find itself in a military confrontation with any number of nations that consider mass drivers to be an unprovoked attack.

Mikitivity will vote in favour of this resolution.

Howie T. Katzman

OOC: This resolution brings back memories of Skylab falling on Australia and the Australian government suing the United States. :) I actually have memories of people debating where it was going to hit.

OOC: I read last night that the Esperance council did fine the US $A400 for littering. Don't know if they ever paid up :D.

I remember that time too. It was treated as a bit of a joke here, because here weren't any human casualties, and plenty of comments such as "bloody yanks dropping their garbage on us" ect were floating around :p.

One word: Skylab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab).

Fire your physics teacher. Orbits decay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay).

I sent a message to my physics counsellor this morning.
Let's say you may be right, and that something put in space by A could fall in B's nation.
However, Bortolia royal's family doesn't think this falling junk would ever cause such a great disaster as the one described by Howie T. Katzman because atmosphere would destroy most part of them and the worst thing that could happen would be an about 30-40cm^3 object hitting a house and killing 1 citizen.

Now we're talking about 1 citizen in a nation in 10 years. Even if they'd be 100 in 10 years, this resolution just sounds crazy.

Bortolia suggests then to mind firstly about problems ON Earth, then thinking to Space.

I sent a message to my physics counsellor this morning.
Let's say you may be right, and that something put in space by A could fall in B's nation.
However, Bortolia royal's family doesn't think this falling junk would ever cause such a great disaster as the one described by Howie T. Katzman because atmosphere would destroy most part of them and the worst thing that could happen would be an about 30-40cm^3 object hitting a house and killing 1 citizen.

Now we're talking about 1 citizen in a nation in 10 years. Even if they'd be 100 in 10 years, this resolution just sounds crazy.

Bortolia suggests then to mind firstly about problems ON Earth, then thinking to Space.

I imagine a Death Star or certain other very large objects falling on the Royal Family would be considered a major consequence. As far as I am aware, things do break up on re-entry but some countries may have technology that counters that or one very large piece of debris that will cause massive damage even if split up. Also some would view it as better nobody dies and people clean up after themselves then one person dies.

As for other matters, go make proposals on them, as of now, this is the big issue of the UN. This is at vote, other matters are not, so we concentrate on this and to some it is important. Think about this now because you won't get another chance (repeals aside) and this is a problem that affects Earth and other planets.

As for Cuation, as fun as it would be to accidentally drop things on other nations, we vote FOR and we will try to ensure nobody gets hurt accidentally by our starting space program.

Sun Loyalds
Cuation diplomat

I sent a message to my physics counsellor this morning.
Let's say you may be right, and that something put in space by A could fall in B's nation.
However, Bortolia royal's family doesn't think this falling junk would ever cause such a great disaster as the one described by Howie T. Katzman because atmosphere would destroy most part of them and the worst thing that could happen would be an about 30-40cm^3 object hitting a house and killing 1 citizen.

Now we're talking about 1 citizen in a nation in 10 years. Even if they'd be 100 in 10 years, this resolution just sounds crazy.

Bortolia suggests then to mind firstly about problems ON Earth, then thinking to Space.

Even that one citizen is one too many, especially when that one death could be easily prevented.

You may want to check this site out. It has pics of space debris that has fallen back to RL Earth, and a lot of it is bigger than your measurement above.

Space Debris (http://www.eclipsetours.com/sat/debris.html)

Not everything burns up in the atmosphere. Don't forget that some parts of space faring vehicles are especially made to withstand enormous temps, and can easily survive re-entry.

OOC: My new region is future tech so I guess I ought to start getting into character.

IC: Hirota has noted an alarming amount of space debris during our space explorations, many an abandoned probe encountered. Indeed, some of these items are the last known artifact of many civilizations in the past.

We would have preferred that an entry was made about historical preservation of such devices, but Hirota concedes the point, and will be voting for this proposal.

I sent a message to my physics counsellor this morning.
Let's say you may be right, and that something put in space by A could fall in B's nation.
However, Bortolia royal's family doesn't think this falling junk would ever cause such a great disaster as the one described by Howie T. Katzman because atmosphere would destroy most part of them and the worst thing that could happen would be an about 30-40cm^3 object hitting a house and killing 1 citizen.

Now we're talking about 1 citizen in a nation in 10 years. Even if they'd be 100 in 10 years, this resolution just sounds crazy.<Considers telling the delegates that the reason Allemande is building four Orion-class deep-space veficles is the fact that it is planning on moving a small near-Earth asteroid into orbit to facilitate the consruction of a equitorial beanstalk as well as an O'Neill colony at L5, and then decides that it would be better not to publicize such plans at this time...>

File Photo (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9711/azcrater_lpi_big.jpg)

<Clears throat>

Allemande also regrets the fact that the focus of this debate has been on debris hitting Earth, and intends to attempt to steer the debate toward the greater danger of economic damage to nations using space technology for ongoing business and research.

However, it would be wrong to leave unaddressed certain errors in Bortolia's misinformed position.

First, while most debris burns up in the atmosphere, not all of it does. It is possible - however unlikely - that pieces could reach the Earth, and not all of them need be small.

But even if we could be certain that there is no danger to people or property on Earth from objects that survive re-entry to strike the surface, Bortolia obviously has not considered the fact that not all debris need make it to Earth to be a danger.

Consider the case where a nation places a small nuclear reactor in space, either to support a space defense system (which many nations have, by the way¹), a military reconnaissance satellite with substantial power needs (like a ground imaging radar system), for some commercial application, or for research (into deep-space propulsion systems, for example). What happens if that reactor comes crashing down due to an accident or malfunction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos_954)? Radioactive fuel rods and materials don't have to survive re-entry to cause damage: indeed, the scattering action of re-entry simply turns them into fallout.

The same applies to another aspect of the problem: real space garbage. As amazing as it seems, some nations do use space as a dumping ground for hazardous wastes²! Some of these wastes are radiological - certain medical wastes come to mind. Others are merely poisonous (like mercury). Again, these substances don't need to reach the surface intact to pose a risk to folks living down here.

Finally, let me mention another danger that doesn't require debris to strike the Earth: some nations keep their nuclear assets on a “launch on warning” status to prevent an enemy counterforce strike from leaving them subject to a massive counterproperty attack as a follow-up; others temporarily assume such a posture in time of war. There is always the chance - especially among younger nations with limited command, control, and tracking capabilites - of mistaking falling space debris for incoming ballistic missiles and responding with an immediate attack, thereby triggering a nuclear exchange.

But as I pointed out earlier, the greatest danger is not to people living here on Earth, but to nations with assets - scientific, economic, or military - in space. The cost of replacing such assets is often considerable - $45 million is not an unusual price for a communications satellite, for instance. There have been collisions between objects in space, in spite of Bortolia's statement that such incidents are “impossible”, and these incidents have cost people money.

Which brings to the heart of the matter: this is not a “Chicken Little” resolution aimed at protecting the world from a danger that doesn't exist. The issue here is responsibility.

Nations that put objects in space must be held responsible for cleaning up messes they create. To allow them to evade this responsibility is to repeat the same mistakes that we have made on Earth when it comes to environmental protection: we allow those to make messes to evade responsibility for their actions and instead impose the costs and consequences on somebody else - victims of pollution, governments and the taxpayers who support them, whomever.

In the field of economics we call these sorts of things externalities, but what they all come down to is the same thing: cost shifting. When a producer offers a good or a service without having to pay the full costs of doing so, that fact distorts the market: its cost is less than it should be, and so the producer's operations are more profitable than they should be; investors are more eager to back his activities, and his success breeds imitation. Soon the entire industry is based a falsified cost structure, which produces a bogus price structure, which results in excessive demand. Eventually the entire economy is disrupted, producing and consuming a product or service whose costs of production are borne by neither consumer nor producer, but somebody else - in preference to competing goods and service that, in a world with a saner price structure, might have a lower overall cost to society.

In essence, we allow a few irresponsible people to profit at the expense of the rest of society, or even the world.

This whole state of affairs is an affront to the entire free market system, because it undermines and subverts this system, breeding economic royalism.

We urge the membership to vote in favor of responsibility. Make those who use space face the costs of its use. To do anything else is to endorse irresponsible behaviour.

¹cf. NS Issues #53 (“Orbital Armageddon”) and #147 (“Military Budgets Up For Approval”).

²cf. NS Issue #97 (“Landfills Filling Up”).Bortolia suggests then to mind firstly about problems ON Earth, then thinking to Space.We have already addressed this: this is the issue before the delegates, and there is no other. Vote for or against that which is before you, rather than sit here and whine about not having something else to vote for.

This is a waste of money. What's the point of cleaning up space until we've cleaned up our own planet first?

Therefore, Paradica is AGAINST.

It seems the representative from Paradica is ignorant as well, clearly having not read (or understood the proposal).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Honestly the only countries that really have to worry about a piece of space debris hitting them are the ones that have horrible economies I know that my country would be able to recover from such "disaster" as you like to call it, and how do you expect us to figure out who's debris hit a country??? A country is responsible for its own people, and if it doesnt have the means to recover from such a small incadent then thats tough luck.

And if I punch you in the nose and break it, then by your logic, I shouldn't have to pay your medical bills either. Just your tough luck.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

*snip*


OOC: Ugh, you broke the page, mate.

Does this ban mass drivers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_drivers#Mass_drivers_as_weapons)?

And if I punch you in the nose and break it, then by your logic, I shouldn't have to pay your medical bills either. Just your tough luck.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Vielen Dank Sheik!

I'd like to reiterate what Sheik Naderb bin Cluich has pointed out here. It is not the probability (also known as risk) of somebody swinging his or her fist into somebody else's nose nor is it the cost of those medical bills ... which given limited grasp of logic many nations opposed to this resolution apparently have one can only hope your bite is much worse than your bark, lest those medical bills would amount to the cost of having a mosquito bite ... but rather this resolultion and debate are about the need for nations to "own up" and take responsibility for the actions their sloth may have on other nations.

Howie T. Katzman

Does this ban mass drivers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_drivers#Mass_drivers_as_weapons)?

Sadly, the Mikitivity Office of International Affairs staff feels that this environmental resolution is exactly what it appears. It encourages nations to hold companies or national governments responsible for the damage caused by neglegence in managining space debris, but it does not place any restriction on the use of debris in a declared war. That said, if a nation intentionally used a mass driver, I would say that damages of an attack of any sort would likely be resolved after the ensuing war.

The idea of a global disarmament resolution calling upon nations to not resort to the use of mass drivers towards any habitated planet is something that we should consider in and of its own debate (and is an idea that Mikitivity would strongly support).

As the Under Secretary General from Frisbeeteria pointed out with respect to the draft proposal concerning air safety that our esteemed colleque from Ceorana has been working to bring to the UN Floor, sometimes UN resolutions should focus on something specific and small.

I am pleased to announce that the Cluichstani Space Agency has adopted a new policy (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142&st=0&#last), based upon some of the comments made by those opposed to the proposal currently being debated here. I've been instructed to watch this vote very carefully and make note of all those opposed.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I am pleased to announce that the Cluichstani Space Agency has adopted a new policy (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142&st=0&#last), based upon some of the comments made by those opposed to the proposal currently being debated here. I've been instructed to watch this vote very carefully and make note of all those opposed.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN


OOC:
ROTFL! Dude, I am so adding a summary and link to that statement when I wikify this resolution tomorrow.

IC:
On behalf of the people of Mikitivity, the Hauer Observatory, which has been tracking objects in near "earth" orbit (Earth is used in some Mikitivity English speaking cantons as the name for NationStates), would be happy to provide the Cluichstani Space Agency ground based tracking information on any space debris.

OOC:
ROTFL! Dude, I am so adding a summary and link to that statement when I wikify this resolution tomorrow.

IC:
On behalf of the people of Mikitivity, the Hauer Observatory, which has been tracking objects in near "earth" orbit (Earth is used in some Mikitivity English speaking cantons as the name for NationStates), would be happy to provide the Cluichstani Space Agency ground based tracking information on any space debris.

OOC: Sweet! My silliness is gonna get wikified! :D

IC:I am certain the Cluichstani government would appreciate the help of our friends in Mikitivity in tracking down these potentially very hazardous objects so that we can blow the snot out of them.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: And can someone please deal with this page break? It's driving me nuckin' futs!

Does this ban mass drivers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_drivers#Mass_drivers_as_weapons)?I don't believe that it does; you simply have to make sure that your payloads (or propellant masses) are properly dealt with when you are done with them.

In the case of ortillery and the like, we would consider a tungsten spike impaled in an enemy tank or warship to constitute “proper disposal”.I am pleased to announce that the Cluichstani Space Agency has adopted a new policy (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142&st=0&#last), based upon some of the comments made by those opposed to the proposal currently being debated here. I've been instructed to watch this vote very carefully and make note of all those opposed.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UNThis is an excellent policy which we will support. After all, before Cluichstan generously chose to assist us in keeping space clean and safe, our Naval Aerospace Command chief and his Army counterpart were last seen at a bar sharing a pitcher of Harlacker Dark and muttering, “Too many targets, too little time...”

Allemande Broadcasting Network (ABC) - Secretary of State Edith Mayenne is winging her way toward the Anarctic Oasis for a meeting with officials of the Misbehaving Sultanate of Cluichstan. On the agenda are talks aimed as signing a Clean Space Defense Protocol, as well as discussions on the continuing issue of Cluichstani dolphins teaching their counterparts in the Allemander Navy overly pungent curses...

On the agenda are talks aimed as signing a Clean Space Defense Protocol, as well as discussions on the continuing issue of Cluichstani dolphins teaching their counterparts in the Allemander Navy overly pungent curses...I think your government may be mistaken about that; it's The Palentine's Naval Dolphins whose mouths are the scourge of the southern seas. :D

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

I think your government may be mistaken about that; it's The Palentine's Naval Dolphins whose mouths are the scourge of the southern seas. :D

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

Entirely correct. We don't employ dolphins in our Navy. We eat them.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I think your government may be mistaken about that; it's The Palentine's Naval Dolphins whose mouths are the scourge of the southern seas. :D

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United NationsEntirely correct. We don't employ dolphins in our Navy. We eat them.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN“Those lying little b_st_rds!”- Secretary of State Edith Mayenne, during private talks with Cluichstani officials (in reference to the dolphins, not the officials)

I am pleased to announce that the Cluichstani Space Agency has adopted a new policy (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142&st=0&#last), based upon some of the comments made by those opposed to the proposal currently being debated here. I've been instructed to watch this vote very carefully and make note of all those opposed.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Honerable ambassador, I would like to discuse the posibility of our regions alying, as support for this matter. Please send an ambasidor at your earlyes convience to our forum at http://z7.invisionfree.com/The_ADS/index.php?showforum=5

Kerowin Honor
M and M Shogren's Ambassador to the UN

"I know the Resolution hasn't even passed yet, but the Alpha has informed me that the Overwatch Main Force Grid shielding system in our country has been programmed to repel any debris that would fall on us back up into orbit, where our Automatic Debris Retrieval System, a series of tractor-beam equipped satellites, will thoughtfully return the item or items in question to their original owner's homeland." Wolfgang laughed. "In addition, the ADRS and OMFG are cleaning up each and every bolt in our controlled space."

This nation is not going to send up anyone to clean up Space Junk!!! LOL

This nation is not going to send up anyone to clean up Space Junk!!! LOL

You might want to rethink that position (assuming you gave it any thought at all), given Cluichstan's new policy (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

His Most Excellent Imperial Majesty's government duly supports this resolution, being that we are, in fact, a Great Star Empire encompassing many planets and systems.

However, we would like to note that nothing orbiting any planet in the Empire (there are some 300 of them, and yes, we've done the math. The Imperial Underdivision Quadrant For Bureacratic Numbercrunching has nothing to do but tally numbers that have no apparent use) has ever fallen out of orbit, unless you count Orbital Defense Platforms that have been shot out of the sky by rebels.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

Saint Anns Bay supports this resolution. This is because it clearly makes the individual nations responsible for their own mess.

Kaigan Miromuta, the Kirisuban Ambassador spoke up.

"I have been instructed by my government to vote against this proposal.

although it looks sensible the only way you could clean up space junk is with reusable spacecraft and I would have to ask how many nations have those.

I would question the practicality of this proposal since the technology level in space programmes isn't the same from nation to nation therefore putting extra stresses on a nations economy.

it also strikes me that falling space junk is a matter to be resolved between two governments rather than with a blanket NSUN resolution."

although it looks sensible the only way you could clean up space junk is with reusable spacecraft and I would have to ask how many nations have those.

I would question the practicality of this proposal since the technology level in space programmes isn't the same from nation to nation therefore putting extra stresses on a nations economy.

it also strikes me that falling space junk is a matter to be resolved between two governments rather than with a blanket NSUN resolution.
There are other ways to clean up space junk. Solutions - some of which are, I admit, largely hypothetical at present - include controlled deorbiting, electromagnetic tethering, even the collection of such units into "space yards". Furthermore, the proposal clearly sets out a mechanism for nations struggling in this respect to work with more advanced nations who do have the technology and resources to reign in space junk. And that wouldn't place stresses on either economy - wouldn't it in fact be mutually productive? One nation doesn't have to waste money on junk collection, the other's firms earn money from clearing contracts.

Also, there are more than two countries on Earth. You cannot predict where something that falls from orbit will land - you can't arrange an agreement for it to hit Golgothastan, because we're on friendly terms with Witchcliff, but to miss Ausserland, because they've fallen out with them. It's exactly the sort of thing that can't be worked out between two nations, because it will have effects on, potentially, every nation.

"I must agree with the delegate from Golgothastan. Even if you do not possess the technology within your own nation, you could always hire another to do it. Like the Commonwealth, hint hint. As long as you see to it being done by some way or another, it's all good."

Votes For: 5,236

Votes Against: 1,991

A decent proposal, winning. Amazing.

"the honourable representative from Golgothastan has raised possible solutions to waste disposal, the most obvious being paying someone else to clean it up for you.

I am also aware that there are more than two nations on Earth and on top of space matter such as space dust and meteorites which hit our nations on a regular basis.

However my point was taken out of context. If space junk fell from the sky onto the Kirisuban empire and damaged some property or farmland and we were able to identify where it came from it should be a simple matter for two governments to sort it out.

we would have to use that approach if the junk came from a non-UN nation so I don't see how a UN resolution would make sorting this out any easier.

It will still come down to two foreign ministers sorting out compensation over a table even if this passes."

There is no mention of orbital space surrounding other celestial bodies. What of that? :confused:

Have a godd weekend everyone! :cool:

the honourable representative from Golgothastan has raised possible solutions to waste disposal, the most obvious being paying someone else to clean it up for you.

I am also aware that there are more than two nations on Earth and on top of space matter such as space dust and meteorites which hit our nations on a regular basis.

However my point was taken out of context. If space junk fell from the sky onto the Kirisuban empire and damaged some property or farmland and we were able to identify where it came from it should be a simple matter for two governments to sort it out.

we would have to use that approach if the junk came from a non-UN nation so I don't see how a UN resolution would make sorting this out any easier.

It will still come down to two foreign ministers sorting out compensation over a table even if this passes.
And in terms of negotiating compensation, you are right. But I have a wild, fantastic, brave new idea. Why don't we...try to stop the debris hitting the farmland in the first place? Wow! We should go write a UN proposal to do that now!

You haven't, once, mentioned in your reply the issue of preventing space debris from falling from orbit. Do I take this as an admission that it is a multilateral issue?

You might want to rethink that position (assuming you gave it any thought at all), given Cluichstan's new policy (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Now, surely UN nations are above threatening fellow member nations into voting for their non-preferred option? Besides, your new policy is simply inviting retaliatory action, and I've yet to see a defence system that can withstand a salvo from even the most lowly I.G.N.O.R.E cannons.

"the NSUN may be able to do many things but I really doubt that stopping a decaying orbit is one of them." Kaigan replies "we can't change the laws of physics.

this brings us back to the proposal at vote which basically says 'if you can put it into space you can pay to remove it later on'.

Unless a nation's space programme has the foresight to include a natural means for waste disposal such as altering a probes course so it goes into the sun or has an explosive charge which breaks it up into smaller pieces which would burn up in re-entry anyway I can't see how you can prevent large objects falling from space such as chunks of space station and sections of booster rockets.

so i would say prevention is a separate issue to what we are discussing because what enters an orbit has to come down eventually. space junk will still fall from the sky simply because its orbit decays before it can be cleaned up"

Now, surely UN nations are above threatening fellow member nations into voting for their non-preferred option? Besides, your new policy is simply inviting retaliatory action, and I've yet to see a defence system that can withstand a salvo from even the most lowly I.G.N.O.R.E cannons.

OOC:
Essentially you are accusing players as god moding here, and I don't think the players threatening careless nations are the ones to start that.

I've yet to see a nation hit by anything that wasn't approved roleplay: earthquake, war, asteroid, volcano, civil unrest, assissinations, etc. -- none of these things happen without player consent ... if players want to claim that they can litter on other people's nations, then equality and fairness opens them up to being turned into glass. In other words, using an I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon after claiming the right to litter isn't a response to god moding, but rather continuation of god moding.

In real-life, space faring nations (the US, USSR, and China) do go to some trouble to actually prevent antagonizing other nations with space debris for the very real fear that each space accident increases international pressure to regulate a virutally unregulated enterprise. Look again at Skylab ... the US knew it was going to fall and actually had intended to use the Space Shuttle to move Skylab into a safer orbit. But due to increased solar activity and other problems, the orbit decayed faster than hoped and the Shuttle construction was delayed for longer than hoped. Imagine the outcry Skylab would have created if it had fallen in a population center (even one in the US). Notice I didn't say damage ... when the Columbia blew apart over Texas the space worms actually survived the fall and I don't recall hearing of any ground casualities ... but people's confidence in manned space exploration dropped world-wide. We aren't trying to save lives as much as reduce tensions and regulate with the intent of installing some confidence in whatever manned space programs players have. The minute players come in here with the, "I don't need to worry about it if I don't want to" they, not the rest of us, have increased the tensions. If the resolution were more intrusive, I might agree that players feel threatened, but come on ... "you should clean up your own mess" ... now how exactly is that really hard to say, "OK"???

Having just completed our constitutional convention and formed the great nation of the Allied States of Cardiland, in order to protect our people from the ravages of our neighbors, I was delegated to come to this great body to determine whether or not joining is in the best interests of our poor people.

What is the first issue that I see being raised in these hallowed halls?

It is the "Proposal to lock poor nations out of Space Exploration".

Oh yes, you GIVE it a noble name and endeuver, to ensure space is kept 'clean' - but I ask how many of your space going nations managed to DEVELOPE their space programs adhering to the tenants of this proprosal? The answer is NONE. It is virtually impossible for a nation to develope, test, and create a space program from scratch while at the same time adhering to this program.

Under this program, a nation having an accident when implementing their first test flights would be subject to U.N. sanctions for leaving "junk" in space. Where more advanced nations would be able to retrieve our space HEROES who gave their lives to advance our nation and than ransom them back to us for astronmical recovery fees.

Under this program, no nation that has not already established a space program(and many nations with mere fledgling programs) will be forever locked out of space.

With no exceptions made for nations first developing space flight, I must say that the message this proposal sends to my own small nation is that the United Nations is only interested in the rich, the powerful, the advanced. Poor nations need not apply!

I am appalled by this proposal and I state categorically that Cardiland shall never allow any international body to hold our technological programs hostage to their whims.

It is virtually impossible for a nation to develope, test, and create a space program from scratch while at the same time adhering to this program.Just because your nation seems to think that the starting point of a space program is to launch junk into orbit, doesn't mean everyone else is so ignorant.

Would it be too much to ask that nations actually read the resolution at vote before popping off like petulant children?


Oh, and to bin Cluich... if you want help with the targetting and communications systems of that station, just let us know. I'm sure we can reach a profitable agreement.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Why should my nation or my region support this proposal? Basically, you are asking nations and regions with no space program or any interest in a space program to pay to take care of others peoples garbage. If this passes, I'm going to lobby very hard so the citizens of my region don't have to pay for the capitalist pigs greed driven guide for space. I may push to have the N.S.U.N. outlaw space programs all together. The citizens of the region of Hostility will not stand around idly while they are forced to pay and to kowtow to the proposals of rich capitalist nations. Thank you.

Just because your nation seems to think that the starting point of a space program is to launch junk into orbit, doesn't mean everyone else is so ignorant.

Would it be too much to ask that nations actually read the resolution at vote before popping off like petulant children?



I know of no nation which, in the course of developing their space program, have not had accidents which resulted in materials left in space.

Yet now that those nations have achieved space programs, they wish to lock out all other nations by ensuring the costs of developing programs natively is prohibitively expensive.

That you "encourage" advanced nations to help developing nations in any clean up is meaningless, when you allow those nations free range to set the price of their "help" and insist that developing nations must use their services.

Perhaps you would be better served in addressing concerns as raised, rather than dismissing criticism based on the proposal as written and presented.

It was my fervent hope when coming to this august body to find an organisation dedicated to helping nations advance, instead I find a proposal dedicated in grinding us into the dust.

That is certainly your right and privelege. But do not be suprised if those us who cannot meet your exalted status of advancement(coming from your repeated raiding of our own national treasures and resources over the past century) to meekly submit to the yoke of your mandates.

I urge the honored delegates of this assembly to demonstrate to the poor nations of the world that there IS a place for us in this body, vote NO to this proposal.

Having just completed our constitutional convention and formed the great nation of the Allied States of Cardiland, in order to protect our people from the ravages of our neighbors, I was delegated to come to this great body to determine whether or not joining is in the best interests of our poor people.

What is the first issue that I see being raised in these hallowed halls?

It is the "Proposal to lock poor nations out of Space Exploration".

Oh yes, you GIVE it a noble name and endeuver, to ensure space is kept 'clean' - but I ask how many of your space going nations managed to DEVELOPE their space programs adhering to the tenants of this proprosal? The answer is NONE. It is virtually impossible for a nation to develope, test, and create a space program from scratch while at the same time adhering to this program.

Under this program, a nation having an accident when implementing their first test flights would be subject to U.N. sanctions for leaving "junk" in space. Where more advanced nations would be able to retrieve our space HEROES who gave their lives to advance our nation and than ransom them back to us for astronmical recovery fees.

Under this program, no nation that has not already established a space program(and many nations with mere fledgling programs) will be forever locked out of space.

With no exceptions made for nations first developing space flight, I must say that the message this proposal sends to my own small nation is that the United Nations is only interested in the rich, the powerful, the advanced. Poor nations need not apply!

I am appalled by this proposal and I state categorically that Cardiland shall never allow any international body to hold our technological programs hostage to their whims.This is preposterous.

You claim that you have a right to place other nations' space assets at risk so that you can have a space program? That you should not be responsible for your actions because you are poor?

What other “rights” will you claim because you are poor? The right to steal our assets, destroy our property, invade our lands? Just because you are poor doesn't give you the right to trample on others' legitimate rights.

This resolution is about responsiblity. Who can be opposed to requiring members to exercise responsible behaviour?!?

Why should my nation or my region support this proposal? Basically, you are asking nations and regions with no space program or any interest in a space program to pay to take care of others peoples garbage. If this passes, I'm going to lobby very hard so the citizens of my region don't have to pay for the capitalist pigs greed driven guide for space. I may push to have the N.S.U.N. outlaw space programs all together. The citizens of the region of Hostility will not stand around idly while they are forced to pay and to kowtow to the proposals of rich capitalist nations. Thank you.:upyours:

No, actually it's not asking you to pay for any other nations space programs. Maybe it would help if you read the resolution properly.

This resolutions aim is to force nations using orbital space to take responsibility for and clean up their own mess, including paying for the privliage if necessary.

The only time all nations are asked to contribute funds is in this clause..

Urges all UN nations to work together to clean up unidentifiable and/or small space debris currently in orbital space, as much as they are technologically and/or financially able to assist, to ensure a cleaner, safer, environment for those nations with equipment and/or personnel in that environment, to reduce the possibility of objects damaging working equipment, and to reduce the danger of large pieces of debris falling back to the planet.
Note the word "urges". That means it isn't a mandatory clause, and you, or any other nation, are free to not paticipate if you don't want to.

If you don't have a space program, and don't want to assist in the world effort to clean up orbital space, then this legislation really won't have any effect on your nation. You certainly won't be paying for anything.

I know of no nation which, in the course of developing their space program, have not had accidents which resulted in materials left in space.

Yet now that those nations have achieved space programs, they wish to lock out all other nations by ensuring the costs of developing programs natively is prohibitively expensive.

That you "encourage" advanced nations to help developing nations in any clean up is meaningless, when you allow those nations free range to set the price of their "help" and insist that developing nations must use their services.

Perhaps you would be better served in addressing concerns as raised, rather than dismissing criticism based on the proposal as written and presented.

It was my fervent hope when coming to this august body to find an organisation dedicated to helping nations advance, instead I find a proposal dedicated in grinding us into the dust.

That is certainly your right and privelege. But do not be suprised if those us who cannot meet your exalted status of advancement(coming from your repeated raiding of our own national treasures and resources over the past century) to meekly submit to the yoke of your mandates.

I urge the honored delegates of this assembly to demonstrate to the poor nations of the world that there IS a place for us in this body, vote NO to this proposal.

This resolution will not stop you having a space program, nor will it stop you putting whatever you like in orbital space. What it will do is force you to take responsibility for and deal with any of your equipment that poses a danger to other users of orbital space, and/or those living on the planet below. How you do that is left up to you. You do have a right to use orbital space, you don't have a right to endanger other nations people and property in the process.

I know I'll probably cop some flack for saying this, but if a nation is so poor it can't afford to clean up its space junk, then why is it spending its sparse currency on a space program in the first place?

Why should my nation or my region support this proposal? Basically, you are asking nations and regions with no space program or any interest in a space program to pay to take care of others peoples garbage. If this passes, I'm going to lobby very hard so the citizens of my region don't have to pay for the capitalist pigs greed driven guide for space. I may push to have the N.S.U.N. outlaw space programs all together. The citizens of the region of Hostility will not stand around idly while they are forced to pay and to kowtow to the proposals of rich capitalist nations. Thank you.:upyours:


Oh, you're going to do soooo well around here...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

This resolution is about responsiblity. Who can be opposed to requiring members to exercise responsible behaviour?!?

An irresponsible bunch of twits perhaps?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

*snipped ignorance*

*snipped ignorance*

*snipped for extreme ignorance

The list of Nations of Scientific Ingnorance being compiled under the new Cluichstani policy (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142) just expanded by three.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

[Count Anton Suntower, Secretary of Foreign Affairs for the Solarlandus Empire, rises to the podium to address the UN membership].

Fellow UN Members,

I do see several problems with the bill. The primary one that comes to mind at this moment is that it presumes that every piece of orbital hardware in space has been put there by a nation that is still in existence. In my years as Secretary of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Solarlandus I have seen many nations die. Most of us have. When they do their infrastructure is no longer maintained and it is their equipment that therefore causes the greatest problem. Since a nation that no longers exist is not going to pay a single copper coin I think that the greater part of the debris issue is therefore unaddressed.

Now, surely UN nations are above threatening fellow member nations into voting for their non-preferred option? Besides, your new policy is simply inviting retaliatory action, and I've yet to see a defence system that can withstand a salvo from even the most lowly I.G.N.O.R.E cannons.

Why should we be above threatening them when they think they are above taking responsibility for their own actions? As for retaliatory action? Laughable really. We've got a fucking Death Star, man!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

[Count Anton Suntower, Secretary of Foreign Affairs for the Solarlandus Empire, rises to the podium to address the UN membership].

Fellow UN Members,

I do see several problems with the bill. The primary one that comes to mind at this moment is that it presumes that every piece of orbital hardware in space has been put there by a nation that is still in existence. In my years as Secretary of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Solarlandus I have seen many nations die. Most of us have. When they do their infrastructure is no longer maintained and it is their equipment that therefore causes the greatest problem. Since a nation that no longers exist is not going to pay a single copper coin I think that the greater part of the debris issue is therefore unaddressed.

I did think of that...

Urges all UN nations to work together to clean up unidentifiable and/or small space debris currently in orbital space, as much as they are technologically and/or financially able to assist, to ensure a cleaner, safer, environment for those nations with equipment and/or personnel in that environment, to reduce the possibility of objects damaging working equipment, and to reduce the danger of large pieces of debris falling back to the planet.

As it is totally unfair to force nations to pay for or clean up other nations rubbish, especially nations that no longer exist and can't be sent the bill, it went under an urges clause.

As it is totally unfair to force nations to pay for or clean up other nations rubbish, especially nations that no longer exist and can't be sent the bill, it went under an urges clause.

And it's an excellent solution to that issue. We applaud the delegation from Witchcliff for this extremely well thought-out proposal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I understand the concerns of the representitive from Cardiland. In fact, Razat is a fledgling nation that would have problems dealing with its space junk by itself. However, this resolution does encourage more advanced nations to work with the poorer, less advanced ones, and it would suit their own self-interest to do so. If they were to price their space-junk retrieval service out of our reach, then we'd have no choice but to use our less efficient means, with a higher likelyhood of failure.

I think we can get the richer nations to work with us at reasonable cost, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because it serves their interest not to have junk that we were unable to deal with out there.

The Federal Republic has examined this issue carefully, and has determined that the conditions set forth in this article are entirely fair. We are also particularly pleased that this legislation does not, as in the case of a number of acts that have passed muster with this body, resort to delegating its force to some wasteful commission dealing purely in hypotheticals. Rather, this is a series of clear, concise, understandable and enforceable rules for any UN nation seeking to launch materials into outer space. Hell, even a Kennyite can figure this thing out. We are rather disappointed, however, at the hysteria this bill has produced, mostly from ignorant members (and when a Kennyite calls you ignorant, you know something's wrong) who either cannot be bothered to read the resolution on which they opine, or possibly have read it, and are simply trying to claim it does more than it says it does. "A scheme to lock poorer nations out of space"; now, there's a fucking stretch if I ever saw one. As the inimitible Lindsay Naegle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Naegle#Lindsay_Naegle) once said to a room full of concerned customers, "Let me assure you that your fears are groundless, and your complaints moronic."

In that vein, the Federal Republic wishes it known that it will contribute funds and technologies to its friend the Misbehaving Sultanate of Cluichstan to help enforce its new policy on patroling space. Negotiations on such collaberations will be carried out later in the appropriate channels [OOC: the Antarctic Oasis (s11.invisionfree.com/antarctic_oasis) forum], despite the fact that Kenny-Cluichstani diplomacy has faltered since the murder of Cluichstan's ambassador to the Federal Republic, and the apparent monumental intelligence fuck-up concerning Cluichstan's space-based activities. (How the hell do you miss a friggin' Death Star hovering over your own God-damned region? Huh? Boggles the fucking mind.)

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

Where's the Poll?


And New Hamilton is voting FOR it...unless otherwise a member state objects.

Where's the Poll?


And New Hamilton is voting FOR it...unless otherwise a member state objects.

This was the draft thread, and never had a poll. To be honest, even if I'd started it off fresh for the resolution, it probably still wouldn't have one. I'm not too fond of polls and never think to put them in.

Sadly, the Mikitivity Office of International Affairs staff feels that this environmental resolution is exactly what it appears. It encourages nations to hold companies or national governments responsible for the damage caused by neglegence in managining space debris, but it does not place any restriction on the use of debris in a declared war. That said, if a nation intentionally used a mass driver, I would say that damages of an attack of any sort would likely be resolved after the ensuing war.

The idea of a global disarmament resolution calling upon nations to not resort to the use of mass drivers towards any habitated planet is something that we should consider in and of its own debate (and is an idea that Mikitivity would strongly support).

As the Under Secretary General from Frisbeeteria pointed out with respect to the draft proposal concerning air safety that our esteemed colleque from Ceorana has been working to bring to the UN Floor, sometimes UN resolutions should focus on something specific and small.Oh no, you misunderstand. I'm glad that mass drivers are not banned. It means the Hirotan space agency will manage to help certain member states reluctant to adhere to this resolution.

Hirota will collect all the various debris from orbital junk, and send it back to where it came, in one huge lump of metal travelling at hypervelocity towards their capital cities.

Isn't that nice? ;)

This was the draft thread, and never had a poll. To be honest, even if I'd started it off fresh for the resolution, it probably still wouldn't have one. I'm not too fond of polls and never think to put them in.

I'm of the opposite mind, though I use the polls (serious or not) to make graphics for the NSWiki articles. I figure the articles I like tend to have something visually appealing in this, so why not spice up UN articles. :)

This nation is not going to send up anyone to clean up Space Junk!!! LOL

In that vein, the Federal Republic wishes it known that it will contribute funds and technologies to its friend the Misbehaving Sultanate of Cluichstan to help enforce its new policy on patroling space. Negotiations on such collaberations will be carried out later in the appropriate channels [OOC: the Antarctic Oasis (s11.invisionfree.com/antarctic_oasis) forum], despite the fact that Kenny-Cluichstani diplomacy has faltered since the murder of Cluichstan's ambassador to the Federal Republic, and the apparent monumental intelligence fuck-up concerning Cluichstan's space-based activities. (How the hell do you miss a friggin' Death Star hovering over your own God-damned region? Huh? Boggles the fucking mind.)

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

We will, of course, welcome the assistance of our Kennyite friends on our Star Wars program (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142). Indeed, we soon hope to convene a summit involving all nations who wish to aid us in this important endeavour (and who could possibly pass up a summit catered by Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd.?) (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21).

As for the murder of Sheik Ocifingam (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=36&st=30&#entry2503111), well, no worries there really. Turns out he was on the take anyway. I'm told we'll soon be sending a replacement ambassador.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

P.S. And don't be too hard on your intelligence service. Our Death Star was constructed under an unbelievable shroud of secrecy on the dark side of the moon and only recently placed in orbit around the Earth.

This nation is not going to send up anyone to clean up Space Junk!!! LOL

OOC: And how many times are you going to post the exact same thing in this thread, numbnuts?

OOC: And how many times are you going to post the exact same thing in this thread, numbnuts?

Maybe one more time tommarrow. :D

Maybe one more time tommarrow. :D

OOC: Looking forward to it. Oh, and you might want to look into a little thing called spellcheck. :rolleyes:

I dont need no sitnking speel chucker. ;)

OOC: Looking forward to it. Oh, and you might want to look into a little thing called spellcheck. :rolleyes:

OOc: The forum has a spellcheck? Where?

Someone is doing a counter TG campain against this, and sent me the TG for some reason. Like I'm going to change my yes vote :p.

The War Torn Wastelands of Expendia
Received: 6 hours ago

Pardon me, but could i talk to you about the current resolution before the UN? I represent the people of SPACE who would suffer a great deal if your resolution was passed. The spacejunk is harvested by many nations in Space and millions of people would lose their jobs as a result. without spacejunk to make warships, our regions military would be crippled and our famous space pirates, who fought off DEN, Zombies, and the AC, would have no piles of junk to hide in after raids. The only other place to leave our towers of rusty metal would be on planets where people live, and our regional party zone of Slurms Makenzie would be forced to recycle their billions of aluminium cans they throw out each day, costing SPACE grillions of credits. The chances of spacejunk hitting spacestations or planets are slim to none, and the spacestation/planet without enough guns to deal with an oncoming pile of spacejunk would have much bigger problems to worry about than trash. If this resoultion is passed almost all our UN nations would be forced to quit the UN and leave our region open to even more invasions. Please help the noble people of Space, vote against this resolution. Thank you for your time.

I've replied pointing out the errors in his/her thinking and also reinforcing the last clause. Why they aren't seeing this as a money making opportunity instead of an economic disaster I can't figure out :confused:.

I've replied pointing out the errors in his/her thinking and also reinforcing the last clause. Why they aren't seeing this as a money making opportunity instead of an economic disaster I can't figure out :confused:.

Chalk it up to ignorance. And so we have yet another nation added to the list of Nations of Scientific Ignorance under the new Cluichstani policy (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOc: The forum has a spellcheck? Where?

OOC:
Step #1: Download the Google tool bar.
Step #2: Now every forum has a spell check! :p

IC:
In Tzorsland there has been a scientist who we once considered mad named Dr. Hans Zarkov who has insisted that a large battle station was hovering over the Antarctic Oasis and was capable of destroying the entire world.

With the recent revelations from Cluichstan we are now concerned that he might not be as mad as we first suspected. Still he is a "loose canon" and we don't want him doing anything rash, or take matters into his own hands.

Chalk it up to ignorance. And so we have yet another nation added to the list of Nations of Scientific Ignorance under the new Cluichstani policy (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

That list must be getting quite long now. Glad I voted for and won't be on it :p.

No need to worry. The primary turbolaser has lower settings -- say, to wipe a single country off the map, like oh...Norderia, for instance. Its full power will only be used if Cluichstan is ever attacked and close to defeat (pfft, as if that could ever happen!). We've got an "if we're going down, we're taking the whole bloody world with us" philosophy. But then, who would want to destroy the home of Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd.? (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21)

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Dr. Fabien Armand (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Fabien_Armand), representing Ariddia, shuffled down to the podium facing the General Assembly.

"Much as I'm startled to hear myself say this," the elderly representative began, "my country is in full agreement with the honourable delegate from Cluichstan. The level of ignorance displayed by some of the more... intellectually challenged representatives in this room is stunning, and reflects very poorly on this august assembly. Your governments should be ashamed of themselves for sending you here!" He shook a wrinkled finger at the assembled ambassador. "Ashamed!

Ariddia, naturally, supports this well thought-out resolution, and is pleased to see that it will most likely pass. Now go back to school! You know who you are."

Tommo the Stout walks by the doors to the GA, shuffling papers and reading. He pauses, takes two steps back, and enters the GA. After the Ariddian finishes speaking, the Stout raises his hand to get anyone's attention and says rather mildly, "I voted for this, already. Just... So everyone knows." He glances around for a second at the unmoved representatives and after a moment's pause, ducks back out of the room he had only stepped one foot into, continuing down the hall, reading and shuffling papers.

But then, who would want to destroy the home of Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd.? (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21)

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Oh, I can think of an organization that would at least want to see CPESL shut down.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Someone is doing a counter TG campain against this, and sent me the TG for some reason. Like I'm going to change my yes vote :p.You think that's bad? A friend of mine, who has never been in the UN, also got that. Not sure how he was supposed to vote against it...

"The Commonwealth extends its hand to help any who need it in cleaning up their controlled space. At nominal costs." Wolfgang sits back down, and can still be heard talking quietly into his unseen communicator. "Yes, sir, Alpha Elect, but if even if the OMFG protects the Commonwealth from the destruction of the Death Star, we'll still be on a chunk of former Earth spinning through space. I'd recommend stepping up the production on the Escape project. Yes, Alpha Elect, it will be expensive, but necessary. The only other option would be to take down their Death Star, which probably isn't a good idea, either..."

You think that's bad? A friend of mine, who has never been in the UN, also got that. Not sure how he was supposed to vote against it...

So he/she has already asked the author and someone not in the UN to scuttle my resolution. Wonder if approching high endorsement delegates has crossed this person's very mixed up mind?

I have only one response to the vote change campaign anyway, and it is this....http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/Kyronia/5b2c20d5.gif

(that baby was a contender as the official Reclamation forum mascot, but we decided it sent out the wrong message, so it is now our newest forum smilie :D)

Sum up the opposition for me. I've heard that crap science is held within the previous pages, and don't feel like subjecting myself to it.

But do be objective(ish) in doing so. I wanna know what has driven people to TGs.

Sum up the opposition for me. I've heard that crap science is held within the previous pages, and don't feel like subjecting myself to it.

But do be objective(ish) in doing so. I wanna know what has driven people to TGs.

Most of it is people who believe the resolution will prevent them using orbital space and/or make them pay for cleaning up the mess of others, and/or make it too expensive for them to start a space program because they are poor and won't be able to afford to collect the mess. Those seems to be the main problems. The are all wrong however.

To be honest, it is hard to be objective because I haven't really seen a valid objection against it yet, except for those PT or MT nations who don't aknowledge the existance of FT nations and from their point of view, have a valid complaint about problems retrieving space debris. The other complaints have mostly been those who don't care, those who haven't read the resolution properly, and those who think the resolution does more than it says. There have also been a couple of people who think it doesn't go far enough, but both of them are still voting for, I think.

I’ve voted against it because I think it is in the first instance, unnecessary, and in the second, detrimental to the future of space research and travel. I say it is unnecessary because the vast majority of ‘space-junk’ in orbit will not survive re-entry, and will instead burn up in orbit, causing no damage to any property on the surface. Further, that which does pass through the atmosphere is far more likely to crash into the ocean; the probability of striking any nation’s property or people is thus small.

Further, by requiring this of nations we make operating a space programme far more expensive, reducing the incentive for nations and private corporations to involve themselves in space research. This is to the ultimate detriment of all of those within the UN. A further problem – what about those nations outside the UN without a space programme? This mandate cannot apply to them (we cannot claim space) and it is these nations which are all the more likely to cause problems.

This is another problem with the proposal – it makes no mention of private ‘space-junk’. Is it reasonable to allot the responsibility for that to one nation? The bulk of corporations with the requisite finance to launch any sort of space programme will be multinationals; spanning many UN member states – who should be responsible?

This proposal, although well-meaning, is therefore a bureaucratic hindrance to a problem that doesn’t really exist.

I say it is unnecessary because the vast majority of ‘space-junk’ in orbit will not survive re-entry, and will instead burn up in orbit, causing no damage to any property on the surface. Further, that which does pass through the atmosphere is far more likely to crash into the ocean; the probability of striking any nation’s property or people is thus small.

There are a lot of nationstates and even though Cuation itself is a small island surronded by water, I don't want to take my chances on things falling into the sea instead of on the island. What about those things that do hit? Is it a waste to stop whacking great space junk from killing people?

Further, by requiring this of nations we make operating a space programme far more expensive. reducing the incentive for nations and private corporations to involve themselves in space research

Not really, the cost will rise as your space programs expand maybe as you get more space junk but it isn't too bad. Right now, my nation is searching for someone else to do the clean up while we work things out.

The incentive's are even bigger, you don't have to navigate around so much rubbish and it is an easier flight, therer is so many advantages to having a good space project. Trade, travel, exploration, warfare... so many things

This is to the ultimate detriment of all of those within the UN. A further problem – what about those nations outside the UN without a space programme? This mandate cannot apply to them (we cannot claim space) and it is these nations which are all the more likely to cause problems.

How can they clutter up space if they don't have a space program?

Some non Un nations do clean ups anyway and those nations willing to clean up non Un junk can do so if they so wish. You don't hage to clean it up or offer any money on that subject it if you don't want to

This proposal, although well-meaning, is therefore a bureaucratic hindrance to a problem that doesn’t really exist.

Beware Cluichstan

Sun Loyalds

Right now, my nation is searching for someone else to do the clean up while we work things out.That sounds like a request for a contract...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Most of it is people who believe the resolution will prevent them using orbital space and/or make them pay for cleaning up the mess of others, and/or make it too expensive for them to start a space program because they are poor and won't be able to afford to collect the mess. Those seems to be the main problems. The are all wrong however.


I must admit, if you beleive in Deathstars that these complaints are all wrong.

My nation however, feels that if there is such a thing as a Deathstar capable of destroying the entire planet, than instead of fosting this cleanup cost on the whole world instead the United Nations would be more reasonable to insist that those nations who decide to militarize space should be required to do some form of international community service and can do the cleanup on behalf of the United Nations(quite frankly, if you have a platform capable of vaporizing a nation without causing ill effects to other nations in the region or on the planet, than your technology is sufficiently advanced to clean up junk in orbit at no cost. I mean, if your dealing with fantasy science to begin with......)

If you don't beleive in this fantasy science, than it is self evident that identifying and removing "space junk" will be an added cost to space developement. While nations could argue it is a cost nations should pay, instead most are using fantasy arguements that it is not a cost at all(again, if there is no cost, than the proposal is senseless, if it's free one nation could merely undertake to do it and you don't need a UN proposal)

And finally there is the claim that non space going nations won't be required to pay for the junk left in space by nations which have devolved into anarchy and no longer exist because the clause to do so is an "urges" clause and not mandatory. At the very least, the idenfication effort will be performed by the United Nations, at considerable cost, and that is a cost borne by all member nations(again, if it was "free" than there would be no need for the resolution).
(OOC I presume there is no way the game moderators are going to go to the trouble of polling every nation to determine if they are space capable or not. All nations in the UN will take the same generic industry hit and all nations will get the same generic environmental gain)

So basically there are 4 arguements:
1) Against based on not wanting to pay for other nations garbage

2) Against based on the added hurdle it creates for nations to create a space program

3) For based on the environmental gain being worth the cost

4) For based on fantasy beleif that there is such a thing as a free lunch

Cardiland subscribes to second arguement, rejects the farsical claims that fantasy science exists, and votes No.

Cardiland respects those nations making the third arguement, but respectfully disagrees with the cost/benefit analysis.

There are a lot of nationstates and even though Cuation itself is a small island surronded by water, I don't want to take my chances on things falling into the sea instead of on the island. What about those things that do hit? Is it a waste to stop whacking great space junk from killing people?
Yes, it is incredibly wasteful in the sense that on a cost/risk analysis, the risk is insignificant but the cost is crippling.

Not really, the cost will rise as your space programs expand maybe as you get more space junk but it isn't too bad. Right now, my nation is searching for someone else to do the clean up while we work things out.
One central problem with the proposal is surely, how do you 'clean up' 'space junk'? We seem unhappy to allow this debris to burn up in orbit (for some odd reason), so what are we left with? Exploding things in orbit? Again this is just allowing smaller remains to re-enter. Retrieval ships? How do they work? Has anyone considered the logistics of such operations? You now have to get another ship to intercept an object orbiting the planet (travelling at considerable speed, no less) and… do what with it? Return it to earth? How? This sounds even more expensive than the cost of getting something up into orbit in the first place.

The incentive's are even bigger, you don't have to navigate around so much rubbish and it is an easier flight, therer is so many advantages to having a good space project. Trade, travel, exploration, warfare... so many thingsThere may be advantages to having clear space surrounding the planet but I argue the costs of this ‘clean up’ resolution are greater than any benefit it brings.

How can they clutter up space if they don't have a space program?

Some non Un nations do clean ups anyway and those nations willing to clean up non Un junk can do so if they so wish. You don't hage to clean it up or offer any money on that subject it if you don't want toYou will forgive me a typo. My point still stands.
Beware CluichstanIf you are implying that I am scientifically ignorant, I invite you to point to evidence.

This resolution does not, I repeat does not, require nations to pay for the clean up after other nations, UN or not. It only requires a nation to clean up its own junk, which is perfectly fair I feel. It also only requires that clean up if the junk is identified as posing a danger. If it is floating away happily up there threatening no-one and nothing, you don't have to go fetch it. As I've asked before, if a nation thinks cleaning up its own space debris is so expensive that it threatens their being able to have a space program, then why are they spending this sparse currency on putting stuff up there in the first place? If your junk is threatening to cause death or damage to other nations people or property, then it is your responsibility to deal with it, not just close your eyes and hope it goes away.

How can identification be so expensive? Surely if a nation goes to the expense of putting something up there, they are going to keep track of what and where it is? The resolution doesn't mandate how an individual nation decides to identify its orbital space equipment. That is left up to you. Radio tracking or even just painting your flag on it will do, as two examples.

Where does the resolution say the UN will be responsible for identifying stuff from nations that no longer exist? You are reading more into this than it says. All it urges nations to do is clean up the unidentifiable junk, it doesn't say it then has to be identified. The only mandate of identification is current UN nations being able to identify their own stuff, and own up if it is causing a problem. How is this going to cost all nations? The clause urges nations to assist that clean up only if they are technologically and/or financially able to do it. If they aren't, or just plain couldn't be bothered, then they don't have to.

This resolution isn't about forcing all UN nations to clean up space. It is about forcing nations using orbital space to keep track of what they put up there, and deal with their own equipment if it poses a danger to other nations property or people. The rest of it under the urges and encourages clauses are just that, urges and encouragement, and any nation that wishes to is free to ignore those clauses if they want to.

(This is in response to Cardiland, forgot to hit the quote button).

(OOC I presume there is no way the game moderators are going to go to the trouble of polling every nation to determine if they are space capable or not.No way in Hell.

That sounds like a request for a contract...


Pretty much yes, we are looking for a contract. Why, do you know somebody?

My nation however, feels that if there is such a thing as a Deathstar capable of destroying the entire planet

I must get one of those someday if they really do destroy whole planets.

than instead of fosting this cleanup cost on the whole world instead the United Nations would be more reasonable to insist that those nations who decide to militarize space should be required to do some form of international community service and can do the cleanup on behalf of the United Nations

Why punish those that are powerful and have great understanding of space rather then have nations clean up thier own mess. "Oh we dumped millions of toxic waste into the sea and killed thousands, the big nations must clear it up, not us."

quite frankly, if you have a platform capable of vaporizing a nation without causing ill effects to other nations in the region or on the planet, than your technology is sufficiently advanced to clean up junk in orbit at no cost. I mean, if your dealing with fantasy science to begin with......)

It does cost but note how the noble Cluichstan nation and some non Un nations have offered to help out with cleaning the rubbish for those without the right stuff to do that at the moment? Most kind of them but why force them just becuase they happen to be bigger? Why should the small nations be allowed to junk up space and not be forced to clean up after themselves?

If you don't beleive in this fantasy science, than it is self evident that identifying and removing "space junk" will be an added cost to space developement

Yep it does, it also costs to buy bathroom cleaner or pay a maid to clean the house. The bigger the house, the more it tends to cost. Your point?

And finally there is the claim that non space going nations won't be required to pay for the junk left in space by nations which have devolved into anarchy and no longer exist because the clause to do so is an "urges" clause and not mandatory. At the very least, the idenfication effort will be performed by the United Nations, at considerable cost, and that is a cost borne by all member nations(again, if it was "free" than there would be no need for the resolution).

I am a little confused as to how non space nations are being made to pay? They are not having to clear up space junk, it costs them nothing.

If it cost nothing at all, there would still be a need of this to get nations to clean up after themselves.

So basically there are 4 arguements:
1) Against based on not wanting to pay for other nations garbage

Which they don't have too

2) Against based on the added hurdle it creates for nations to create a space program

It is only a short term hurdle, a bit more cash needed then you might otherwise to hire contractors and then begin space program. Not too much bother really

Cardiland subscribes to second arguement, rejects the farsical claims that fantasy science exists, and votes No.


I'm sure those living in the Death Star object to being told they/their jobs/their home don't exist

Yes, it is incredibly wasteful in the sense that on a cost/risk analysis, the risk is insignificant but the cost is crippling.


So is space exploration I suppose but I don't find the cost to be too bad on this issue. Maybe you can show what sum you think your nation is going to have pay?

One central problem with the proposal is surely, how do you 'clean up' 'space junk'? We seem unhappy to allow this debris to burn up in orbit (for some odd reason), so what are we left with? Exploding things in orbit? Again this is just allowing smaller remains to re-enter. Retrieval ships? How do they work? Has anyone considered the logistics of such operations? You now have to get another ship to intercept an object orbiting the planet (travelling at considerable speed, no less) and… do what with it? Return it to earth? How? This sounds even more expensive than the cost of getting something up into orbit in the first place.

I'll leave that to those who are already doing the job as I'm diplomat, not a man who understands spaceships to well

You will forgive me a typo. My point still stands

I thought I was countering, or attempting too, your point?

f you are implying that I am scientifically ignorant, I invite you to point to evidence.

It was a joke based on something said earlier on this subject, should be on the records if you want to look

I'm sure you know more about science then me, we didn't really have education back in the civil war.

Sun Loyalds, Cuation diplomat

How can identification be so expensive? Surely if a nation goes to the expense of putting something up there, they are going to keep track of what and where it is? The resolution doesn't mandate how an individual nation decides to identify its orbital space equipment. That is left up to you. Radio tracking or even just painting your flag on it will do, as two examples.

Where does the resolution say the UN will be responsible for identifying stuff from nations that no longer exist? You are reading more into this than it says. All it urges nations to do is clean up the unidentifiable junk, it doesn't say it then has to be identified. The only mandate of identification is current UN nations being able to identify their own stuff, and own up if it is causing a problem.

This resolution isn't about forcing all UN nations to clean up space. It is about forcing nations using orbital space to keep track of what they put up there, and deal with their own equipment if it poses a danger to other nations property or people. The rest of it under the urges and encourages clauses are just that, urges and encouragement, and any nation that wishes to is free to ignore those clauses if they want to.

(This is in response to Cardiland, forgot to hit the quote button).

Without all due respect, my government has voted for this excellent resolution and while the Mikitivity-UNA staff was entering the resolution into the NSWiki archieve last night (in anticipation of its passing), they asked my staff to double check their short summary of the resolution -- and their staff and my legal staff actually do describe this resolution as forcing all space-fairing UN members to adopt some degree of standards to help to clean up orbital space. The key words there are "help to", because this resolution, as you are well aware, carefully choose language to make clear what were mandates and what were simply suggestions. OOC: I honestly believe this resolution is incredibly well worded, congrats!

I'd like to point to and highlight parts of two clauses from the resolution text:

Strongly encourages all nations with equipment in orbital space to co-operate with each other and share information and technology both to reduce the amount of space debris currently in orbit, and to improve methods of repair, retrieval or safe destruction of malfunctioning equipment in the future.

Urges all UN nations to work together to clean up unidentifiable and/or small space debris currently in orbital space, as much as they are technologically and/or financially able to assist, to ensure a cleaner, safer, environment for those nations with equipment and/or personnel in that environment, to reduce the possibility of objects damaging working equipment, and to reduce the danger of large pieces of debris falling back to the planet.

Clearly the resolution really wants nations to work together, which frankly is going to be a cost savings for the nations that are space capable. As I pointed out, my government has taken these clauses to heart and already has started scheduling time at the Hauer Observatory in Mikitivity to plot out and track debris that is in orbits that are decaying (this program will simply be a government sponsored addition to the Tracking Near Earth Objects program, and very likely will result in the construction of a new facility in the Thuvians). And it should be public knowledge by all now, that the new small moon in orbit around NationStates is no small moon, but a satellite killing, fulling armed and operational ray shield and mini-bear and farm boy proof Cluichstani battle station!

I believe when opponents to this measure are talking about increased costs, that they might be talking about the two above voluntary clauses (which you've correctly pointed out) ... I just wanted to suggest that I really think these opponents are already looking at participating in these programs, even if they are voluntary and are just grumbly a small bit.

Howie T. Katzman

So this proposal has no added U.N. cost?

I have dealt with bureacracy's before, if this proposal is passed a committee will be in charge of seeing it is carried out. Such committee's often liberally interpret "urges" to inflict sanctions on non-complying individuals.

But for the moment, let us assume they do not.

Just who is to determine what constitutes a "hazard"? Does each nation do so itself? In which case, this entire proposal amounts to "do whatever the heck you want, but pretend to care about the environment".

Or does any complaint require immediate action. For example, Cardiland might feel that the presence of a "death star" in orbit around the planet constitutes a grave threat. After all, there is an almost non-existent chance that a farmer boy, a smuggler, and a tart could come together, locate a weak spot in the defenses of the station and destroy it. As top scientists have demonstrated, the destruction of such a station in orbit around a planet would result in the destruction of all life on that planet(http://www.theforce.net/swtc/holocaust.html).

Balancing the slim chance of such an action against the complete destruction of all life on Earth, Cardiland could demand the immediate removal and dismantaling of the so called Death Star with U.N. backing.

Or perhaps someone else will demand the removal of a nuclear sattelite from orbit because even though it would completely disentgrate upon re-entry, the radioactive materials could potentially reach the planet, causing potential cancers to occur at some vague point in the future.

If all of this fantasy comes at zero cost to U.N. member states, than the proposal is worthless.

If however this proposal is enforced, it would require a committee to handle disputes, and highly trained scientists to investigate disputes. And speaking from personal experience, Cardiland has found that highly trained scientists cost a great deal of money to support even when their families are being helf host.....erm, being entertained as guests of the state. Wow, will you look at the time? I must be going.

If all of this fantasy comes at zero cost to U.N. member states, than the proposal is worthless.

If however this proposal is enforced, it would require a committee to handle disputes, and highly trained scientists to investigate disputes. And speaking from personal experience, Cardiland has found that highly trained scientists cost a great deal of money to support even when their families are being helf host.....erm, being entertained as guests of the state. Wow, will you look at the time? I must be going.

Clearly you're governments space fairing capabilities are honestly not up to the tasks outlined in this resolution, as if they were, you'd have noticed the new small moon sized object now orbiting NationStates. It is a Cluichstani battle station, and is here at their cost ... which also disputes your assertion that this resolution comes at no cost to UN member states.

What it results in is no cost to UN member states that have no space programs. It also results in minimal increases in costs in the design and maintence of unmanned orbital artifical satellites, but Witchcliff and others have pointed out that there will be no costs increased for manned spacecraft, as the are generally designed to not kill the astro/cosmonauts inside the craft.

While it is true that there are some costs for voluntary programs, even those are trivial. For decades my government has focused its space sciences on unmanned programs, particularly passive ground based astronomical observation. Two years ago this assembly adopted a resolution asking nations to cooperate and share information on Near Earth Objects (earth is a word many nations use to describe our planet that the UN resides on in NationStates). That program was implemented in nations any number of ways, but I believe many governments simply increased a bit of spending (or reallocated spending) for their space sciences programs. Since that time, some governments have been developing ways to better share astronomical data. For my government, finding orbital debris is incidental to our continuous quest to find and indentify new objects that threaten NationStates, and really all this resolution is calling upon the people of Mikitivity to do is just freely share our information regarding objects in orbit (and we really do find most of them ... even the supposedly stealthy satellites).

The Mikitivity Council of Mayors (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Council_of_Mayors) is already delibrating to expand our NEOT program to higher an additional staffer to collect information on ground observations of satellites and then determine the rate of decay of these objects and pass that information along to other nations. In the short term, this individual will very likely just join the staff at the Hauer Observatory (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hauer_Observatory). There is no need for a UN Committee and the costs we are talking about are far less than the costs we've now spend arguing this issue.

Howie T. Katzman

So this proposal has no added U.N. cost?

I'll say it plainly: no cost to non-UN members. The entire point of the resolution is to force space-faring nations to clean up their space junk, which could fall form orbit and cause great harm on a planet. As I have previously stated, the Empire encompasses a great many worlds; and this could become a big problem.

I have dealt with bureacracy's before, if this proposal is passed a committee will be in charge of seeing it is carried out. Such committee's often liberally interpret "urges" to inflict sanctions on non-complying individuals.

Uhhh... unless there is a magical, secret part of the resolution that noone but the honorable representative from Cardiland can see, no. There will be no committee, no sanctions. The UN will pass the resolution, and it will immediatley come into effect. Everyone will comply according to the rules of the game.

But for the moment, let us assume they do not.

Yes, lets.

Just who is to determine what constitutes a "hazard"? Does each nation do so itself? In which case, this entire proposal amounts to "do whatever the heck you want, but pretend to care about the environment".

Wrong. The resolution spells out what needs to be cleared up. That's all that is necessary: the resolution provides a standard and the member nations willf follow that standard.

Or does any complaint require immediate action. For example, Cardiland might feel that the presence of a "death star" in orbit around the planet constitutes a grave threat. After all, there is an almost non-existent chance that a farmer boy, a smuggler, and a tart could come together, locate a[ weak spot in the defenses of the station and destroy it. As top scientists have demonstrated, the destruction of such a station in orbit around a planet would result in the destruction of all life on that planet(http://www.theforce.net/swtc/holocaust.html).

Complaint? What on earth are you talking about? Is the honorable represenative form Cardiland being sarcastic, or does he seriously not understand that some nations have a higher tech level than others?

Balancing the slim chance of such an action against the complete destruction of all life on Earth, Cardiland could demand the immediate removal and dismantaling of the so called Death Star with U.N. backing.

Or perhaps someone else will demand the removal of a nuclear sattelite from orbit because even though it would completely disentgrate upon re-entry, the radioactive materials could potentially reach the planet, causing potential cancers to occur at some vague point in the future.

See, the Cluichstani Death Star isn't space junk. Therefore, this resolution has no effect on it. And, since the honorable representative form Cardilan apparently hasn't heard the previous debate, it is very possible for large objects to penetrate the atmosphere of a planet and cause serious damage. That's what happened to all those dinosaurs.

Or did you think they all went on vacation?

If all of this fantasy comes at zero cost to U.N. member states, than the proposal is worthless.

It doesn't.

If however this proposal is enforced, it would require a committee to handle disputes, and highly trained scientists to investigate disputes. And speaking from personal experience, Cardiland has found that highly trained scientists cost a great deal of money to support even when their families are being helf host.....erm, being entertained as guests of the state. Wow, will you look at the time? I must be going.

The Empire thanks you for your opinion.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

I’ve voted against it because I think it is in the first instance, unnecessary, and in the second, detrimental to the future of space research and travel.

I would insist that it is highly necessary. I'd hate to have to bring up the mythical universe of the so called real world, but with only a couple of major space nations and a handful of minor nations. Never the less, space junk in various orbits is reaching a critical level. The United States spends a significant amount of money trying to track the major problems. A good hit by a relatively small object while it's orbit could result in another space shuttle disaster.

In the NS universe with the average region's population equivalent to the entire RW earth, the number of nations with active space agencies must be in the hundreds. The potential space debris has to be significant. Every single dropped piece of equipment, every failed satellite, even debris due to collisions between objects in space.

One can do the math and do the numbers. "No cost to the members?" That's got to be a laugh, the potential cost from space debris has got to be far greater than the costs of cleanup, because those nations with potential space debris are the same nations who are loosing money because their satellites are hitting things in orbit and malfunctioning.

Its "another stupid telegram" time. Just recieved this one..

The Federation of Teilavei
Received: 47 minutes ago

Hey dickweed, your porposal as got to be the stupidest thing I ever seen. How the hell did you ever succeed with a stupid attitude like that. I'm so glad I'm not ruled by you!
This lovely effort is from a nation five minutes old, and not in the UN. Besides, doesn't a porposal belong in a dolphins proposal? :p

Pretty much yes, we are looking for a contract. Why, do you know somebody?As a highly technologically advanced nation, we'd be able to eliminate any junk you might leave in orbit for a modest fee.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

As a highly technologically advanced nation, we'd be able to eliminate any junk you might leave in orbit for a modest fee.


How much is modest? The last time someone offered to something for a modest fee, it involved first born sons.

Sun Loyalds

Its "another stupid telegram" time. Just recieved this one..


This lovely effort is from a nation five minutes old, and not in the UN. Besides, doesn't a porposal belong in a dolphins proposal? :p

My guess is that this player sends a multitude of these sorts of telegrams. Though it makes more work for the moderators, if you leave the telegram in your inbox and file a complaint, if the guy continues to do that, they might warn him.

why don't we do something about the garbage and assorted tash objects on the planet that we live on before we start hopping around over garbage in space? do something about the trash issues where you are instead of worrying about orbiting tin cans.

do something about the trash issues where you are instead of worrying about orbiting tin cans.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the honourable delegate from the oddly named Fish Bowl Isle, and suggest that he put his money where his mouth is.

In other words: Don't complain about people not doing it; do it yourself.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

why don't we do something about the garbage and assorted tash objects on the planet that we live on before we start hopping around over garbage in space? do something about the trash issues where you are instead of worrying about orbiting tin cans.
We already have (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=154).

What a relief.

The resolution Orbital Space Safety Act was passed 10,523 votes to 3,108, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Congrats Witchcliff.

We applaud the delegation from Witchcliff for the passing of this resolution.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Congratulations to our distinguished friend and colleague from Witchcliff on the passage of this excellent resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Yeah, congratulations! Now we get to wait and see which feeble-minded dweeb is gonna submit a repeal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Jey congratulates Witchcliff on the passing of this resolution. :)

The people of Ariddia also express their congratulations to the delegation from Witchcliff for succeeding with this very good resolution.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

His Most Excellent Imperial Majesty sends his personal congratulations to Witchcliff for the authorship of such a fine resolution.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

Thanks everyone.

And thanks to all who helped defend it in this thread. I appreciate it :).

I commend the Queendom of Witchcliff in getting other nations to pay for their space cleanup.

I notice that thanks to that oh so voluntarily "urges" clause, since Cardiland does not have a space program, we have had to increase income taxes by over 20% to pay for this program.

And why? Because nations such as Witchcliff already tax every single cent their citizens make and are STILL not able to make ends meet.

So instead of handling their space junk responsibly, they convinced the other nations to force all UN member states to pay for THEIR cleanup.

Next time Witchcliff opens their mouth and claims their proposals have no cost, I hope everyone remembers how they suckered you all into paying for their cleanup.

Well done Witchcliff, well done indeed. :-)

I commend the Queendom of Witchcliff in getting other nations to pay for their space cleanup.

I notice that thanks to that oh so voluntarily "urges" clause, since Cardiland does not have a space program, we have had to increase income taxes by over 20% to pay for this program.

And why? Because nations such as Witchcliff already tax every single cent their citizens make and are STILL not able to make ends meet.

So instead of handling their space junk responsibly, they convinced the other nations to force all UN member states to pay for THEIR cleanup.

Next time Witchcliff opens their mouth and claims their proposals have no cost, I hope everyone remembers how they suckered you all into paying for their cleanup.

Well done Witchcliff, well done indeed. :-)

We don't have a space program, and the resolution doesn't make nations pay for other nations clean ups. What happens with the game stats when a resolution passes is out of my control. All I had control over was what went into the resolution, and that only forces nations to pay for and clean up after themselves.

congrats

Funny, my taxes didn't go up a single cent.

How much is modest? The last time someone offered to something for a modest fee, it involved first born sons.Well, I was going to say that I have no interest in your podlings and that our fees would be rather mild as the expense to us is nearly non-existant. However, seeing your baffling, yammering rant on the passage of this, I think I'll take back my offer.

I'd say nothing personal, but... well... it is personal. This is an international forum; you would do well to keep that in mind before popping off about how evil big countries are.


But, if there are any sane nations out there who would like some help with clean up, just stop by my office.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

OC: just playing to character, I hope I didn't offend you.

IC: "I don't view big countries as evil, my own nation is hardly what one might call moral but I apologise for offence caused Ambassador, we will just have to look elsewhere I suppose."

The old man turned to Witchcliff and smiled, well what he would call a smile others called a grimace.

"Well done to all in Witchcliff who did so much to create this well thought out proposal and we are glad it has passed."

I offer my late and very profound congratulations to the Ambassador for Witchcliffe. You got it passed in the end and you kept going tenaciously until you'd done so. Bravo!

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

And it should be public knowledge by all now, that the new small moon in orbit around NationStates is no small moon, but a satellite killing, fulling armed and operational ray shield and mini-bear and farm boy proof Cluichstani battle station!

Indeed it is, and we're fully prepared to use it.

See, the Cluichstani Death Star isn't space junk.

No, it most certainly is not.

Therefore, this resolution has no effect on it. And, since the honorable representative form Cardilan apparently hasn't heard the previous debate, it is very possible for large objects to penetrate the atmosphere of a planet and cause serious damage. That's what happened to all those dinosaurs.

The Death Star's turbolasers can also penetrate the atmosphere. *chuckle* Just something for the...*cough*...honourable representative from Cardiland to consider...


Beware Cluichstan

Indeed.

We would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the delegation from Witchcliff for the passage of this excellent resolution.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic congratulates the government of Witchcliff on the passage of this resolution ([OOC] even though voting for it may cost me the forthcoming election for regional delegate, because apparently a number of the Conservative Paradise's other members base their opinions about resolutions purely on the gameplay effects -- which, in this case, hurt their economies -- rather than on the roleplay ones...).
We also announce that all the other members of the Godwinnian Commonwealth, although they are outside of the UN, will be complying voluntarily with this resolution.

As will the United States of Allemande. We congratulate the NSUN on a wise and thoughtful decision.