Question about space law

[Gorn]

My understanding (I am not an attorney) is that the law and treaties regarding what happens in orbit is basically, "nobody owns any orbital real estate." For example, the several nations who have contributed to ISS collectively "own" ISS itself, but they don't own that particular orbital radius, nor do they own the space around ISS, etc.

Let's say that nations X and Y are both signatories to the international treaties governing space operations. X puts a manned space station into LEO, and Y sends up its own manned craft. To keep it simple, X and Y are the sole owners of their respective crafts and both are entirely public operations; they're not spy platforms, neither carry state secrets or highly classified technology, etc. Just in case it makes any difference, Y's craft is launched after X's space station is already in orbit and populated.

Here are my questions. In neither case does Y's craft impact or dock with X's station, it just makes a very close approach. Nor do the cases involve emergency situations; Y's craft is not in distress, losing O2, out of control, or something like that. And in both cases, nation Y doesn't give prior notice to or get any permission from nation X.

1) What happens if Y's craft makes a very close pass to X's station at high relative velocity, say within a single km at relative V of 100 m/s?

2) What happens if Y's craft approaches and rendezvouses (sp?) with X's station, nulls all relative velocity, and just "hangs out" a few hundred meters away from X's station.

Do the treaties cover situations like these? In general, I'm wondering if a nation has any "property rights" at all for the space immediately around a spacecraft, and if it does, how far do those rights extend? Thanks,

Danny

 

[Belisarius]

Wow, that's an intriguing question. I have no real idea, but I guess the case would be handled as a civil law case of damages. Not physical damage, of course, but the "stress and anxiety" caused by the approach.

 

[joeybigO]

I happen to know about this law. There are no propriety rights in space. However astronauts are subject to US law inside the spacestation, as well as other countries law. No astronaut may board the US module without prior consent.

To your question though. There is a law of collisions that do not allow rendezvous with another spacecraft without prior consent. A closely approaching vessel would be subject to say Y's law if approaching. Now it also could be interepreted as a hostile action and seen as a threat and I guess Y's group NATO or whatever would get involved. For if they pass close to the ISS you're asking for it due to that would be considered an act towards a cooperative international effort.

 

[GregBurch]

I don't know whether there are international conventions on this. A very quick search didn't turn anything up. The law is clear that spacecraft are basically governed by the same principles as maritime "flag" law, i.e. the law of the country whose flag the spacecraft bears is the law that applies inside the spacecraft.

I was tangentially involved in one real space law case (the salvage of the Palapa B satellite on STS-51A), and was pretty well satisfied that maritime law works for just about any situation you can imagine in astronautics.

 

[Jarvitä]

I don't know whether there are international conventions on this. A very quick search didn't turn anything up. The law is clear that spacecraft are basically governed by the same principles as maritime "flag" law, i.e. the law of the country whose flag the spacecraft bears is the law that applies inside the spacecraft.

I was tangentially involved in one real space law case (the salvage of the Palapa B satellite on STS-51A), and was pretty well satisfied that maritime law works for just about any situation you can imagine in astronautics.

So how does that work with the ISS, which has US, Russian, Japanese and various European flags painted on the outside?

 

[GregBurch]

So how does that work with the ISS, which has US, Russian, Japanese and various European flags painted on the outside?

I don't know, but I'm guessing that issues that occur in the American section would be governed by US law, Russian law would govern in the Russian sections, etc. Since it's unlikely that any real "legal" issues could arise on the ISS, the question is likely of merely theoretical interest, though.

 

[tblaxland]

So how does that work with the ISS, which has US, Russian, Japanese and various European flags painted on the outside?

I don't know, but I'm guessing that issues that occur in the American section would be governed by US law, Russian law would govern in the Russian sections, etc. Since it's unlikely that any real "legal" issues could arise on the ISS, the question is likely of merely theoretical interest, though.

Greg, according to ESA, you are correct. See here:
http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESAH7O0VMOC_iss_0.html

@Jarvita, it doesn't matter what flags are painted on the outside of the module. The ownership is determined by who registers the module/equipment/etc under the International Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).

On what legal issues may arise, criminal issues are very unlikely. Liability is mostly taken care of with a 'cross-waiver of liability' with some exceptions (see link above for more info). The ESA article also contains an interesting discussion on intellectual property rights.

 

[joeybigO]

I don't know whether there are international conventions on this. A very quick search didn't turn anything up. The law is clear that spacecraft are basically governed by the same principles as maritime "flag" law, i.e. the law of the country whose flag the spacecraft bears is the law that applies inside the spacecraft.

I was tangentially involved in one real space law case (the salvage of the Palapa B satellite on STS-51A), and was pretty well satisfied that maritime law works for just about any situation you can imagine in astronautics.

Your looking for the wrong authority. I really shouldn't say that however the Federal Air Regulations define these laws.

 

[Hielor]

America has proven that it has the capability to shoot down objects in LEO. It would be unwise, I think, to perform actions that could be perceived as threats to American interests in space.

Yes, I know that's not how it works. But it still sounds kinda cool. Kinda mobster-ish, actually. Instead of "sleeping with the fishes" it's "sleeping with the satellites."

 

[Gorn]

Thanks for the replies!

Greg > I was tangentially involved in one real space law case (the salvage of the Palapa B satellite on STS-51A), and was pretty well satisfied that maritime law works for just about any situation you can imagine in astronautics.

So unlike me, you're a real attorney then? Cool ...

Greg > and was pretty well satisfied that maritime law works for just about any situation you can imagine in astronautics.

Makes sense. I dunno much about the law, but I do know there's a reason why aviation uses terms like "airports" and "pilot in command." Doesn't surprise me that space law would also be based on a maritime model. Based on that, I did a little further digging ...

I found some comparable stuff in what I believe (to my naive reading) is maritime law. The US Coast Guard site has the "International Rules" which "were formalized in the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, and became effective on July 15, 1977." (http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/intlinland.htm)

The rules themselves are at http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rotr_online.htm , and while I haven't looked at the specific provisions, there's an FAQ at http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/navrules_faq.htm

From the FAQ item, "What is a safe passing distance for vessels?"

According to Rule 16 there is no specified distance one must keep when crossing, meeting, or overtaking another vessel, other than, as the give-way vessel, you are to keep well clear.
As to what distance a vessel may be required to take action to avoid collision, it will vary, however it should be in accordance with Rule 6, Safe Speed, and Rule 8, Action to Avoid Collision. These rules which state amongst other things that: Any alteration of course or speed shall be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel and taken early enough to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel and at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
The provisions prescribed in action by the Give-Way Vessel and Stand-On Vessel apply only when vessels are in sight of each other. [italics in origial]

I woulda thought there was some set distance on this, something like "spacecraft may not approach within 10 km of another spacecraft without permission" ... but if maritime and space laws are parallel on this, it looks to me like if Y's craft can do it safely, and X's craft has enough warning that it can take whatever evasive action it wants, it's legal.

Danny