Podcasts about Outer Space Treaty

Hello Interactors,I was in Santa Barbara recently having dinner on a friend's deck when a rocket's contrail streaked the sky. “Another one from Vandenberg,” he said. “Wait a couple minutes — you'll hear it.” And we did. “They've gotten really annoying,” he added. He's not wrong. In early 2024, SpaceX launched seven times more tonnage into space than the rest of the world combined, much of it from Vandenberg Space Force Base (renamed from Air Force Base in 2021). They've already been approved to fly 12,000 Starlink satellites, with filings for 30,000 more.This isn't just future space junk — it's infrastructure. And it's not just in orbit. What Musk is doing in the sky is tied to what he's building on the ground. Not in Vandenberg, where regulation still exists, but in Starbase, Texas, where the law doesn't resist — it assists. There, Musk is testing how much sovereignty one man can claim under the banner of “innovation” — and how little we'll do to stop him.TOWNS TO THRUST AND THRONEMusk isn't just defying gravity — he's defying law. In South Texas, a place called Starbase has taken shape along the Gulf Coast, hugging the edge of SpaceX's rocket launch site. What looks like a town is really something else: a launchpad not just for spacecraft, but for a new form of privatized sovereignty.VIDEO: Time compresses at the edge of Starbase: a slow-built frontier where launch infrastructure rises faster than oversight. Source: Google EarthThis isn't unprecedented. The United States has a long lineage of company towns — places where corporations controlled land, housing, labor, and local government. Pullman, Illinois is the most famous. But while labor historians and economic geographers have documented their economic and social impact, few have examined them as legal structures of power.That's the gap legal scholar Brian Highsmith identifies in Governing the Company Town. That omission matters — because these places aren't just undemocratic. They often function as quasi-sovereign legal shells, designed to serve capital, not people.Incorporation is the trick. In Texas, any area with at least 201 residents can petition to become a general-law municipality. That's exactly what Musk has done. In a recent vote (212 to 6) residents approved the creation of an official town — Starbase. Most of those residents are SpaceX employees living on company-owned land…with a Tesla in the driveway. The result is a legally recognized town, politically constructed. SpaceX controls the housing, the workforce, and now, the electorate. Even the mayor is a SpaceX affiliate. With zoning powers and taxing authority, Musk now holds tools usually reserved for public governments — and he's using them to build for rockets, not residents…unless they're employees.VIDEO: Starbase expands frame by frame, not just as a company town, but as a legal experiment — where land, labor, and law are reassembled to serve orbit over ordinance. Source: Google EarthQuinn Slobodian, a historian of neoliberalism and global capitalism, shows how powerful companies and individuals increasingly use legal tools to redesign borders and jurisdictions to their advantage. In his book, Cracked Up Capitalism, he shows how jurisdiction becomes the secret weapon of the capitalist state around the world. I wrote about a techno-optimist fantasy state on the island of Roatán, part of the Bay Islands in Honduras a couple years ago. It isn't new. Disney used the same playbook in 1967 with Florida's Reedy Creek District — deeding slivers of land to employees to meet incorporation rules, then governing without real opposition. Highsmith draws a straight line to Musk: both use municipal law not to serve the public, but to avoid it. In Texas, beach access is often blocked near Starbase — even when rockets aren't launching. A proposed bill would make ignoring an evacuation order a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by jail.Even if Starbase never fully resembles a traditional town, that's beside the point. What Musk is really revealing isn't some urban design oasis but how municipal frameworks can still be weaponized for private control. Through zoning laws, incorporation statutes, and infrastructure deals, corporations can shape legal entities that resemble cities but function more like logistical regimes.And yet, this tactic draws little sustained scrutiny. As Highsmith reminds us, legal scholarship has largely ignored how municipal tools are deployed to consolidate corporate power. That silence matters — because what looks like a sleepy launch site in Texas may be something much larger: a new form of rule disguised as infrastructure.ABOVE THE LAW, BELOW THE LANDElon Musk isn't just shaping towns — he's engineering systems. His tunnels, satellites, and rockets stretch across and beyond traditional borders. These aren't just feats of engineering. They're tools of control designed to bypass civic oversight and relocate governance into private hands. He doesn't need to overthrow the state to escape regulation. He simply builds around it…and in the case of Texas, with it.Architect and theorist Keller Easterling, whose work examines how infrastructure quietly shapes political life, argues that these systems are not just supports for power — they are power. Infrastructure itself is a kind of operating system for shaping the city, states, countries…and now space.Starlink, SpaceX's satellite constellation, provides internet access to users around the world. In Ukraine, it became a vital communications network after Russian attacks on local infrastructure. Musk enabled access — then later restricted it. He made decisions with real geopolitical consequences. No president. No Congress. Just a private executive shaping war from orbit.And it's not just Ukraine. Starlink is now active in dozens of countries, often without formal agreements from national regulators. It bypasses local telecom laws, surveillance rules, and data protections. For authoritarian regimes, that makes it dangerous. But for democracies, it raises a deeper question: who governs the sky?Right now, the answer is: no one. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 assumes that nation-states, not corporations, are the primary actors in orbit. But Starlink functions in a legal grey zone, using low Earth orbit as a loophole in international law…aided and abetted by the U.S. defense department.VIDEO: Thousands of Starlink satellites, visualized in low Earth orbit, encircle the planet like a privatized exosphere—reshaping global communication while raising questions of governance, visibility, and control. Source: StarlinkThe result is a telecom empire without borders. Musk commands a growing share of orbital infrastructure but answers to no global regulator. The International Telecommunication Union can coordinate satellite spectrum, but it can't enforce ethical or geopolitical standards. Musk alone decides whether Starlink aids governments, rebels, or armies. As Quinn Slobodian might put it, this is exception-making on a planetary scale.Now let's go underground. The Boring Company digs high-speed tunnels beneath cities like Las Vegas, sidestepping standard planning processes. These projects often exclude transit agencies and ignore public engagement. They're built for select users, not the public at large. Local governments, eager for tech-driven investment, offer permits and partnerships — even if it means circumventing democratic procedures.Taken together — Starlink above, Boring Company below, Tesla charging networks on the ground — Musk's empire moves through multiple layers of infrastructure, each reshaping civic life without formal accountability. His systems carry people, data, and energy — but not through the public channels meant to regulate them. They're not overseen by voters. They're not authorized by democratic mandate. Yet they profoundly shape how people move, communicate, and live.Geographer Deborah Cowen, whose research focuses on the global logistics industry, argues that infrastructure like ports, fiber-optic cables, and pipelines have become tools of geopolitical strategy. Logistics as a form of war by other means. Brian Highsmith argues this is a form of “functional fragmentation” — breaking governance into layers and loopholes that allow corporations to sidestep collective control. These aren't mere workarounds. They signal a deeper shift in how power is organized — not just across space, but through it.This kind of sovereignty is easy to miss because it doesn't always resemble government. But when a private actor controls transit systems, communication networks, and even military connectivity — across borders, beneath cities, and in orbit — we're not just dealing with infrastructure. We're dealing with rule.And, just like with company towns, the legal scholarship is struggling to catch up. These layered, mobile, and non-territorial regimes challenge our categories of law and space alike. What these fantastical projects inspire is often awe. But what they should require is law.AMNESIA AIDS THE AMBITIOUSElon Musk may dazzle with dreams full-blown, but the roots of his power are not his own. The United States has a long tradition of private actors ruling like governments — with public blessing. These aren't outliers. They're part of a national pattern, deeply embedded in our legal geography: public authority outsourced to private ambition.The details vary, but the logic repeats. Whether it's early colonial charters, speculative land empires, company towns, or special districts carved for tech campuses, American history is full of projects where law becomes a scaffold for private sovereignty. Rather than recount every episode, let's just say from John Winthrop to George Washington to Walt Disney to Elon Musk, America has always made room for men who rule through charters, not elections.Yet despite the frequency of these arrangements, the scholarship has been oddly selective.According to Highsmith, legal academia has largely ignored the institutional architecture that makes company towns possible in the first place: incorporation laws, zoning frameworks, municipal codes, and districting rules. These aren't neutral bureaucratic instruments. They're jurisdictional design tools, capable of reshaping sovereignty at the micro-scale. And when used strategically, they can be wielded by corporations to create functional states-within-a-state — governing without elections, taxing without consent, and shaping public life through private vision.From a critical geography perspective, the problem is just as stark. Scholars have long studied the uneven production of space — how capital reshapes landscapes to serve accumulation. But here, space isn't just produced — it's governed. And it's governed through techniques of legal enclosure, where a patch of land becomes a jurisdictional exception, and a logistics hub or tech campus becomes a mini-regime.Starbase, Snailbrook, Reedy Creek, and even Google's Sidewalk Labs are not just spatial projects — they're sovereign experiments in spatial governance, where control is layered through contracts, tax breaks, and municipal proxies.But these arrangements don't arise in a vacuum. Cities often aren't choosing between public and private control — they're choosing between austerity and access to cash. In the United States, local governments are revenue-starved by design. Most lack control over income taxes or resource royalties, and depend heavily on sales taxes, property taxes, and development fees. This creates a perverse incentive: to treat corporations not as entities to regulate, but as lifelines to recruit and appease.Desperate for jobs and investment, cities offer zoning concessions, infrastructure deals, and tax abatements, even when they come with little democratic oversight or long-term guarantees. Corporate actors understand this imbalance — and exploit it. The result is a form of urban hostage-taking, where governance is bartered piecemeal in exchange for the promise of economic survival.A more democratized fiscal structure — one that empowers cities through equitable revenue-sharing, progressive taxation, or greater control over land value capture — might reduce this dependency. It would make it possible for municipalities to plan with their citizens instead of negotiating against them. It would weaken the grip of corporate actors who leverage scarcity into sovereignty. But until then, as long as cities are backed into a fiscal corner, we shouldn't be surprised when they sell off their power — one plot or parking lot at a time.Highsmith argues that these structures demand scrutiny — not just for their economic impact, but for their democratic consequences. These aren't just quirks of local law. They are the fault lines of American federalism — where localism becomes a loophole, and fragmentation becomes a formula for private rule.And yet, these systems persist with minimal legal friction and even less public awareness. Because they don't always look like sovereignty. Sometimes they look like a housing deal. A fast-tracked zoning change. A development district with deferred taxes. A campus with private shuttles and subsidized utilities. They don't announce themselves as secessions — but they function that way.We've been trained to see these projects as innovation, not governance. As entrepreneurship, not policy. But when a company owns the homes, builds the roads, controls the data, and sets the rules, it's not just offering services — it's exercising control. As political theorist Wendy Brown has argued, neoliberalism reshapes civic life around the image of the entrepreneur, replacing democratic participation with market performance.That shift plays out everywhere: universities run like corporations, cities managed like startups. Musk isn't the exception — he's the clearest expression of a culture that mistakes private ambition for public good. Musk once tweeted, “If you must know, I am a utopian anarchist of the kind best described by Iain Banks.” In a New York Times article, Jill Lepore quoted Banks as saying his science fiction books were about “'hippy commies with hyper-weapons and a deep distrust of both Marketolatry and Greedism.' He also expressed astonishment that anyone could read his books as promoting free-market libertarianism, asking, ‘Which bit of not having private property and the absence of money in the Culture novels have these people missed?'”The issue isn't just that we've allowed these takeovers — it's that we've ignored the tools enabling them: incorporation, annexation, zoning, and special districts. As Brian Highsmith notes, this quiet shift in power might not have surprised one of our constitution authors, James Madison, but it would have troubled him. In Federalist No. 10, Madison warned not of monarchs, but of factions — small, organized interests capturing government for their own ends. His solution was restraint through scaling oppositional voices. “The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed...and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.”— James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (1787)Today, the structure meant to restrain factions has become their playbook. These actors don't run for office — they arrive with charters, contracts, and capital. They govern not in the name of the people, but of “efficiency” and “innovation.” And they don't need to control a nation when a zoning board will do.Unchecked, we risk mistaking corporate control for civic order — and repeating a pattern we've barely begun to name.We were told, sold, and promised a universe of shared governance — political, spatial, even orbital. But Madison didn't trust promises. He trusted structure. He feared what happens when small governments fall to powerful interests — when law becomes a lever for private gain. That fear now lives in legal districts, rocket towns, and infrastructure built to rule. Thousands of satellites orbit the Earth, not launched by publics, but by one man with tools once reserved for states. What was once called infrastructure now governs. What was once geography now obeys.Our maps may still show roads and rails and pipes and ports — but not the fictions beneath them, or the factions they support.References:Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism's stealth revolution. Zone Books.Cowen, D. (2014). The deadly life of logistics: Mapping violence in global trade. University of Minnesota Press.Easterling, K. (2014). Extrastatecraft: The power of infrastructure space. Verso Books.Highsmith, B. (2022). Governing the company town: How employers use local government to seize political power. Yale Law Journal.Madison, J. (1787). Federalist No. 10. In A. Hamilton, J. Madison, & J. Jay, The Federalist Papers. Bantam Books (2003 edition).Slobodian, Q. (2023). Crack-Up Capitalism: Market radicals and the dream of a world without democracy. Metropolitan Books. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

More than 15,000 satellites are currently in orbit around our planet, with this number growing every year. For UBC's Dr. Aaron Boley, this raises some red flags about the problem of space junk. An expert in the field of space sustainability, Boley chats with Carol and Jeevan about the practical risks we face from space junk as well as the politics of space. He also dispels the myths justifying the practice of abandoning rocket components and other objects in space — and considers all that we might lose if we continue down our current path. LINKSContact CarolContact JeevanFrom Here ForwardACBoley | UBC Physics & AstronomyAaron BoleyAaron Boley - Co-Director | LinkedInOuter Space Institute (00:00) - Introduction (02:13) - What Is Space Junk? (03:43) - Risks of Space Debris on Earth (08:09) - Society's Dependence on Satellite Technology (14:30) - Cultural and Ethical Impacts of Space Use (16:37) - The Legal Framework Governing Outer Space (20:35) - Attribution and Liability for Space Debris (21:38) - Humanity's Repeating Mistake (26:35) - The Military Roots and Dangers of Space Activity (28:23) - Outer Space Institute: Working Towards Solutions (32:05) - How the Public Can Get Involved (34:57) - Conclusion

It's been a bad few months (and years and decades) for the global commons. Chinese trawlers have repeatedly knocked out internet cables in international waters. Outer space is being militarized by Russia and others, threatening the demilitarized posture adopted by the Outer Space Treaty. Chinese hackers are using cyber weapons to infiltrate the U.S. Treasury through the Salt Typhoon hacks, while Antarctica is being explored by multiple militaries in contravention of the peace proposed in the the Antarctic Treaty. Then there's the decline of the information commons, where paywalls increasingly move critical news and data out of reach of citizens. In short, the global commons is losing primacy. Friend of the podcast Scott Bade highlighted this theme for geopolitical strategy firm Eurasia Group's annual Top Risks report, and we decided to follow up with our own Riskgaming conversation. So Danny Crichton and Laurence Pevsner teamed up to talk through the global commons and what's endangering it. We discuss the privatization and securitization of the commons, how post-World War II institutions are buckling under new pressures from rising powers, why technology is both helping and hurting, and finally, what America can do as a nation to stay open under threat. Produced by ⁠⁠Chris Gates⁠⁠ Music by ⁠⁠George Ko

Some people call him the Space Lawyer, some call him an entrepreneur... in today's episode, Kevin and Laura dive into the laws of the cosmos with Christopher Hearsey, an accomplished space executive, lawyer, and entrepreneur with nearly two decades of leadership in the space industry. With expertise spanning space law, mission management, and strategy, Chris provides unique insights into the challenges and opportunities in the growing space economy. We kick off by answering a fundamental question: what does a space lawyer do? Chris explains the origins of space law, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and how these foundational principles apply to today's technological advancements like reusable rockets and private moon missions. He details key topics such as Moore's Law in space, the role of space in telecommunications technology, and the regulatory complexities of landing commercial habitats on the moon. Chris explains how space governance works, who gets to send missions to space, own property, and govern activities in space. We also cover space piracy, interplanetary lawsuits, and the cultural significance of space exploration. Chris also shares his thoughts on ethical considerations in space exploration, the challenges of colonizing Mars, and what it will take for commercial moon flights to become a reality. Plus, we get his take on important pop culture questions like Mulder or Scully? and hear about Kevin's "all-expenses-paid" space travel deal—with a twist. Tune in for a mix of deep space insights, practical advice for aspiring space entrepreneurs, and a little humor as we explore humanity's legal path to the stars.Christopher Hearsey is an experienced space executive, space lawyer, and entrepreneur with almost two decades of leadership in the space industry. Since 2018, Chris has been the Founder and CEO of OSA Consulting, a strategic advisory and management consulting firm specializing in supporting early-stage tech and space startups. Through OSA Consulting, he has guided emerging companies in navigating challenges and achieving growth in competitive markets, working to send people and things to space. Previously, Chris served as Chief Strategy Officer at Rogue Space Systems, where he drove strategic initiatives and expanded the company's influence in the space sector leading efforts to launch the company's first satellite Barry-1 in 2023. As CEO of Exolaunch US, he established and managed the North American operations of the German-based launch reservation and mission management provider, overseeing business development, customer relations, and market expansion. His earlier roles include Corporate Counsel and Director of DC Operations & Legislative Affairs at Bigelow Aerospace, where he helped deploy the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) to the International Space Station in 2015.Chris holds a bachelor's degree in Mathematical Physics and Economics and advanced degrees in law and space studies, including a Juris Doctor in Air and Space Law (Honors). He is also Cofounder, Chairman, and Treasurer of the Space Court Foundation, a multinational nonprofit dedicated to the promotion of space law education and the rule of law offering global internship and research opportunities. Chris lives with his family in Maryland where he ran for office in Maryland's 6th Congressional District in 2018.

Astronomy Daily - The Podcast: S03E236Welcome to Astronomy Daily, your trusted source for the latest in space and astronomy news. I'm your host, Anna, and today we have a captivating lineup of stories that span from technological breakthroughs on Earth to ancient cosmic mysteries.Highlights:- New Zealand's Starlink Milestone: Discover how New Zealand is making history as the first country to offer nationwide direct-to-smartphone messaging through SpaceX's Starlink satellite network, revolutionizing connectivity for remote areas.- The Legal Landscape of Space Mining: Delve into the evolving legal framework surrounding space mining, as NASA's Psyche mission highlights the potential of asteroid resources and international agreements shape the future of space resource extraction.- SpaceX's Starship Advances: Get the latest updates on SpaceX's Starship program, as the FAA approves its seventh flight with innovative modifications, paving the way for future suborbital missions and orbital ambitions.- Dormant Black Hole Discovery: Explore the intriguing discovery of a dormant supermassive black hole in the early universe, challenging our understanding of cosmic evolution and the growth of these colossal entities.- Revisiting the Moon's Age: Uncover new research suggesting our Moon might be over 100 million years older than previously thought, offering fresh insights into its formation and early history.For more cosmic updates, visit our website at astronomydaily.io. Sign up for our free Daily newsletter to stay informed on all things space. Join our community on social media by searching for #AstroDailyPod on Facebook, X, YouTube, YouTubeMusic, Tumblr, and TikTok. Share your thoughts and connect with fellow space enthusiasts.Thank you for tuning in. This is Anna signing off. Until next time, keep looking up and stay curious about the wonders of our universe.00:00 - Astronomy Daily brings you the latest fascinating developments in space and astronomy00:51 - New Zealand becomes first country to offer nationwide direct to smartphone messaging through SpaceX03:03 - Legal framework governing space mining is becoming increasingly important05:34 - The FAA has approved SpaceX's seventh flight of their starship vehicle07:35 - Astronomers using the James Webb Space Telescope have spotted an unusual sleeping giant09:44 - New research suggests our lunar neighbor could be 100 million years older than previously estimated11:38 - Anna: Thank you for listening to Astronomy Daily podcast✍️ Episode ReferencesSpaceX[https://www.spacex.com](https://www.spacex.com)Starlink[https://www.starlink.com](https://www.starlink.com)One NZ[https://www.one.nz](https://www.one.nz)T-Mobile[https://www.t-mobile.com](https://www.t-mobile.com)KDDI[https://www.kddi.com](https://www.kddi.com)Rogers[https://www.rogers.com](https://www.rogers.com)NASA[https://www.nasa.gov](https://www.nasa.gov)James Webb Space Telescope[https://www.jwst.nasa.gov](https://www.jwst.nasa.gov)Artemis Accords[https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis-accords/index.html](https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis-accords/index.html)Outer Space Treaty[https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html](https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/astronomy-daily-the-podcast--5648921/support.

How space superpowers came together to create the Outer Space Treaty? Why governments are responsible for private companies' actions in space? What are the challenges facing space law today? - Продолжение разговора с Данканом Блейком, экспертом космического права и законов ведения войны. Узнайте, как космические сверхдержавы заключили Договор о космосе, почему страны отвечают за действия частных компаний в космосе и какие вызовы стоят перед космическим правом сегодня.

The Moon is considered part of humanity's shared heritage and is not owned by any one country, corporation, or individual. This principle is established by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, a cornerstone of space law signed by over 110 countries, including all major spacefaring nations.Key provisions of the treaty include:No Sovereignty: Nations cannot claim sovereignty over the Moon or any celestial body. This means no country can declare the Moon as its territory.Peaceful Purposes: The Moon must only be used for peaceful purposes, prohibiting military bases or weapons of mass destruction.Benefit for All: Space exploration, including activities on the Moon, should benefit all humanity.The Moon Agreement of 1979 attempted to expand on these ideas by suggesting that the Moon and its resources are the "common heritage of mankind" and that resource extraction should be regulated internationally. However, the agreement has been ratified by only a few countries, and none of the major spacefaring nations (like the U.S., Russia, or China) are parties to it.In practice, there's growing ambiguity about how lunar resources will be governed. Recent initiatives like the Artemis Accords (led by NASA) and China's plans for a lunar research station highlight the need for updated frameworks to manage activities such as mining, which could complicate the "public space" concept.So, while the Moon is legally a "public space" under current treaties, the specifics of resource ownership and governance are still evolving. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

International space law has a rich history that offers valuable lessons for today's challenges in protecting humanity's use of outer space. So, what prospect is there that the space powers can agree new laws to ensure a smooth path into the next frontier of space use and exploration? Michelle Chase explores key moments such as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the 1972 ABM Treaty, revealing that self-interest often drives these international agreements. Chase calls for renewed international cooperation, drawing from Cold War-era lessons to manage state competition and protect space from modern threats like warfighting and space debris. Progress? is a UNSW Centre for Ideas project, with illustrations designed by Lucy Klippan, video production by AVI and All things All Creatures, and podcast production by Matt Sladen and Kara Jensen-MacKinnon. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The importance of space safety spans the lifetime of an entire effort – from design and launch to operations and demise.  The International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety (IAASS) brings together experts from across the world to explore technical and governance solutions to better maintain and sustain space activities on Earth, in orbit, and beyond. In this episode Colleen Stover of the Center for Space Policy and Strategy goes on-location to the 13th annual IAASS conference “Building a Safe, Secure, and Sustainable Space” held in Prague, Czech Republic. Stover interviews some key participants about some of these.  Topics are: Increased launch and risk in the US with Maj. Gen. Sean Choquette, US Air Force Chief of Safety Applying the Outer Space Treaty to operational norms with Professor Andrea Harrington, Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, Quebec Technical challenges of lunar rescue with Tommaso Sgobba, Executive Director, IAASS Streamlining commercial launch and reentry in Australia with Justin Hill, Director Flight Safety, Australian Space Agency.   Available by video or podcast. The Space Policy Show is produced by The Aerospace Corporation's Center for Space Policy and Strategy. It is a virtual series covering a broad set of topics that span across the space enterprise. CSPS brings together experts from within Aerospace, the government, academia, business, nonprofits, and the national labs. The show and their podcasts are an opportunity to learn about and to stay engaged with the larger space policy community. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch all episodes!

This Day in Legal History: Outer Space Treaty Enters Into ForceOn October 10, 1967, the Outer Space Treaty, formally known as the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies," entered into force. This landmark agreement established a framework for the peaceful use and exploration of outer space, making it a key pillar of international space law. It was signed by the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, and has since been ratified by over 100 nations.The treaty explicitly prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit, on the Moon, or on any other celestial body. It also bans military activities and the establishment of military bases in space. One of its central tenets is that space is to be used for the benefit of all humankind, with no country allowed to claim sovereignty over outer space or any celestial body.This treaty was negotiated during the height of the Cold War, reflecting both superpowers' mutual interest in preventing the militarization of space. By laying the groundwork for cooperation and peaceful exploration, it paved the way for future international agreements on space activities, including those addressing environmental concerns and the use of space resources. The Outer Space Treaty remains a cornerstone of space law today, as space exploration continues to evolve and expand.The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a $47 million copyright infringement award against Grande Communications Networks LLC, an internet service provider (ISP), on Wednesday. Music publishers, including UMG Recordings and Warner Bros. Records, initially won the award after Grande was found liable for contributing to users' piracy of over 1,400 songs. However, the appeals court ruled that damages should not be awarded for each individual song, but rather for each album, sending the case back to the Texas district court for a new trial on damages. The court affirmed that Grande had failed to prevent repeated piracy by not terminating infringing subscribers, but found that the lower court had erred in its interpretation of statutory damages. This decision aligns with other rulings, such as one involving ISP Cox Communications, where liability for music piracy was affirmed, but damages were reconsidered.Appeals Court Undoes $47 Million Music Piracy Award Against ISPGSK has agreed to settle around 80,000 lawsuits, paying up to $2.2 billion over claims that the discontinued heartburn drug Zantac caused cancer. This settlement covers about 93% of the cases pending in U.S. state courts. The drugmaker maintains that there is no consistent evidence linking Zantac's active ingredient, ranitidine, to cancer but decided to settle to avoid prolonged litigation. Additionally, GSK will pay $70 million to settle a related whistleblower case. Zantac, once a blockbuster drug, faced scrutiny after the FDA in 2020 found that ranitidine could break down into a carcinogen, NDMA. Other pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Sanofi have also reached settlements, but Boehringer Ingelheim continues to face trials. In a recent Delaware ruling, plaintiffs were allowed to present expert testimony linking Zantac to cancer, while a Florida federal court had dismissed around 50,000 cases due to unreliable evidence. GSK agrees to settle about 80,000 Zantac lawsuits for up to $2.2 bln | ReutersFTX investors have voluntarily dropped their class action lawsuit against Sullivan & Cromwell, a prominent U.S. law firm. The investors had accused the firm of aiding FTX's multibillion-dollar fraud and benefiting as FTX's lead bankruptcy counsel. However, lead attorney Adam Moskowitz stated that after reviewing reports by FTX bankruptcy examiner Robert Cleary, there was no valid claim against the law firm. Cleary's reports found no evidence that Sullivan & Cromwell was complicit in FTX's collapse or that it ignored warning signs while representing former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried. Sullivan & Cromwell welcomed the withdrawal of what it called "meritless claims." The lawsuit had alleged that the firm had unique insight into FTX's lack of internal controls and questionable practices. Meanwhile, FTX's bankruptcy plan, approved this week, will allow the company to repay customers using $16.5 billion in recovered assets. Plaintiffs' attorneys also reached a separate agreement with the FTX bankruptcy estate regarding customer claims. FTX investors drop lawsuit against law firm Sullivan & Cromwell | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

John is joined by Mark J. Sundahl, Professor of Law at Cleveland State University College of Law and the Director of the Global Space Law Center. They discuss the evolving law governing activities in outer space. Prof. Sundahl explains that space law originated from concerns during the Cold War when Sputnik, the first Soviet satellite, flew over the U.S., raising fears that nations could potentially place nuclear weapons in space, hovering over and ready to drop on other nations. This led to the creation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, establishing fundamental principles such as "free use of outer space," the prohibition of nuclear weapons and claims of sovereignty on celestial bodies, and the ability of private companies to operate in space under the authorization and supervision of their countries' governments. Prof. Sundahl also explains the international treaties on the rescue of astronauts, liability for space activities and for registration of objects sent to space. They then discuss how liability for damages caused by space objects is becoming increasingly pressing due to the rapidly increasing congestion of satellites and the aging of equipment that has been in orbit for decades. One example Prof. Sundahl discusses is a recent case where a falling piece of an American company's capsule being operated by NASA damaged a house in Florida. He explains that, normally, international treaties impose strict liability on states for surface damage, but incidents within a country are governed by domestic law. He also explains that for damages that occur in orbit, liability issues become complex due to the lack of established norms. Prof. Sundahl then observes that although the United States heavily regulates private companies' activities in space, new challenges have arisen, such as resource extraction on celestial bodies. He explains that although the Outer Space Treaty prohibits sovereignty over the Moon, the U.S. allows companies to own resources extracted from the Moon, a stance that is not universally accepted. Professor Sundahl also describes the legal uncertainty surrounding suborbital and orbital space tourism. He explains that currently, suborbital flights require minimal safety disclosures, and orbital tourism lacks regulation entirely, raising concerns as private companies expand their operations. Finally, Prof. Sundahl explains the growing threat of militarization in space and that, with countries developing military capabilities and the U.S. establishing a Space Force, there is a real risk of conflicts extending beyond Earth.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, signed by the United States and most other nations, now appears to be under fire. The conflict could take many different and largely silent forms, ranging from jamming a GPS satellite to temporarily blinding a sensor with a laser or relying on a cyberattack to disrupt services. Space was meant to be used for peaceful purposes but now it seems that the gloves are off. On tonight's show, Clyde Lewis talks with secret space program researcher and author, Mike Bara about STRATOSFEAR - THE SECRET SPACE WAR.Originally Broadcast On 4/16/19 

In this episode, we're joined by Michelle Hanlon, the Executive Director of the Air and Space Law Program at the University of Mississippi and co-founder of For All Moonkind, to discuss the burgeoning field of space law. Michelle offers a unique glimpse into the legal landscape governing our cosmic ambitions.  Learn about the challenges and implications of the current space treaties, the absence of immigration laws for space, and what this means for the future of space travel and asteroid mining. Michelle delves into the stringent Planetary Protection Protocols outlined in the Outer Space Treaty and their role in preventing contamination of celestial bodies. We also touch on the concept of space heritage, drawing parallels to Earth's conservation efforts, and examine the insufficient protection of lunar landmarks under current international law. With government support helping startups thrive, Michelle predicts a normalized human presence on the moon by 2050 and discusses the broad spectrum of opportunities in the space economy. From specialized spacesuits to agriculture solutions, the possibilities are endless. We also explore how everyday skills on Earth, like cooking and teaching, have valuable applications in space.  In this episode, you'll hear about: The complexities and implications of current space treaties and the absence of immigration laws for space The stringent Planetary Protection Protocols and their role in preventing contamination of celestial bodies Legal challenges of innovations like bacteria that convert metal into soil on Mars The concept of space heritage and the insufficient protection of lunar landmarks under current international law Predictions for the future of the space industry, including a normalized human presence on the moon by 2050 How everyday skills on Earth have valuable applications in space Follow and Review: We'd love for you to follow us if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We'd love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Supporting Resources: Website: forallmoonkind.org Social Links:  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michelle-l-d-hanlon/ X: @hanlonesq  Instagram: @spacelawyerhanlon Facebook: Michelle Slawecki Hanlon Alcorn Immigration Law: Subscribe to the monthly Alcorn newsletter Sophie Alcorn Podcast: Episode 171: Navigating Space Governance, Peace, and Inclusive Leadership Episode 173: In Orbit with Alice Carruth: Insights on Space Exploration, Communication, and Innovation Episode 176: Foreign Workers & Export Controls in the Space Industry: Insights from Jack Shelton Immigration Options for Talent, Investors, and Founders Immigration Law for Tech Startups eBook Alcorn Academy course for best practices for securing the O-1A visa, EB-1A green card, or the EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver) green card—the top options for startup founders. Use promotion code EAB20 for 20% off the enrollment fee.

It's well known that we signed the Outer Space Treaty in 1967 with other countries but did we sign treaties with extraterrestrials in the 1940s and 50s? Were our newly-built intelligence agencies used to hide the reality of alien life? It appears that a cosmic sword of Damocles hangs above us and that it could drop at any time. On tonight's show, Clyde Lewis talks about DAMOCLES - PER ASPERA AD ASTRAOriginally Broadcast On 8/20/19

Professor Giorgio Savini is an astrophysicist at University College London, specialising in instrumentation for space exploration. As a key figure at UCL's Department of Physics and Astronomy, his work bridges the gap between astrophysics and engineering, focusing on the development of cutting-edge technologies for space telescopes and satellite systems. He has been involved in major international consortiums, including working on the Planck Probe's High Frequency Instrument and currently serving as Payload Scientist on the European Space Agency ARIEL mission. In this conversation, we delve into the practical implications of space governance on the work of scientists and technicians tasked with pushing the frontiers of space exploration, why the 1967 Outer Space Treaty is not fit for purposes, the very real dangers posed by Kessler Syndrome (space debris), and what global governance should have to do with it. Giorgio's official profile can be found here: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/physics-astronomy/people/professor-giorgio-savini We discussed: The Outer Space Treaty, 1967: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html The Moon Agreement, 1984: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.html The Artemis Accords, 2020: https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-accords/

Adam, Chris Stone, and Kerry Kartchner discuss Russian space activities and their potential violations of the Outer Space Treaty as well as impact on global security.

In this episode of This Week in Space, Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik discuss the latest updates on Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, the potential for aurora sightings due to increased solar activity, and China's ambitious lunar exploration program with returning guest Mike Wall, Spaceflight Editor at Space.com. The conversation focuses on China's upcoming Chang'e 6 mission, its capabilities, and the implications of China's growing presence on the Moon. The hosts also touch upon the nationalistic aspects of the new space race between the United States and China. Headlines: Boeing's Starliner update: The spacecraft is ready for launch on June 1st, despite recent issues with parachutes, wiring, and helium leaks. Venus Exploration: Japan's Akatsuki probe, currently the only active mission at Venus, has lost contact with JAXA. However, NASA, ESA, and private companies like Rocket Lab are planning future missions to explore the planet. SpaceX Dragon capsule debris found in North Carolina: A piece of the trunk, about the size of a small coffee table, was discovered on a hiking trail. Increased solar activity may lead to Aurora sightings: A giant sunspot has returned, and its intense activity could trigger powerful Aurora displays. Main Topic - China's Lunar Ambitions and the New Space Race: Chang'e 6 Mission: China is set to launch the Chang'e 6 mission to the far side of the moon's southern polar region, with the goal of returning samples. The mission is part of China's ambitious lunar exploration program. International Collaboration: Although US-China collaboration is limited, Chang'e 6 includes contributions from France, Italy, Sweden, and Pakistan. Future Chinese Lunar Missions: China plans to launch Chang'e 7 in 2026, featuring an orbiter, rover, and a hopping robot, and Chang'e 8 in 2028, which will attempt 3D printing using lunar regolith. Artemis Accords and the Outer Space Treaty: As China and the US both aim to establish a presence on the moon, questions arise about territorial claims and the enforcement of the Outer Space Treaty. Space Race Rhetoric: Both the US and China have engaged in nationalistic rhetoric regarding their lunar ambitions, with concerns about China's potential to claim exclusive rights to lunar resources. Scientific Significance: Despite the geopolitical tensions, Chang'e 6 and future missions from both nations have the potential to greatly advance our understanding of the moon and its environment. Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik Guest: Mike Wall Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit

In this episode of This Week in Space, Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik discuss the latest updates on Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, the potential for aurora sightings due to increased solar activity, and China's ambitious lunar exploration program with returning guest Mike Wall, Spaceflight Editor at Space.com. The conversation focuses on China's upcoming Chang'e 6 mission, its capabilities, and the implications of China's growing presence on the Moon. The hosts also touch upon the nationalistic aspects of the new space race between the United States and China. Headlines: Boeing's Starliner update: The spacecraft is ready for launch on June 1st, despite recent issues with parachutes, wiring, and helium leaks. Venus Exploration: Japan's Akatsuki probe, currently the only active mission at Venus, has lost contact with JAXA. However, NASA, ESA, and private companies like Rocket Lab are planning future missions to explore the planet. SpaceX Dragon capsule debris found in North Carolina: A piece of the trunk, about the size of a small coffee table, was discovered on a hiking trail. Increased solar activity may lead to Aurora sightings: A giant sunspot has returned, and its intense activity could trigger powerful Aurora displays. Main Topic - China's Lunar Ambitions and the New Space Race: Chang'e 6 Mission: China is set to launch the Chang'e 6 mission to the far side of the moon's southern polar region, with the goal of returning samples. The mission is part of China's ambitious lunar exploration program. International Collaboration: Although US-China collaboration is limited, Chang'e 6 includes contributions from France, Italy, Sweden, and Pakistan. Future Chinese Lunar Missions: China plans to launch Chang'e 7 in 2026, featuring an orbiter, rover, and a hopping robot, and Chang'e 8 in 2028, which will attempt 3D printing using lunar regolith. Artemis Accords and the Outer Space Treaty: As China and the US both aim to establish a presence on the moon, questions arise about territorial claims and the enforcement of the Outer Space Treaty. Space Race Rhetoric: Both the US and China have engaged in nationalistic rhetoric regarding their lunar ambitions, with concerns about China's potential to claim exclusive rights to lunar resources. Scientific Significance: Despite the geopolitical tensions, Chang'e 6 and future missions from both nations have the potential to greatly advance our understanding of the moon and its environment. Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik Guest: Mike Wall Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit

In this episode of This Week in Space, Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik discuss the latest updates on Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, the potential for aurora sightings due to increased solar activity, and China's ambitious lunar exploration program with returning guest Mike Wall, Spaceflight Editor at Space.com. The conversation focuses on China's upcoming Chang'e 6 mission, its capabilities, and the implications of China's growing presence on the Moon. The hosts also touch upon the nationalistic aspects of the new space race between the United States and China. Headlines: Boeing's Starliner update: The spacecraft is ready for launch on June 1st, despite recent issues with parachutes, wiring, and helium leaks. Venus Exploration: Japan's Akatsuki probe, currently the only active mission at Venus, has lost contact with JAXA. However, NASA, ESA, and private companies like Rocket Lab are planning future missions to explore the planet. SpaceX Dragon capsule debris found in North Carolina: A piece of the trunk, about the size of a small coffee table, was discovered on a hiking trail. Increased solar activity may lead to Aurora sightings: A giant sunspot has returned, and its intense activity could trigger powerful Aurora displays. Main Topic - China's Lunar Ambitions and the New Space Race: Chang'e 6 Mission: China is set to launch the Chang'e 6 mission to the far side of the moon's southern polar region, with the goal of returning samples. The mission is part of China's ambitious lunar exploration program. International Collaboration: Although US-China collaboration is limited, Chang'e 6 includes contributions from France, Italy, Sweden, and Pakistan. Future Chinese Lunar Missions: China plans to launch Chang'e 7 in 2026, featuring an orbiter, rover, and a hopping robot, and Chang'e 8 in 2028, which will attempt 3D printing using lunar regolith. Artemis Accords and the Outer Space Treaty: As China and the US both aim to establish a presence on the moon, questions arise about territorial claims and the enforcement of the Outer Space Treaty. Space Race Rhetoric: Both the US and China have engaged in nationalistic rhetoric regarding their lunar ambitions, with concerns about China's potential to claim exclusive rights to lunar resources. Scientific Significance: Despite the geopolitical tensions, Chang'e 6 and future missions from both nations have the potential to greatly advance our understanding of the moon and its environment. Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik Guest: Mike Wall Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit

In this episode of This Week in Space, Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik discuss the latest updates on Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, the potential for aurora sightings due to increased solar activity, and China's ambitious lunar exploration program with returning guest Mike Wall, Spaceflight Editor at Space.com. The conversation focuses on China's upcoming Chang'e 6 mission, its capabilities, and the implications of China's growing presence on the Moon. The hosts also touch upon the nationalistic aspects of the new space race between the United States and China. Headlines: Boeing's Starliner update: The spacecraft is ready for launch on June 1st, despite recent issues with parachutes, wiring, and helium leaks. Venus Exploration: Japan's Akatsuki probe, currently the only active mission at Venus, has lost contact with JAXA. However, NASA, ESA, and private companies like Rocket Lab are planning future missions to explore the planet. SpaceX Dragon capsule debris found in North Carolina: A piece of the trunk, about the size of a small coffee table, was discovered on a hiking trail. Increased solar activity may lead to Aurora sightings: A giant sunspot has returned, and its intense activity could trigger powerful Aurora displays. Main Topic - China's Lunar Ambitions and the New Space Race: Chang'e 6 Mission: China is set to launch the Chang'e 6 mission to the far side of the moon's southern polar region, with the goal of returning samples. The mission is part of China's ambitious lunar exploration program. International Collaboration: Although US-China collaboration is limited, Chang'e 6 includes contributions from France, Italy, Sweden, and Pakistan. Future Chinese Lunar Missions: China plans to launch Chang'e 7 in 2026, featuring an orbiter, rover, and a hopping robot, and Chang'e 8 in 2028, which will attempt 3D printing using lunar regolith. Artemis Accords and the Outer Space Treaty: As China and the US both aim to establish a presence on the moon, questions arise about territorial claims and the enforcement of the Outer Space Treaty. Space Race Rhetoric: Both the US and China have engaged in nationalistic rhetoric regarding their lunar ambitions, with concerns about China's potential to claim exclusive rights to lunar resources. Scientific Significance: Despite the geopolitical tensions, Chang'e 6 and future missions from both nations have the potential to greatly advance our understanding of the moon and its environment. Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik Guest: Mike Wall Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit

This Day in Legal History: Sirhan Sirhan Sentenced to DeathOn this day in legal history, April 23, 1969, Sirhan Sirhan was sentenced to death for the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, a pivotal moment in American political and legal narratives. Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian immigrant, was convicted of murdering Kennedy on June 5, 1968, at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, California, immediately following Kennedy's victory in the California Democratic presidential primary. Kennedy's assassination marked a profound loss, sending shockwaves across the nation and profoundly affecting its political landscape.Sirhan's trial was a high-profile case, filled with emotional testimonies and global attention. Initially sentenced to death, Sirhan's sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment in 1972 following the California Supreme Court's decision to invalidate all pending death sentences imposed prior to 1972 due to the unconstitutionality of the death penalty statutes.Over the years, Sirhan's case continued to evolve with numerous appeals and parole hearings. In 1998, his attorney, Larry Teeter, claimed that Sirhan did not commit the crime, suggesting that Sirhan was hypnotically programmed to fire shots as a diversion for the real assassin and was a victim of a larger conspiracy. Teeter's assertions fueled ongoing debates and conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy's assassination, though they did not lead to a new trial or exoneration.Despite these controversies, Sirhan has been denied parole multiple times, with the most recent denial occurring in March 2023. The parole board's decision underscored ongoing concerns about the severity of the crime and its impact on American society. Each hearing brought renewed attention to the complexities of the case, including arguments regarding Sirhan's remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and the enduring pain felt by the Kennedy family and their unequivocal opposition to his release.Sirhan Sirhan's ongoing incarceration and the legal proceedings surrounding his case serve as a stark reminder of the lasting implications of political violence and the deep scars it leaves on a nation's collective memory. His story remains a significant chapter in the annals of American legal and political history, reflecting the tensions and traumas of a tumultuous era.Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, as a key promoter of President Biden's climate and economic initiatives, has been actively engaging with industry leaders and workers across the U.S., underscoring the administration's commitment to fostering a clean energy transition that promises high-quality union jobs and rejuvenates manufacturing sectors. Her frequent visits to various energy-related sites and promotional events serve to illustrate the Department of Energy's extensive influence and its capacity to distribute substantial funding, derived mainly from the bipartisan infrastructure law of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Recently, Granholm used the setting of Butler Works, a steel plant in Pennsylvania, to emphasize the government's efforts to sustain the steel industry, noting the plant's significant role in producing steel used nationwide.Butler Works, operated by Cleveland Cliffs Inc., benefits directly from the Biden administration's policies, such as the newly established standards for energy-efficient transformers and substantial grant funding aimed at reducing emissions. Granholm's visit highlighted the broader industrial strategy to make domestic manufacturing more appealing and competitive globally. This strategy also seeks to reverse the offshoring trends that have historically weakened U.S. manufacturing, aiming to reclaim jobs and production capabilities lost to countries like China.The timing of her visit aligns with a week of Earth Day-themed activities, emphasizing the administration's focus on enhancing the U.S. power grid and promoting local production of renewable energy components. This push towards revitalizing manufacturing in regions like Western Pennsylvania, a critical electoral battleground, is part of a larger effort to garner political support through economic revitalization. Cleveland-Cliffs, a major player in the steel industry, has been pivotal in this initiative, gearing up to meet the expected surge in demand for materials essential for a rapidly expanding U.S. power grid.A significant development for Butler Works came with the Department of Energy's decision to modify an earlier proposal that would have phased out the production of a specific type of steel used in transformers, responding to industry pushback and bipartisan political pressure. This decision not only secures jobs at the plant but also addresses concerns about potential shortages in the utility sector, highlighting the administration's receptiveness to industry feedback.However, this regulatory decision has drawn criticism from energy efficiency advocates who argue that it compromises potential energy savings. Granholm defended the final rule as a balanced approach, illustrating a government process responsive to stakeholder input while striving to achieve both environmental and economic objectives. This incident underscores the complex interplay between advancing environmental goals and maintaining industrial viability in the face of evolving energy needs and political pressures.Green Steel Jobs Multiply With Biden Energy Plan, Granholm SaysThe U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is set to vote on a new rule that would nearly eliminate non-compete clauses, which restrict workers from moving between jobs within the same industry. This decision comes three years after President Joe Biden encouraged the FTC to curb such agreements, which currently impact about 20% of U.S. workers. The proposed rule has garnered support from major labor organizations and Democratic leaders from various states, emphasizing its potential to enhance job mobility and promote fair labor practices.The Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobby in the nation, has expressed strong opposition to the rule, planning to file a lawsuit immediately after the rule is officially released and voted upon. They argue that the rule is too expansive and could hinder companies from safeguarding their confidential information. Despite this opposition, the rule is likely to pass during the FTC meeting, with a predicted partisan split among the commissioners.The FTC's authority to enact this rule has been contested by the Chamber of Commerce, with their Chief Policy Officer claiming that the FTC lacks congressional approval to regulate aspects of competition in this manner. However, FTC Chair Lina Khan and other Democratic commissioners assert that they do possess the necessary authority, citing historical precedents where the FTC defined unfair competition practices.This upcoming vote and the ensuing legal challenge by the Chamber highlight a significant clash between federal regulatory power and business interests, setting the stage for a pivotal legal and economic debate over the scope of non-compete agreements in the U.S. workforce.FTC to Issue Non-Compete Ban as Chamber Lawsuit LoomsIn New York, Justice Juan Merchan is set to rule on possible violations by former President Donald Trump of a gag order in his ongoing criminal hush money trial. This gag order restricts Trump from making public criticisms of witnesses and others involved in the case. Prosecutors have pointed out Trump's recent derogatory comments about Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, who are both expected to testify, and his claims about jury bias as instances of violations. They have proposed a fine of $1,000 for each violation, while also highlighting the potential for harsher penalties, including jail time, if Trump continues to breach the order.Trump, charged with falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to prevent her from disclosing a purported encounter, has pleaded not guilty and denied the encounter occurred. Prosecutors argue that this payment was part of a broader scheme to suppress damaging information during the election campaign, labeling it as "election fraud."During the trial, Trump's defense has maintained his innocence, asserting that his actions were meant to protect his family and reputation, and accused Daniels of exploiting the situation for profit. Meanwhile, further testimony is expected from David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer, regarding his involvement in a "catch and kill" strategy to aid Trump's campaign by suppressing negative stories.American Media, Pecker's company, admitted to paying for stories about Trump's alleged affairs, including a substantial payment to Karen McDougal, which it never published. These actions were purportedly coordinated with Trump's campaign efforts.The outcome of this trial, one of several criminal cases against Trump, could significantly impact his chances in the upcoming presidential election, where he is set to face Joe Biden. Polls indicate that a conviction could deter a significant portion of independent and Republican voters.Judge to consider gag order violations in Trump hush money trial | ReutersIn my latest contribution in Forbes, I delve into the Biden administration's Fiscal Year 2025 budget proposal, which includes a pivotal excise tax on private space companies like SpaceX. This tax is primarily aimed at covering the logistical costs incurred by air traffic control during rocket launches, an increasingly frequent event given the surge in private satellite deployments over the past decade. This move isn't just about generating revenue; it's a strategic step towards addressing the burgeoning issue of low-Earth orbit congestion.While this initial tax focuses on immediate air traffic control expenses, it paves the way for broader, more comprehensive space tax policies. The concept of a "space property tax" is introduced as a mechanism to internalize the external costs of satellite deployments. This tax would vary based on several factors including the size of the satellite, its operational lifespan, and its planned end-of-life disposal. The objective is to ensure that the costs associated with occupying space are fully accounted for and that satellite operators are motivated to utilize space responsibly and sustainably.Drawing parallels with terrestrial property taxes, which discourage unproductive land use, a space property tax would similarly encourage satellite operators to optimize the productivity of their satellites and the space they occupy. Such a tax would not only cover the use of space but also contribute to a fund dedicated to addressing future space-related issues, including debris mitigation.The global nature of space activities necessitates international cooperation and cohesive policymaking. The existing international agreements, such as the Outer Space Treaty, provide a foundational framework, but as satellite numbers grow, these policies will need to evolve. International collaboration will be crucial in creating a fair and effective space tax system, ensuring that all countries share the responsibilities and benefits of space utilization.As we continue to explore and utilize space, we must learn from our historical treatment of Earth's resources. By adopting a proactive and sustainable approach to space exploration, we can prevent the overexploitation of this critical frontier. This shift is not just about compliance but about ensuring the long-term viability of space for future generations.Forbes - Do We Need A Property Tax For Space?In my column this week, I explore an innovative approach to combating sales suppression through the introduction of a "Tax Lottery." This idea addresses the complexities introduced by remote cashiers and offshore payment processing, which are increasingly common in industries such as New York's restaurant sector. With remote cashiers based in distant locations like the Philippines, traditional auditing methods become challenging as tax authorities struggle to access accurate transaction logs.The core issue here is the invisibility of remote transactions to local tax authorities, a problem exacerbated when transactions are processed offsite or even offshore. The difficulty in obtaining transaction records makes it easy for businesses to suppress sales tax, a potential boon to their profits but a serious threat to tax compliance.To counter this, I propose a system where customers are incentivized to scan and submit their receipts immediately after purchases by entering a lottery. This could be integrated with existing state-run lotteries or through a separate prize fund created from the revenue gained from enhanced compliance. Such measures have been adopted in various countries with mixed results, yet they offer a promising solution to ensure transparency in transactions.By encouraging consumers to maintain a "shadow record" of their purchases, we create an independent verification of sales transactions that tax authorities can rely on. This method effectively turns every customer into a potential auditor, drastically reducing the likelihood of sales suppression by business owners.The success of such a system depends on the degree of sales suppression already occurring and the overall tax evasion culture within a state. While sophisticated evaders might still find ways around such measures, the general populace, driven by the incentive of potentially winning a prize, might become a formidable force in ensuring tax compliance.Moreover, the Tax Lottery system leverages the fact that while businesses might risk suppressing some transactions, they cannot predict which transactions customers will choose to report via their receipts. This uncertainty forces businesses to record all transactions faithfully, lest they face the consequences of an audit triggered by customer-submitted data.However, the effectiveness of this system hinges on balancing the penalties for non-compliance with the allure of the lottery rewards. The challenge lies in setting these parameters to optimize compliance without overwhelming businesses or consumers.Ultimately, appealing to the financial interests of consumers could be a powerful strategy against the potential rise in fraud, especially as remote cashier systems become more prevalent. As tax authorities seek innovative solutions to modern challenges, the Tax Lottery presents a potentially transformative approach to ensuring transparency and compliance in an increasingly digital economy.‘Tax Lottery' Would Help Abate Remote Cashier Auditing Nightmare Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In the current era of space exploration, various countries and private space companies have targeted celestial bodies like the moon, Mars, and asteroids for exploration. To facilitate their long-term presence on these bodies, programs such as Artemis led by the United States, and the International Lunar Research Station led by China plan to study the feasibility of extracting resources found on these celestial bodies.There are also ambitious plans to extract potentially valuable resources from the moon and asteroids and bring them back to Earth for utilization. This has led countries to enact policies and legislations to promote space resource activities and claim ownership over the resources extracted. India too has successfully performed missions to the moon through its Chandrayaan program and is planning to conduct more in the future, including collaboration with other international partners. Non-governmental entities in the country have also been encouraged to engage in the commercial recovery of space resources in accordance with applicable law, including its international obligations, under the Indian Space Policy, 2023. However, it is important to ensure that such activities are carried out in accordance with obligations under international law. For example, Article II of the Outer Space Treaty prohibits the appropriation of outer space including celestial bodies. There are also concerns that if space resource activities are not governed properly, conflicts may arise in outer space and back on Earth. To facilitate an inclusive and multi-stakeholder dialogue on this issue, the UN COPUOS established the Working Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities.How will this multilateral initiative function? What promises does this initiative hold in shaping the norms and future of space resource activities? And what is India's possible role in this initiative?Episode ContributorsSteven Freeland is emeritus professor of international law at Western Sydney University, where he was previously the dean of the School of Law. He represents the Australian Government at UN COPUOS meetings, and in June 2021, was appointed vice-chair for the Working Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities. Before academics, Freeland had a twenty-year career as an international commercial lawyer and an investment banker. He is a member of the Australian Space Agency Advisory Board and has been an advisor to governments in Australia, New Zealand, and Norway, among many others, on issues relating to national space legislative frameworks and policy.He has also been a visiting professional within the appeals chamber at the International Criminal Court, and a special advisor to the Danish Foreign Ministry in matters related to the International Criminal Court. In addition to co-editing the Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals book series, he also sits on the editorial and advisory Board of several internationally recognized academic journals. He has authored approximately 400 publications on various aspects of International Law and has been invited to present over 2,000 expert commentaries by national and international media outlets worldwide on a wide range of legal, policy and geopolitical issues.Tejas Bharadwaj is a research analyst with the Technology and Society Program at Carnegie India. He focuses on space law and policies and works on areas related to applications of artificial intelligence and autonomy in the military domain and U.S.-India export controls. Tejas is also part of the group that convened Carnegie India's annual flagship event, the Global Technology Summit, co-organized with the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. Currently a prospective member of the International Institute of Space Law (IISL), Tejas was part of its working group on “light pollution of the night sky from the space law perspective” from 2021 to 2023. He has contributed to UNOOSA, IAU, and ESO's Dark and Quiet Skies for Science and Society Working Group. Suggested ReadingsWorking Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities, UNOOSAThe Future of Geography: How Power and Politics in Space Will Change Our World by Tim MarshallSpace Resource Activities and the Evolution of International Space Law by Melissa De Zwart, Stacey Henderson and Michelle NeumannInternational Conference on Space Resources  Every two weeks, Interpreting India brings you diverse voices from India and around the world to explore the critical questions shaping the nation's future. We delve into how technology, the economy, and foreign policy intertwine to influence India's relationship with the global stage.As a Carnegie India production, hosted by Carnegie scholars, Interpreting India, a Carnegie India production, provides insightful perspectives and cutting-edge by tackling the defining questions that chart India's course through the next decade.Stay tuned for thought-provoking discussions, expert insights, and a deeper understanding of India's place in the world.Don't forget to subscribe, share, and leave a review to join the conversation and be part of Interpreting India's journey.

CSIS' Kari Bingen and Heather Williams join the podcast to discuss Russia's new space-based anti-satellite weapon, its violation of the Outer Space Treaty and what steps the U.S. can take to mitigate the risks.

Have you ever envisioned the vast reaches of space as humanity's next frontier? Bryce Kennedy, the visionary at the helm of the Association of Commercial Space Professionals, joins us for an enthralling journey through the evolving cosmos of space exploration and regulation.  From the inception of a specialized Space Regulatory Bootcamp to his personal odyssey from law to space pedagogy, Bryce sheds light on how startups can steer clear of regulatory black holes and shares his dream of a society navigating the stars. Together, we contemplate the revolutionary leap for humanity as our celestial ambitions become an extension of our daily existence.  We chart the course of constructing legal scaffolding to support the celestial leap of our species – where a Zen outlook meets the drafting tables of lawmakers. With maritime law as our North Star, we delve into how historical seafaring codes influence modern space legislature, the role diversity plays in drafting these cosmic rules, and how treaties like the Outer Space Treaty anchor us. From the non-weaponization of space to the conceptualization of extraterrestrial safety zones for mining ventures, we ponder the legal fabric that might hold together our interstellar tapestry.  In this episode, you'll hear about: Star Trek's impact on space Transcendence and unity through meditation Visas and green cards for founders Safety zones and ownership in space Space startups facing regulatory challenges Impacts of space technology on earth Humanity's hope for space exploration Follow and Review: We'd love for you to follow us if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We'd love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Supporting Resources: https://acsp.space/abq24bootcamp/ Alcorn Immigration Law: Subscribe to the monthly Alcorn newsletter Sophie Alcorn Podcast: Episode 154: The Deep Tech Investment: Inner Space, Outer Space, and Startup Investing with Danny Crichton Episode 157: Space is Our Future, with Christopher Hearsey Episode 162: From Earth to Orbit: A Dialogue on Startups, Export Control, and Space Law with Bailey Reichelt Immigration Options for Talent, Investors, and Founders Immigration Law for Tech Startups eBook Alcorn Academy course for best practices for securing the O-1A visa, EB-1A green card, or the EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver) green card—the top options for startup founders. Use promotion code ILTS for 20% off the enrollment fee.  

Russia is building a secret nuclear-powered space weapon, but what does that mean for the rest of us? In this episode, Tariq Malik is joined by Space.com's Brett Tingley to discuss the recent reports and delve into the history of nuclear weapons and reactors in space, the existing international treaties governing weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and the growing militarization of space by Russia, China, and the United States. Malik and Tingley also cover the week's top headlines, including SpaceX's upcoming Starship orbital launch attempt and NASA's continuing struggles to revive the Voyager 1 spacecraft. Headlines: SpaceX sets March 14th as tentative date for Starship's third test flight, pending final launch license approval from the FAA NASA's Voyager 1 probe, launched in 1977 and now in interstellar space, continues to experience significant computer glitches that mission controllers are struggling to diagnose The next Great North American Solar Eclipse is just one month away, with the path of totality crossing from Mexico through the central and northeastern US on April 8th Main Topic: Potential Russian Nuclear Space Weapons Recent reports from US officials suggest Russia may be developing a new nuclear-powered anti-satellite weapon or electronic warfare platform The weapon likely wouldn't pose an immediate threat, but highlights the growing militarization of space and potential for a new arms race Nuclear power has long been used in space, from radioisotope thermoelectric generators on probes like Voyager to plans for nuclear propulsion The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans placing WMDs in orbit, but has some gray areas and lacks robust enforcement mechanisms The US, Russia, and China have all demonstrated anti-satellite capabilities in recent years, from missiles to lasers to mini-satellites with robotic arms There are also growing concerns over military interest in cislunar space and the Moon as another "high ground" to be contested While there are more pressing threats than space-based nuclear weapons, the situation reflects deteriorating international relations and the need for updated treaties Host: Tariq Malik Guest: Brett Tingley Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit

Russia is building a secret nuclear-powered space weapon, but what does that mean for the rest of us? In this episode, Tariq Malik is joined by Space.com's Brett Tingley to discuss the recent reports and delve into the history of nuclear weapons and reactors in space, the existing international treaties governing weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and the growing militarization of space by Russia, China, and the United States. Malik and Tingley also cover the week's top headlines, including SpaceX's upcoming Starship orbital launch attempt and NASA's continuing struggles to revive the Voyager 1 spacecraft. Headlines: SpaceX sets March 14th as tentative date for Starship's third test flight, pending final launch license approval from the FAA NASA's Voyager 1 probe, launched in 1977 and now in interstellar space, continues to experience significant computer glitches that mission controllers are struggling to diagnose The next Great North American Solar Eclipse is just one month away, with the path of totality crossing from Mexico through the central and northeastern US on April 8th Main Topic: Potential Russian Nuclear Space Weapons Recent reports from US officials suggest Russia may be developing a new nuclear-powered anti-satellite weapon or electronic warfare platform The weapon likely wouldn't pose an immediate threat, but highlights the growing militarization of space and potential for a new arms race Nuclear power has long been used in space, from radioisotope thermoelectric generators on probes like Voyager to plans for nuclear propulsion The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans placing WMDs in orbit, but has some gray areas and lacks robust enforcement mechanisms The US, Russia, and China have all demonstrated anti-satellite capabilities in recent years, from missiles to lasers to mini-satellites with robotic arms There are also growing concerns over military interest in cislunar space and the Moon as another "high ground" to be contested While there are more pressing threats than space-based nuclear weapons, the situation reflects deteriorating international relations and the need for updated treaties Host: Tariq Malik Guest: Brett Tingley Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit

Russia is building a secret nuclear-powered space weapon, but what does that mean for the rest of us? In this episode, Tariq Malik is joined by Space.com's Brett Tingley to discuss the recent reports and delve into the history of nuclear weapons and reactors in space, the existing international treaties governing weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and the growing militarization of space by Russia, China, and the United States. Malik and Tingley also cover the week's top headlines, including SpaceX's upcoming Starship orbital launch attempt and NASA's continuing struggles to revive the Voyager 1 spacecraft. Headlines: SpaceX sets March 14th as tentative date for Starship's third test flight, pending final launch license approval from the FAA NASA's Voyager 1 probe, launched in 1977 and now in interstellar space, continues to experience significant computer glitches that mission controllers are struggling to diagnose The next Great North American Solar Eclipse is just one month away, with the path of totality crossing from Mexico through the central and northeastern US on April 8th Main Topic: Potential Russian Nuclear Space Weapons Recent reports from US officials suggest Russia may be developing a new nuclear-powered anti-satellite weapon or electronic warfare platform The weapon likely wouldn't pose an immediate threat, but highlights the growing militarization of space and potential for a new arms race Nuclear power has long been used in space, from radioisotope thermoelectric generators on probes like Voyager to plans for nuclear propulsion The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans placing WMDs in orbit, but has some gray areas and lacks robust enforcement mechanisms The US, Russia, and China have all demonstrated anti-satellite capabilities in recent years, from missiles to lasers to mini-satellites with robotic arms There are also growing concerns over military interest in cislunar space and the Moon as another "high ground" to be contested While there are more pressing threats than space-based nuclear weapons, the situation reflects deteriorating international relations and the need for updated treaties Host: Tariq Malik Guest: Brett Tingley Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit

Russia is building a secret nuclear-powered space weapon, but what does that mean for the rest of us? In this episode, Tariq Malik is joined by Space.com's Brett Tingley to discuss the recent reports and delve into the history of nuclear weapons and reactors in space, the existing international treaties governing weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and the growing militarization of space by Russia, China, and the United States. Malik and Tingley also cover the week's top headlines, including SpaceX's upcoming Starship orbital launch attempt and NASA's continuing struggles to revive the Voyager 1 spacecraft. Headlines: SpaceX sets March 14th as tentative date for Starship's third test flight, pending final launch license approval from the FAA NASA's Voyager 1 probe, launched in 1977 and now in interstellar space, continues to experience significant computer glitches that mission controllers are struggling to diagnose The next Great North American Solar Eclipse is just one month away, with the path of totality crossing from Mexico through the central and northeastern US on April 8th Main Topic: Potential Russian Nuclear Space Weapons Recent reports from US officials suggest Russia may be developing a new nuclear-powered anti-satellite weapon or electronic warfare platform The weapon likely wouldn't pose an immediate threat, but highlights the growing militarization of space and potential for a new arms race Nuclear power has long been used in space, from radioisotope thermoelectric generators on probes like Voyager to plans for nuclear propulsion The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans placing WMDs in orbit, but has some gray areas and lacks robust enforcement mechanisms The US, Russia, and China have all demonstrated anti-satellite capabilities in recent years, from missiles to lasers to mini-satellites with robotic arms There are also growing concerns over military interest in cislunar space and the Moon as another "high ground" to be contested While there are more pressing threats than space-based nuclear weapons, the situation reflects deteriorating international relations and the need for updated treaties Host: Tariq Malik Guest: Brett Tingley Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit

Kris Kimel is the Founder of Humanity in Deep Space, an initiative exploring the challenges and hard problems facing humans as we transition to deep spacefaring species. He is the Co-founder of the commercial space company Space Tango.  His major focus is how humans can do deep space exploration physically, safely, and ethically. Legal, ethical and physiological concerns are some of the most challenging.   Today, the United Nations' 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which was the foundation of the discussions, was a far-reaching concept by UN member states to provide the framework as how we can explore and develop outer space, but to do so peacefully, safely and sustainably. Key questions: Who can own parts of outer space? How can outer space be utilized without militarizing it with nuclear weapons? How can we keep our humanity?  The United Nations and UNESCO have some of the best research information on outer space.

NASA celebrates the newest class of Astronaut graduates as it puts out a call for new applicants. Terran Orbital is awarded an Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract with a $45 million ceiling value by NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate. The UK Government has included up to £160 million for the connectivity in low Earth orbit program known as CLEO in the Spring Budget, and more. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our weekly intelligence roundup, Signals and Space, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow T-Minus on LinkedIn and Instagram. T-Minus Guest Our guest today is Dr Elaina Hyde, Director of York University's Allan I Carswell Observatory. You can connect with Elaina on LinkedIn and learn more about the observatory at York University on their website. Selected Reading NASA Opens Astronaut Applications as Newest Class Graduates https://twitter.com/lunarloral/status/1765001718163509569 Terran Orbital Awarded Up To $45 Million IDIQ by NASA to Support Space Technology Advancement- Business Wire Agile Space Receives SpaceWERX Contract for Innovative Mobile Payload Processing Center Space Force agencies pile on to find 'alternate PNT' capabilities - Breaking Defense Elve Secures $15M in Series A Funding to Increase Manufacturing and Expand Customer Base- Business Wire GITAI Successfully Demonstrates Robotics Construction Capabilities for Lunar Communications Towers C-LEO Programme - GOV.UK Spring Budget 2024 speech - GOV.UK Meridian Space Command moves to Space Park Leicester Dhruva Space and Swedish Space Corporation expand Ground Station network synergies, indicative of the long-standing Indo-Swedish bilateral cooperation Is it time for a new Outer Space Treaty? Reports of Russian nuclear space weapon raise questions NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft is talking nonsense. Its friends on Earth are worried Commentary: As space travel becomes more commercial, Florida must keep up The Lost Universe - NASA Science T-Minus Crew Survey We want to hear from you! Please complete our 4 question survey. It'll help us get better and deliver you the most mission-critical space intel every day. Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at space@n2k.com to request more info. Want to join us for an interview? Please send your pitch to space-editor@n2k.com and include your name, affiliation, and topic proposal. T-Minus is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc.

A few weeks ago, space security issues took center-stage in the news after reports of a nuclear satellite weapon. This raised a lot of questions — What would a nuclear weapon mean in space? Why would Russia pursue this? In this week's On Orbit episode, we dig into these questions with Dr. Brian Weeden, chief program officer of the Secure World Foundation, an organization that works to promote secure, sustainable, and peaceful uses of outer space. Weeden is an expert on space security issues and conducts research on issues like space debris, protecting space assets, and space governance. He explains the physical and geopolitical consequences of detonating a nuclear weapon in space, implications for the Outer Space Treaty, and how this situation has raised awareness of security issues in space.

Last month, there was a sudden panic in the United States when House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner issued a statement warning of a “serious national security threat” and demanded that President Biden declassify related information. The American media subsequently reported that Turner was referring to alleged Russian plans to deploy nuclear weapons in space, though U.S. National Security Council Spokesperson John Kirby later clarified that the matter concerns anti-satellite weapons that cannot be used to attack people or to strike targets on Earth. He explained that Russia's development of the technology is concerning but does not pose an immediate threat. To make sense of these reports and to respond to the panic that this situation provokes, The Naked Pravda welcomes back nuclear arms expert Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher at the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research. Timestamps for this episode: (3:20) The (im)practicality of nuclear weapons in space (5:31) Imagining a nuclear blast in orbit (9:59) The feasibility of nuclear-powered space weapons (28:02) The 1967 Outer Space Treaty and its modern-day implications (31:26) Common misconceptions about space in moviesКак поддержать нашу редакцию — даже если вы в России и вам очень страшно

The ethical question of AI has been at the forefront of its development. Today, there is a global rush to establish legal and ethical frameworks around AI, such as the European Parliament AI Act, which aim to legislate around concerns surrounding potential bias from bad data sets or algorithms, privacy concerns, and non-discrimination.Our guest this week is Principal Data Scientist and AI Ambassador at HPE, Iveta Lohovska. We'll be discussing the practicality of placing guardrails around AI, as well as the ethical approach that needs to be taken for training models - and whether the sheer scale of its growth is leaving us vulnerable as a society.This is Technology Now, a weekly show from Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Every week we look at a story that's been making headlines, take a look at the technology behind it, and explain why it matters to organizations and what we can learn from it.Do you have a question for the expert? Ask it here using this Google form: https://forms.gle/8vzFNnPa94awARHMAAbout the expert: https://www.linkedin.com/in/iveta-lohovska-40210362/?originalSubdomain=atSources and statistics cited in this episode:2024 Global Forum on the Ethics of AI - https://www.unesco.org/en/forum-ethics-aiEuropean Parliament AI Act - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligenceThe Outer Space Treaty - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.htmlInternational Astronomical Union - https://www.iau.org/Dolly the Sheep cloning - https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/natural-sciences/dolly-the-sheep/

The ethical question of AI has been at the forefront of its development. Today, there is a global rush to establish legal and ethical frameworks around AI, such as the European Parliament AI Act, which aim to legislate around concerns surrounding potential bias from bad data sets or algorithms, privacy concerns, and non-discrimination.Our guest this week is Principal Data Scientist and AI Ambassador at HPE, Iveta Lohovska. We'll be discussing the practicality of placing guardrails around AI, as well as the ethical approach that needs to be taken for training models - and whether the sheer scale of its growth is leaving us vulnerable as a society.This is Technology Now, a weekly show from Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Every week we look at a story that's been making headlines, take a look at the technology behind it, and explain why it matters to organizations and what we can learn from it.Do you have a question for the expert? Ask it here using this Google form: https://forms.gle/8vzFNnPa94awARHMAAbout the expert: https://www.linkedin.com/in/iveta-lohovska-40210362/?originalSubdomain=atSources and statistics cited in this episode:2024 Global Forum on the Ethics of AI - https://www.unesco.org/en/forum-ethics-aiEuropean Parliament AI Act - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligenceThe Outer Space Treaty - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.htmlInternational Astronomical Union - https://www.iau.org/Dolly the Sheep cloning - https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/natural-sciences/dolly-the-sheep/

The ethical question of AI has been at the forefront of its development. Today, there is a global rush to establish legal and ethical frameworks around AI, such as the European Parliament AI Act, which aim to legislate around concerns surrounding potential bias from bad data sets or algorithms, privacy concerns, and non-discrimination.Our guest this week is Principal Data Scientist and AI Ambassador at HPE, Iveta Lohovska. We'll be discussing the practicality of placing guardrails around AI, as well as the ethical approach that needs to be taken for training models - and whether the sheer scale of its growth is leaving us vulnerable as a society.This is Technology Now, a weekly show from Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Every week we look at a story that's been making headlines, take a look at the technology behind it, and explain why it matters to organizations and what we can learn from it.Do you have a question for the expert? Ask it here using this Google form: https://forms.gle/8vzFNnPa94awARHMAAbout the expert: https://www.linkedin.com/in/iveta-lohovska-40210362/?originalSubdomain=atSources and statistics cited in this episode:2024 Global Forum on the Ethics of AI - https://www.unesco.org/en/forum-ethics-aiEuropean Parliament AI Act - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligenceThe Outer Space Treaty - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.htmlInternational Astronomical Union - https://www.iau.org/Dolly the Sheep cloning - https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/natural-sciences/dolly-the-sheep/

Sign up to Nebula to get the ad-free access to the full Daily Briefing every single day: https://go.nebula.tv/thedailybriefingWelcome to the TLDR News Daily BriefingIn today's episode, we run through the US concerned about a Russian nuclear space weapon. Also, we discuss the UK and France's response to Trump's NATO comments; Israeli snipers target hospital in Gaza; & the UK falls into a recession.

The US Space Force, the newest branch of the American military, takes national defense to a new frontier. Here on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I sit down with AEI senior fellow Todd Harrison to discuss the state of the Space Force and its evolving mission.Harrison has served as senior vice president and head of research at Metrea, a defense consulting firm, been a senior fellow for defense budget strategies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, directed the Defense Budget Analysis and Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and served as a captain in the US Air Force Reserve.In This Episode* Creating the Space Force (0:53)* A New Kind of Warfare (9:15)* Defining the Mission (11:40)* Conflict and Competition in Space (15:34)* The Danger of Space Debris (20:11)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversationCreating the Space Force (0:53)Pethokoukis: I was recently looking at an image that showed the increase in the number of satellites around the earth, and it's been a massive increase; I imagine a lot of it has to do with SpaceX putting up satellites, and it's really almost like—I think to an extent that most people don't understand; between  government, military, and a lot of commercial satellites—it's really like the earth is surrounded by this information shell. And when looking at that, I couldn't help but think, “Yeah, it kind of seems like we would need a Space Force or something to keep an eye on that and protect that.” And I know there was a lot of controversy, if I'm not mistaken, like, “Why do we need this extra branch of government?” Is that controversy about why we need a Space Force, is that still an active issue and what are your thoughts?Harrison: To start with where you started, yes. The number of satellites in space has been growing literally exponentially in the past few years. I'll just throw a few numbers out there:  In 2023 alone, about 2,800 new satellites were launched, and in that one year it increased the total number of satellites on the orbit by 22 percent, just in one year. And all the projections are that the number of satellites, number of launches, are going to keep growing at a pace like that for the foreseeable future, for the next several years. A lot is going into space, and we know from all other domains that where commerce goes conflict will follow. And we are seeing that in space as well.Like the Navy protecting the shipping lanes. Yeah, exactly. So we know that to a certain extent that's inevitable. There will be points of contention, points of conflict, but we've already seen that in space just with the military dimension of our space. Back in 2007, I think a lot of the world woke up to the fact that space is a contested environment when the Chinese tested an anti-satellite weapon, which, by the way, produced thousands of pieces of space debris that are still in orbit today. More than 2,600 pieces of debris are still in orbit from that one Chinese ASAT test. And, of course, that was just one demonstration of counter-space capabilities. Space has been a contested war fighting domain, really, since the beginning of the Space Age. The first anti-satellite test was in 1959, and so it has become increasingly important for economic reasons, but also for military reasons. Now, when the Space Force debate kicked into high gear, I think it took a lot of people who weren't involved in military space, I think it took a lot of people by surprise that we were having this debate.Yeah, it really seemed like it came out of nowhere, I think probably for 99 percent of people who aren't professionals tracking the issue.In reality, that debate, it started in the 1990s, and there was a senator from up in New Hampshire who had written a journal article basically talking about, “Hey, we need to separate space into its own military service.” You had the Air Force chief of staff at the time in the mid-1990s, General Ron Fogleman. He said that the Air Force should eventually become an Air and Space Force, and then one day a Space and Air Force. So you had the seeds of it happening in the '90s. Then you had Congress wanting to look at, “Okay, how do we do this? How do we reorganize military space?” They created a commission that was led by Donald Rumsfeld before he became Secretary of Defense for the second time. That commission issued its report in 2001, and it recommended a bunch of reforms, but it said in the midterm, in five to 10 years we should create a separate military service for space, something like a Space Corps.Nothing happened, even though Rumsfeld then became Secretary of Defense. We kind of took our focus off of it for a while, there were a few other studies that went on, and then in 2016, two members of Congress, a Republican and a Democrat, Mike Rogers and Jim Cooper, who were on the House Armed Services Committee, they took this issue up. They got so fed up with the oversight of looking at how the Air Force was shortchanging space in many ways in terms of personnel and training and funding and modernization, that they then put a provision into the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act that would've created a Space Corps, they called it: a separate military service for space. And that bill actually passed the full House of Representatives.The Senate did not have a similar provision in their bill, so it died. It didn't make it into law—but then, all of a sudden, a couple of years later, President Trump, pretty much out of the blue floats this idea of creating a Space Force, and he did it at a rally that was at a Marine Corps base out in California, and, for some reason, it caught on with Trump. And then you already had the votes, a bipartisan group in the House of Representatives who had already pushed this, and so it started to gain momentum.It was very controversial at the time. The secretary of the Air Force at that time was adamantly opposed to it. Eventually, Trump forced it on the civilian establishment at DoD, and Congress ultimately enacted it, and the Space Force became a military service in December… I think December 20th, 2019. Now, there was some question, will the Biden administration keep it?Is this here to stay?It is written into law, so a president cannot unilaterally take it away, and, at this point, it's got its own roots in the ground and the Space Force is not going anywhere.A little bit off topic, but was there a similar debate when they separated the Air Force out of the Army?There was, yeah, and it lasted for a long time. So you had folks like Billy Mitchell who were in the Army Air Corps way back before World War II—I think in the late '20s, early '30s—they were advocating for a separate military service for Air. And I believe Billy Mitchell actually got court marshaled because he disobeyed orders from a superior about advocating for this with Congress.And so the idea of a separate service for Air pretty much died out until World War II hit. And, of course, that was a war that we were brought into it by an attack that came from the air, and that really brought air power into full effect in terms of a major component of military power. So then, at the end of World War II, the Air Power advocates got together, they created the Air Force Association to advocate for a separate military service and they got it in the National Security Reform Act in 1947, I think the Air Force actually stood up in 1948.It took longer, I would argue, a lot more advocacy and it took a World War, a crisis, to show us how important Air was to the military in order for us to actually create an Air Force. Now, I think, thankfully, we did that in advance of a crisis in terms of creating the Space Force.Right now, what the Space Force does, is it tracking satellites, tracking and space debris, is it a monitoring and tracking service? It's not a fighting service yet?Well, yes and no. A lot of what the Space Force does on a day-to-day basis is they provide space-enabling capabilities to the other military services. So if you want to get intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance from space, you can go to the Space Force. Separately, we have intel space that's run through the National Reconnaissance Office—that has not changed its organization. If you want to get GPS, the Space Force runs our GPS constellation of satellites, and they're responsible for defending it against all forms of attack, which it is attacked daily. If you want satellite communications, the Space Force delivers that. If you want missile warning… So the Space Force delivers lots of enabling capabilities for other parts of the military. At the same time, it is tasked with defending those capabilities, and it's not just against kinetic forms of attack where an adversary is literally trying to shoot a satellite out of the sky.A New Kind of Warfare (9:15)I guess that's the first thing that popped in my mind. Too much science fiction maybe, but…Well, that is real, that's a real threat. The truth is there's not a lot you can do to actively protect against that—at least, we don't have a lot of capabilities right now—but the forms of attack we see on a daily basis are cyber, electromagnetic, and other forms of non-kinetic attack like lazing the sensors on a satellite. You could temporarily, or even permanently, blind the sensors on a satellite with a laser from an aircraft or from a ground station.I'll give you an example: When Russia invaded Ukraine, at the very beginning of the invasion, one of the first attacks they launched was a space attack. It was cyber, and it was against a commercial space capability. What they did is they exploited a vulnerability, previously unknown, in ViaSat modems. ViaSat's, a commercial satellite communications company, they had some sort of a vulnerability in their modems. The Russians, through a cyber attack, basically bricked all those modems. They locked them out. The Ukrainian military relied on ViaSat for satellite communications, so it locked up all of their terminals right at the beginning. They could not communicate using Satcom. Incidentally, it locked up lots of ViaSat terminals across Europe in that same attack. So we see this happening all the time. Russian forces are constantly jamming GPS signals. That makes weapons and drones much less effective. They can't use GPS for targeting once they go into a GPS-denied environment.But the Space Force has ways to overcome that. We have protected military GPS signals, we have ways of increasing the strength of those signals to overcome jamming. There's lots of things you can do with counter-space and then counter to the counter-space.The problem is that we kind of sat on our laurels and admired our advantage in space for a couple of decades and did not make a concerted effort to improve the protection of our space systems and develop our own capability to deny others the advantage of space because others didn't have that same advantage for a long time.Well, that has changed, and the creation of the Space Force, I think, has really set us in a positive new direction to get serious about space defense and to get serious about denying others the advantage of space if we need to.Defining the Mission (11:40)The Chief of Space Operation at the Space Force recently published a short white paper, which I guess begins to lay out kind of a doctrine, like, “What is the mission? How do we accomplish this mission?” Probably the first sort of Big Think piece maybe since Space Force became a branch. What did that white paper say? What do you make of it?Yeah, so I think one of the criticisms of military space for a while has been that we didn't really have space strategy, space doctrine, we didn't have a theory of space power that was well developed. I would argue we had some of those, but it's fair to say that they have not been that well developed. Well, one of the reasons you need a military service is to actually get the expertise that is dedicated to this domain to think through those things and really develop them and flesh them out, and so that's what this white paper did, and I think it did a pretty good job of it, developing a theory of space power. He calls it a “theory of success for competitive endurance in the space domain.”And one of the things I thought was really great that they highlight in the paper, that a lot of US government officials in the past have been reluctant to talk about, is the fact that we are under attack on a daily basis—gray zone-type aggression in the space domain—and we've got to start pushing back against that. And we've got to actually be willing and able to exercise our own defensive and counter-space capabilities, even in the competition phase before we actually get to overt conflict, because our adversaries are doing it already. They're doing it to us. We need to be able to brush them back. We're not talking about escalating and starting a conflict or anything like that, but when someone jams our satellite communication systems or GPS, they need to feel some consequences. Maybe something similar happens to their own space capabilities, or maybe we employ capabilities that show them we can overcome what you're doing. So I thought that was a good part of the theory of success is you can't just sit by and let an adversary degrade your space capabilities in the competition phase.How much of the focus of Space Force currently, and maybe as that paper discussed what the department's mission is, focused on the military capabilities, protecting military capabilities, the military capabilities of other nations, versus what you mentioned earlier was this really expanding commercial element which is only going to grow in importance?Today, the vast majority of the Space Force's focus is on the military side of providing that enabling military capability that makes all of our forces more effective, protecting that capability, and then, to a lesser extent, being able to interfere with our adversaries' ability to use space for their own advantage.They are just now starting to really grapple with, “Okay, is there a role for the Space Force in protecting space commerce, protecting commercial space capabilities that may be economically important, that may be strategically important to us and our allies, but are not directly part of a military capability?” They're starting to think through that now, and it really is the Space Force taking on a role in the future that is more like the Navy. The Navy does fight and win wars, of course, but the Navy also has a role in patrolling the seas and ensuring the free flow of commerce like we see the US Navy doing right now over in the Red Sea: They're helping protect ships that need to transit through that area when Houthi Rebels are targeting them. Do we need that kind of capability and space? Yeah, I think we do. It is not a huge priority now, but it is going to be a growing priority in the future.Conflict and Competition in Space (15:34)I don't know if such things even currently exist, but if you have satellites that can kill other satellites, do those exist and does the Space Force run them?Satellites that can kill other satellites, absolutely. That is a thing that exists. A lot of stuff is kept classified. What we know that's unclassified is, back in the 1960s and early '70s, the Soviets conducted many tests—a couple of dozen tests—of what they call a co-orbital anti-satellite system, that is a satellite that can kill another satellite, and there's still debris in space from some of those tests back in the '60s and '70s.We also know, unclassified, that China and Russia have on-orbit systems that appear to be able to rendezvous with other satellites, get very close. We've seen the Russians deploy a satellite that appeared to fire a projectile at another Russian satellite—looks like a test of some sort of a co-orbital weapon. So yes, those capabilities are out there. They do exist. We've never seen a capability like that used in conflict, though, not yet, but we know they existLooking forward a decade… One can imagine a lot more satellites, multiple space platforms, maybe some run by the private sector, maybe others not. One could imagine permanent or semi-permanent installations on the moon from different countries. Are plans being made to protect those things, and would the Space Force be the one protecting them? If you have a conflict between the Chinese military installation on the moon and the American, would that be in the Space Force domain? Again, it seems like science fiction, but I don't think it's going to seem like science fiction before too long.Well, that's right. We're not at that point today, but are we going to be at that point in 10, 20, 30 years? Perhaps. There are folks in the Space Force, like in the chief scientist's office that have thought about these things; they publish some papers on it. There's no real effort going into that right now other than thinking about it from an academic perspective. Should that be in the mandate of the Space Force? Well, I think it already is, it's just there's not a need for it yet, and so it's something to keep an eye on.Now, there are some rules, if you will, international agreements that would suggest, “Okay, some of these things should not happen.” Doesn't mean they won't; but, for example, the main treaty that governs how nations operate in space is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. The Outer Space Treaty specifically says that you can't claim territory in space or on any celestial body like the moon or Mars, and it specifically says you cannot put a military installation on any celestial body.So, should China put a military base on the moon, they would be clearly violating the Outer Space Treaty. If China puts a scientific installation that happens to have some military capabilities on it, but they don't call it that, well, you know, what are we going to do? Are we going to call them before the United Nations and complain? Or if China says, “Hey, we've put a military installation in this key part of the lunar South Pole where we all believe that there is ice water, and if anyone tries to land anywhere near us, you're going to interfere with our operations, you might kick up dust on us, so we are establishing a keep-out zone of some very large area around this installation.”I think that there are some concerns that we could be headed in that direction, and that's one of the reasons NASA is pushing forward with the Artemis program to return humans to the moon and a set of international agreements called the Artemis Accords, where we've gotten, I think, more than 20 nations now to agree to a way of operating in the lunar environment and, to a certain extent, in Earth orbit as well, which will help make sure that the norms that develop in space, especially in deep space operating on the moon, are norms that are conducive to free and open societies and free markets. And so I give credit to former NASA administrator, Jim Breidenstein and the Trump administration; he came up with the Artemis Accords. I think it was wonderful. I would love to see us go even further, but NASA is still pursuing that and still signing up more countries to the Artemis Accords, and when they sign up to that, they can be part of our effort to go back to moon and the Artemis program, and right now we are on track to get there and put humans back on the moon before China. I just hope we keep it that way.The Danger of Space Debris (20:11)Let me finish up with a question based on something you've mentioned several times during our conversation, which is space debris and space junk. I see more and more articles about the concerns. How concerned are you about this? How should I think about that issue?Yeah, it is a concern, and, I mean, the physics of the space domain are just fundamentally different than what we see in other domains. So, in space, depending on what orbit you're in, if something breaks up into pieces, those pieces keep orbiting Earth indefinitely. If you are below about 600 kilometers, those pieces of debris, there's a tiny amount of atmospheric drag, and, depending on your mass and your surface area and solar weather and stuff, eventually things 600 kilometers and below are going to reenter the Earth atmosphere and burn up in weeks, months, years.Once you get above about 600 kilometers, things start staying up there much longer. And when you get out to geostationary orbit, which is 36,000 kilometers above the surface of the earth, those things aren't coming down, ever, not on their own. They're staying up there. So the problem is, imagine every time there was a shipwreck, or a car wreck, or a plane crash, that all of the debris kept moving around the earth forever. Eventually it adds up. And space, it's a very large volume, yes, but this stuff is whizzing by, if you're in low-earth orbit, you're going around 17,000 miles per hour constantly. And so you've got close approach after close approach, day after day, and then you run the risk of debris hitting debris, or debris hitting other satellites, and then creating more debris, and then increasing the odds that this happens again and again, the movie Gravity gave a dramatic effect to this.I was thinking about that scene as you're explaining this.Yeah. The timeline was very compressed in that movie, but something like that, the Kessler Syndrome, is theoretically possible in the space domain, so we do have to watch out for it. Debris is collecting, particularly in low Earth orbit above 600 kilometers, and ASAT tests are not helpful at all to that. So one of the things the Biden administration did is they instituted a unilateral moratorium on antisatellite testing by the United States. Well, it's easy for us to do. We didn't need to do any anti-satellite tests anymore because we already know we can do that. We have effective capabilities and we wouldn't want to use kinetic anti-satellite attacks anyway, 'cause it would hurt our own systems.We have been going around trying to get other countries to sign up to that as well, to a moratorium on ASAT testing. It's a good first step, but really you need Russia and China. They need to sign up to not do that anymore. And India, India conducted a kinetic ASAT test back in, I think, 2019. So those are the countries we really need to get on board with that.But there's a lot of accidental debris production that happens as well. When countries leave a spent rocket body up in orbit and then something happens. You know, a lot of times they leave their fuel tanks pressurized or they leave batteries on there, after five, 10 years in orbit, sometimes these things explode randomly, and then that creates a debris field. So there's more that we can do to kind of reach international agreements about just being smart stewards of the space domain. There are companies out there that are trying to work on technologies to clean up space debris. It's very hard. That is not something that's on the immediate horizon, but those are all efforts that should be ongoing. It is something to be concerned about.And actually, to circle back to the chief of space operations and his theory of success in his white paper, that's one of the tensions that he highlights in there, is that we want to use space for military advantage, including being able to deny other countries the ability to use space. But at the same time, we want to be good stewards of the space domain and so there's an inherent tension in between those two objectives, and that's the needle that the Space Force is trying to thread.I have one final question, and you may have no answer for it: If we were to track a large space object headed toward Earth, whose job would it be to stop it?So it would be NASA's job to spot it, to find objects like near-Earth orbit asteroids. Whose job is it to stop it? I think we would be figuring that out on the fly. First of all, we would have to figure out, can we stop it? Is there a way to stop it? And it would probably require some sort of an international effort, because we all have a common stake in that, but yeah, it is not in anyone's job jar.Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

It's January 28th. This day in 1967, the U.S., U.K., and Russia sign a treaty that, among other things, says that outer space should be off-limits for the testing and deployment of weapons of mass destruction. Jody, Niki, and Kellie discuss why there was a need for the Outer Space Treaty, and how — despite its important language about nuclear weapons — it left a lot of grey area and confusion about how different countries would take on space exploration. Sign up for our newsletter! Get your hands on This Day merch! Find out more at thisdaypod.com This Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX. Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories. If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.com Get in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Follow us on social @thisdaypod Our team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia

If fishing in international waters is legal, what about mining asteroids and the moon for water ice and precious metals? Turns out in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) is lawful, as governed by the Outer Space Treaty and Artemis Accords, and embraced as advancing the cause of space exploration. Of interest to NASA and other civil space agencies around the globe, as well as a number of companies and academic organizations, ISRU actually offers lucrative opportunities for the rise of the world's first trillionaire. So what laws govern the pursuit of commercial space exploration, and what legal prohibitions or safeguards exist against disputes over resources?  In this New Year episode of Discovery, we explore the legal landscape of ISRU with Austin Murnane, Senior Legal Counsel at Blue Origin, a rocket launch and human spaceflight business based in Kent, Washington. In 2023, Murnane spoke at UW Law's Space Course: “The Case for Space Stations” and inaugural Space Law Diplomacy Symposium. Murnane is a former U.S. Marine with a J.D. from Fordham University and published The War Storytellers in 2015. He also holds a master's degree in Space Resources and is currently working on his Ph.D.   Murnane shares insights about the regulation of space mining as well as multiple parties' interests, the continued evolution of the partnership between government and commercial parties, and an anticipated timeline for the development of technology that will make ISRU possible in outer space.  

According to the Outer Space Treaty, authorization or certification for launch is the responsibility of each launching nation, as well as continuing supervision in space. What are the competing national and international frameworks for this?  How do standards and interoperability play into these policies specifically for in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM)?  What's the significance of both cooperation and competition while enabling the private sector?  In this show host Colleen Stover talks to Dr Brian Weeden, Director of Program Planning for Secure World Foundation and founding member of CONFERS, and Karen Jones, space economist and senior analyst at The Aerospace Corporation's Center for Space Policy & Strategy. Available by video or podcast. This episode is part of a Center for Space Policy series on ISAM (in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing). The series will cover a range of foundational topics regarding the current and future development efforts for an in-space economy based on ISAM technologies and missions.   Topics in the series include: International standards-making How Stuff Works Extending capabilities with robotics Building US national collaboration International geo-economics Space Access, Mobility & Logistics (SAML) The Space Policy Show is produced by The Aerospace Corporation's Center for Space Policy and Strategy. It is a virtual series covering a broad set of topics that span across the space enterprise. CSPS brings together experts from within Aerospace, the government, academia, business, nonprofits, and the national labs. The show and their podcasts are an opportunity to learn about and to stay engaged with the larger space policy community. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch all episodes!

On 10th October, 1967 a treaty went into force that has gone on to become the backbone for all international space law – a United Nations-approved agreement known as the The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, but better known today as the Outer Space Treaty. It's a relatively succinct document of just 17 articles, some as short as a single sentence, but it represented a lot of fundamentally very challenging cooperation at the time. Not least because it came about when the Cold War was in full swing, and both the United States and the Soviet Union wanted to prevent the expansion of the nuclear arms race into space.  In this episode, Arion, Rebecca and Olly explain why the principles of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 turned out to be a good fit for rules on what can and can't be done in outer space; revisit everyone's favourite topic of property law in the 13th century; and discuss whether Elon Musk will, according to the law, own other planets if he lands on them. Further Reading: • ‘Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies' (US Department of State, 2009): https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm  • ‘How an international treaty signed 50 years ago became the backbone for space law' (The Verge, 2017): https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/27/14398492/outer-space-treaty-50-anniversary-exploration-guidelines  • ‘Who Owns The Moon?' (Vsauce, 2015): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks8WH3xUo_E  Love the show? Join

Have you ever pondered the legal implications of life beyond our earthly borders? Buckle up, as we take a deep dive into the cosmic intersection of space and immigration law with Christopher Hearsey, founder and CEO of OSA Consulting and chair of Space Court Foundation. Our discussion hovers around some touchy subjects, like extraterrestrial operations and the Outer Space Treaty, in a riveting exploration that sheds light on the potential conflicts between free access to space and territorial claims prohibition.  As our conversation orbits around the moon, we get into the nuts and bolts of operational challenges on its low-gravity environment and the grip export control laws have on human spaceflight in distress scenarios. Get insights into the complexities of export control regulations and the controversial politics festering in space life. And if you've ever wondered what it costs to vacation in outer space, we get into the nitty-gritty of that too.  Closing our cosmic discussion, we delve into the potential legal and ethical implications of establishing human settlements on the moon. From microgravity's effects on human physiology to potential immigration laws and settlements on the moon- we leave no stone unturned. Christopher also shares his thoughts on the media's role in shaping conceptions of space law and the need for peaceful space use. So, brace yourself for an out-of-this-world exploration and prepare to expand your understanding beyond earthly confines. In this episode, you'll hear about: Space and immigration law intersection Space claims and operational challenges Export control and spaceflight training Implications of space exploration and settlements Law and governance in outer space Follow and Review: We'd love for you to follow us if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We'd love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Supporting Resources: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hearsey/ https://www.spacecourtfoundation.org/ https://www.osaconsultingdc.com/ https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/ https://www.youtube.com/@SpaceCourtFoundation Alcorn Immigration Law: Subscribe to the monthly Alcorn newsletter Sophie Alcorn Podcast: Episode 16: E-2 Visa for Founders and Employees Episode 19: Australian Visas Including E-3 Episode 20: TN Visas and Status for Canadian and Mexican Citizens Immigration Options for Talent, Investors, and Founders Immigration Law for Tech Startups eBook Extraordinary Ability Bootcamp course for best practices for securing the O-1A visa, EB-1A green card, or the EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver) green card—the top options for startup founders. Use promotion code ILTS for 20% off the enrollment fee.  

On this day in legal history, October 10, 1967, a pivotal moment in the history of space exploration occurred as the Outer Space Treaty officially entered into force. Outer Space Treaty's legal significance is profound. When it entered into force on October 10, 1967, it established a set of binding international laws and principles that continue to shape the legal framework governing outer space to this day. This historic agreement, signed and ratified by numerous nations, was a remarkable step in ensuring the peaceful use of outer space. The treaty set forth several key principles that aimed to prevent the militarization of space and promote cooperation among spacefaring nations.The treaty affirmed that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, would be used exclusively for peaceful purposes. It explicitly prohibited the placement of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth, on celestial bodies, or in outer space. Additionally, the treaty emphasized the importance of international cooperation in space exploration, the sharing of scientific discoveries, and the protection of the space environment.The Outer Space Treaty laid the foundation for the responsible and peaceful exploration of space, fostering international collaboration in various space endeavors and ensuring that space remains a realm of cooperation rather than confrontation. Its entry into force on October 10, 1967, marked a significant milestone in human efforts to maintain the peaceful nature of activities beyond our planet. Biotech company 23andMe Inc. is facing a federal class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over its alleged failure to protect the genetic data of thousands of individuals in a data breach that was disclosed on October 6th. The plaintiffs claim that 23andMe did not adequately safeguard their personal information and failed to employ reasonable security measures. The exposed data included names, birthdates, genetic ancestry results, profile photos, and geographic locations.Notably, some of this information, including that of high-profile individuals like Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Sergey Brin, was reportedly being sold online. The lawsuit also alleges that 23andMe did not provide timely and sufficient notification of the data breach. While the company initially denied a breach, it acknowledged that customer data was available for sale on a hacker forum.The plaintiffs argue that the breach puts victims at risk of fraud and identity theft and has caused damages such as privacy invasion, time loss, out-of-pocket expenses, and diminished value of their personal information. They seek to represent a class of all individuals affected by the breach and have brought various claims against 23andMe, including negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.23andMe Sued Over Hack of Genetic Data Affecting ThousandsFormer Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has been found to have violated federal labor law by making an illegal threat against a barista named Madison Hall in California. Schultz's comment, made during a "listening tour" where he met with Starbucks employees to discuss working conditions, told Hall, who questioned the company's response to union organizing, to "go work for another company." The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge, Brian Gee, ruled that this statement constituted an illegal threat against the worker. Starbucks did not directly comment on the finding that Schultz had violated the law, stating that they hosted listening sessions across the country to gather input on store experiences. Workers at more than 360 Starbucks locations in the U.S. have voted to join unions since late 2021, and the company has faced allegations of union-busting, which it denies. Schultz's decision can be appealed to the NLRB and a federal appeals court. A separate claim that Starbucks unlawfully interrogated workers by asking them to write their concerns on Post-It notes was dismissed.Ex-Starbucks CEO Schultz illegally threatened union supporter, NLRB judge rules | ReutersA federal court has ruled that two Sonos Inc. patents related to managing smart speakers in a multiroom system are unenforceable. This decision comes several months after Sonos won a $32.5 million jury verdict against Google, which was later vacated. The ruling, made by Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, pointed out that Sonos had filed provisional patent applications in 2006 but didn't complete their applications for over 13 years, during which time the industry had already implemented similar technology.The court also noted that in 2014, Google shared plans to use the disputed technology with Sonos, and the companies even considered collaboration. However, no partnership materialized. Even after Google launched its first device in 2015, Sonos waited four years to pursue claims and another year before releasing its competing product.Judge Alsup criticized Sonos for altering patent specifications during litigation, undermining the claim of priority. He expressed concern about the misuse of the patent system for delay and manipulation. The court denied other post-trial motions and is set to enter a final judgment. Nevertheless, this may not mark the end of the legal battle, as related lawsuits have been filed in various other jurisdictions, including Texas, Canada, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Judge Slams Sonos, Rules Patents Invalid in Google Speaker CaseIn his weekly column at Bloomberg “Technically Speaking” my co-host Andrew Leahey explores the "sales tax gap" in the United States, which represents the shortfall between taxes owed and taxes actually collected. Leahey explains this is a complex problem due to the asymmetry in information between businesses and state taxing authorities. In the U.S., businesses are responsible for both collecting and remitting sales tax and maintaining accurate records to substantiate these transactions. Without such records, state authorities often remain unaware of sales and income tax obligations, providing an incentive for businesses to manipulate transactions or employ sales suppression techniques.Fiji has introduced an effective digital invoicing system that could serve as a model for U.S. state tax authorities. This system mandates digital receipts for all taxable transactions, shared in real-time with both parties and the tax authority. By implementing a similar system in the U.S., it would create a paper trail for all transactions, including cash transactions, making data manipulation or sales suppression virtually impossible.However, the transition to such a system poses challenges, including significant investments in technology and labor. To encourage compliance, some countries, like Taiwan and the United Arab Emirates, have linked invoicing to consumer incentives and lotteries. Leahey emphasizes the need for uniformity in the implementation of digital invoicing to avoid undue administrative burdens on small businesses.Ultimately, Leahey suggests that U.S. state tax authorities should consider international models, like Fiji's digital invoicing system, to address the sales tax gap in the future, especially when seeking new sources of revenue. This approach could help enhance tax collection and reduce fraudulent practices.We Can Solve the US State Sales Tax Gap by Looking Overseas | Technically Speaking on Bloomberg Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

As humanity builds settlements beyond Earth, myriad ethical issues will arise--many in a different way than they do terrestrially. Astrophysicist and space communicator Erika Nesvold has devoted extensive thought and research to how to ethically govern space settlements, most notably on her podcast Making New Worlds and in her book Off-Earth.In a conversation that pairs well with Shane Harris's March 2022 Chatter discussion with astrobiologist Lucianne Walkowicz about ethical space exploration, David Priess spoke with Erika about her grounding in Star Trek and other science fiction, the JustSpace Alliance that she co-founded with Lucianne, that alliance's interactions with space industrialists, Erika's application to be an astronaut, conflicting motivations for humanity to settle space, how we should select space settlers, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the concept of legal personhood for non-terrestrial bodies, labor law and criminal justice in space settlements, how motivations for settling space influence openness to various forms of government, and more.Among the works mentioned in this episode:The podcast Making New WorldsThe book Off-Earth by Erika NesvoldThe Chatter podcast episode Ethical Space Exploration with Lucianne WalkowiczThe Star Trek universeThe Foundation book series by Isaac AsimovThe Dune book series by Frank HerbertThe YouTube video All TomorrowsThe movie 2012The book 2010 by Arthur C. ClarkeThe book Artemis by Andy WeirThe movie SunshineThe book A Brief History of Equality by Thomas PinkettyThe book series The Wheel of Time by Robert JordanThe book Doomsday Book by Connie WillisChatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As humanity builds settlements beyond Earth, myriad ethical issues will arise--many in a different way than they do terrestrially. Astrophysicist and space communicator Erika Nesvold has devoted extensive thought and research to how to ethically govern space settlements, most notably on her podcast Making New Worlds and in her book Off-Earth.In a conversation that pairs well with Shane Harris's March 2022 Chatter discussion with astrobiologist Lucianne Walkowicz about ethical space exploration, David Priess spoke with Erika about her grounding in Star Trek and other science fiction, the JustSpace Alliance that she co-founded with Lucianne, that alliance's interactions with space industrialists, Erika's application to be an astronaut, conflicting motivations for humanity to settle space, how we should select space settlers, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the concept of legal personhood for non-terrestrial bodies, labor law and criminal justice in space settlements, how motivations for settling space influence openness to various forms of government, and more.Among the works mentioned in this episode:The podcast Making New Worlds The book Off-Earth by Erika NesvoldThe Chatter podcast episode Ethical Space Exploration with Lucianne Walkowicz The Star Trek universeThe Foundation book series by Isaac AsimovThe Dune book series by Frank HerbertThe YouTube video All TomorrowsThe movie 2012The book 2010 by Arthur C. ClarkeThe book Artemis by Andy WeirThe movie SunshineThe book A Brief History of Equality by Thomas PinkettyThe book series The Wheel of Time by Robert JordanThe book Doomsday Book by Connie WillisChatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to The Institute of Black Imagination, the podcast that takes you on a journey through the pool of black genius and beyond. Our guest today, Dr. Danielle Wood, is a shining example of how passion and perseverance can lead you to the stars. She defied the odds, shattered expectations, and carved her own path to become a leader in the world of space exploration and technology.So, join us as we embark on this cosmic voyage with Dr. Danielle Wood and discover how she unveiled the universe, one challenge at a time.Be sure to share some of your thoughts on today's episode with us on Instagram at @blackimagination. If you want to stay updated on all our latest news and exclusive content, click on this newsletter link. If you love what we do and want to support the show, click this support link. And without further ado, Dr. Danielle Wood.Things to mentionedIndia south pole Moon landing- After a failed attempt to land on the moon in 2019, India now joins the United States, the Soviet Union and China as only the fourth country to achieve this milestone.The Outer Space Treaty- the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities;States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; andStates shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.Chandra Xray observatory telescope - NASA's sophisticated telescope is specially designed to detect X-ray emission from very hot regions of the UniverseSystems architecture- A system's architecture reflects how it is thought about in terms of its structure, functions, and relationships.TNW Conference - is a website and annual series of conferences focused on new technology and start-up companies in Europe.Phillis Wheatley- American poet and author, the first black woman to publish a book (as an American woman, but the book was published in the UK).

 Space might be a big place but the United Nations regards it as ‘congested, contested and competitive'. This latest episode of Next Giant Leap, a podcast produced by GZERO Media in partnership with the space company MDA, explores the threats and tensions as space becomes busier and of greater strategic importance for an increasing number of countries. “We have to avoid, by all means, that it becomes a Wild West,” says Tanja Masson-Zwaan, a space law expert at Leiden University in the Netherlands. She adds, “We have regulations, laws and treaties that have been in place for the last fifty years, but we need more to govern this new frontier of space utilization, because the rules that we have are basic principles and do not go into the details.” Satellites are now being deployed to Low Earth Orbit at a rate of thousands every year. This zone of space is already littered with old defunct satellites and the remains of discarded sections of rockets which have accumulated over more than five decades. The risk of collisions is increasing, raising fears of a runaway cascade of space debris. Tests of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons have showered still more debris into Low Earth Orbit. Since 2007, China, the United States, India and Russia have conducted ASAT tests. Last year the United States announced its own moratorium on ASAT tests and, through a United Nations resolution, it has called for other nations to follow suit. So far China, Russia and India have not signed up. So is space set to become a new theater for conflict and weapons proliferation? “Look at how satellites have become embedded in our way of life,” says Kevin Whale, senior director of defense strategy at MDA. “If we wreck space, it's almost one step down from nuclear catastrophe”. Within a few years, a new phase of the space race will begin. Both the United States and China will be competing to get people to the moon and exploit its resources, particularly water ice in craters at the lunar south pole. According to Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, “The Outer Space Treaty says space is the province of all mankind, meaning it's open to usage really by everybody. On the other hand, the principles say we should avoid harmful interference. And so the question is, how do we go about balancing those two imperatives: open to everybody but avoid harmful interference?” Host: Kevin Fong Guests: Tanja Masson-Zwaan, Scott Pace, Kevin Whale

Astronomy Cast Ep. 670 - Governing Space: The 1967 Outer Space Treaty & More! by Fraser Cain & Dr. Pamela Ga Streamed live on Feb 13, 2023. The Universe was inaccessible for most of human history, but the first tentative steps to space in the 20th Century made humanity realize that science fiction was becoming science reality. New rules would have to be written to govern how we used this limitless expanse. Today we'll talk about the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.   This video was made possible by the following Patreon members: David Burry Gowen Jeanette Wink Stephen Veit Jordan Young Venkatesh Chary Andrew Poelstra Brian Cagle David Truog Gerhard Schwarzer THANK YOU! - Fraser and Dr. Pamela  

Satellites have held a special place in military planning and in spy fiction alike for more than half a century. Both domains ended up devoting much attention to satellite-based weapons and anti-satellite weaponry; both have also dealt with the problem of space debris related to the latter.In this chat, David Priess and George Washington University historian Aaron Bateman talk about Bateman's early interest in satellites, early satellite technology and attempts at anti-satellite activity, the Outer Space Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, actions by presidents from Eisenhower through Biden related to the testing of satellite and/or anti-satellite weapons, the Strategic Defense Initiative (commonly called the "Star Wars program"), the problem of space debris, the Kessler Syndrome, other countries' satellite and anti-satellite activities, the Space Force, and on-screen portrayals of satellite warfare and space debris from the James Bond movies to Gravity.Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How can we keep space safe? Neil deGrasse Tyson and comic-environmentalist co-host Matt Winning learn about the space industry and how we can keep debris out of orbit with aerospace engineers Jenna Tiwana and Danielle Wood, with words from Steve Wozniak. NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can watch or listen to this entire episode commercial-free here: https://startalkmedia.com/show/space-sustainability-with-steve-wozniak-guests/Thanks to our Patrons Sub Zero, Maury, Harrison Wilcox, Jim Langner, and JAYME HATTERSLEY for supporting us this week.Photo Credit: NOIRLab/NSF/AURA/P. Marenfeld, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons