Space Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Space Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spacepol

The American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017: The latest step in
regulating the space resources utilization industry or something more?
Undang-undang Perusahaan Perdagangan Luar Angkasa Amerika Amerika 2017:
Langkah terbaru dalam mengatur industri pemanfaatan sumber daya ruang atau hal
lainnya?

a,b,∗ c,d
Hao Liu , Fabio Tronchetti
a Director, Institute of Aviation Law and Standard, Beihang University, China
b Deputy Director, National Research Center of Air Traffic Management Law and Standard, Beihang University, China
c Co-Director, Institute of Space Law and Strategy, Zhuoyue Program Associate Professor, Beihang University, China
d Adjunct Professor of Comparative National Space Law, School of Law, University of Mississippi, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: On June 6, 2017, a draft bill entitled the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act was introduced to the US House of
Private space activities Representatives. Even though the bill has not been enacted into law yet, its relevance should not be underestimated. Indeed, it
US space sector not only represents the latest step in regulating the nascent space mining industry, but it also contains several provisions that,
Space mining to a large extent, challenges the traditional understanding of basic in-ternational space law rules. For example, the draft bill
Authorization procedure
refers to the right of US entities to engage in space undertaking without conditions or limitations, argues that not all the
obligations of the Outer Space Treaty are imputable to those entities and claims that outer space is not a global commons.

Pada tanggal 6 Juni 2017, rancangan undang-undang yang berjudul Undang-Undang Perusahaan Perdagangan Bebas
Ruang Angkasa Amerika diperkenalkan kepada Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat AS. Meskipun RUU tersebut belum disahkan
menjadi undang-undang, relevansinya tidak boleh diremehkan. Memang, ini tidak hanya mewakili langkah terbaru dalam
mengatur industri penambangan luar angkasa yang baru lahir, tetapi juga mengandung beberapa ketentuan yang,
sebagian besar, menentang pemahaman tradisional tentang aturan hukum ruang angkasa internasional. Sebagai contoh,
rancangan undang-undang mengacu pada hak entitas AS untuk terlibat dalam upaya luar angkasa tanpa syarat atau
batasan, berpendapat bahwa tidak semua kewajiban Perjanjian Luar Angkasa tidak dapat diterapkan pada entitas tersebut
dan mengklaim bahwa angkasa luar bukanlah milik bersama secara global.

In the light of the above, the purpose of the present viewpoint is to review the most innovative, yet con-troversial, elements
of the draft bill and to assess their possible impact on future space resources utilization activities as well as on the overall
stability of the space law regime.
Sehubungan dengan hal di atas, tujuan dari sudut pandang ini adalah untuk meninjau elemen- elemen
rancangan RUU yang terbaru, namun kontroversial, dan untuk menilai kemungkinan dampaknya terhadap kegiatan
pemanfaatan sumber daya ruang di masa yang akan datang serta terhadap stabilitas keseluruhan dari aturan hukum
ruang angkasa

1. Introduction
1. Pembukaan

On June 6, 2017, a bill entitled the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act was introduced to the US House of Representatives [ 1]. After being
referred to the House Science, Space and Technology's Committee, the bill underwent a process of revision (called Markup) [ 2] before being adopted by said
Committee on June 8 [3].
Pada tanggal 6 Juni 2017, RUU yang berjudul Undang-Undang Perusahaan Perdagangan Bebas Amerika Ruang Angkasa diperkenalkan kepada
Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat AS [1]. Setelah dirujuk ke House Science, Space and Technology's Committee, RUU itu menjalani proses revisi (disebut Markup)
[2] sebelum diadopsi oleh Komite tersebut pada 8 Juni [3].

Even though the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act does not constitute the official law of the country yet [4] its drafting marks a turning point in
US domestic space law. The bill is significant because its scope goes well beyond the mere regulation of the nascent space resources utilization industry. Indeed,
on one side, it changes the way in which the US government regulates and control some of space activities undertaken by US private entities [ 5]. On the other
side, it introduces a new interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty that chal-lenges the traditional understanding of space law principles. For ex-ample, the bill
provides that outer space is not a global commons [6] and that no all obligations of the United States are imputable upon non-governmental entities [7].
Meskipun Undang-Undang Perusahaan Perdagangan Luar Angkasa Amerika (American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act) belum merupakan
hukum resmi negara tersebut [4] perancangannya menandai titik balik dalam undang-undang antariksa domestik AS. RUU ini penting karena ruang
lingkupnya jauh melampaui peraturan industri pemanfaatan sumber daya ruang yang baru lahir. Memang, di satu sisi, itu mengubah cara di mana
pemerintah AS mengatur dan mengendalikan beberapa kegiatan luar angkasa yang dilakukan oleh entitas swasta AS [5]. Di sisi lain, ia memperkenalkan
interpretasi baru dari Perjanjian Luar Angkasa yang menantang pemahaman tradisional tentang prinsip-prinsip hukum ruang angkasa. Sebagai contoh,
RUU tersebut menetapkan bahwa ruang angkasa bukan merupakan milik bersama global [6] dan bahwa tidak semua kewajiban Amerika Serikat tidak dapat
diterapkan pada entitas non-pemerintah [7].

In light of the innovative, yet debatable, nature of the bill it seems proper to analyze its content and potential implications both from a domestic and
international perspective.
Mengingat sifat inovatif, namun masih dapat diperdebatkan, RUU itu tampaknya tepat untuk menganalisis kontennya dan implikasi potensial
baik dari perspektif domestik dan internasional.

2. Background of the bill American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act

2. Latar belakang RUU American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act

The purpose of the bill is to enhance the effectiveness and trans-parency of existing authorization and supervision procedures for non-governmental space
activities. In this respect, one should keep in mind that under Article VI of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty States [ 8] are under the obligation to authorize and
continuously supervise non-governmental undertakings in outer space [9].
Tujuan RUU ini adalah untuk meningkatkan efektivitas dan transparansi prosedur otorisasi dan pengawasan yang ada untuk kegiatan ruang
non-pemerintah. Dalam hal ini, orang harus ingat bahwa berdasarkan Pasal VI Negara-negara Perjanjian Luar Angkasa 1967 [8] berada di bawah
kewajiban untuk mengotorisasi dan terus-menerus mengawasi usaha-usaha non-pemerintah di luar angkasa [9].

In order to manage domestic private space activities, the United States has established various authorization procedures, respectively in the areas of
commercial space launch and reentry (under the super-vision of the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation, FAA/AST),
remote sensing (under the super-vision of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA), and use of the electromagnetic spectrum (under the
authority of the Federal Communications Commission, FCC).
Untuk mengelola kegiatan ruang pribadi domestik, Amerika Serikat telah menetapkan berbagai prosedur otorisasi, masing-masing di bidang peluncuran
dan pemasukan ruang komersial (di bawah supervisi Kantor Administrasi Penerbangan Federal, Transportasi Angkasa Komersial, FAA / AST),
penginderaan jarak jauh (di bawah supervisi Administrasi Kelautan dan Atmosfer Nasional, NOAA), dan penggunaan spektrum elektromagnetik (di bawah
wewenang Komisi Komunikasi Federal, FCC).

In recent times, US private entities have decided to invest in non-traditional space activities, namely activities that are not intended to perform traditional space
functions and that expected to occur in Earth's orbit and beyond [10]. The mining and utilization of celestial bodies' resources is certainly the most publicized and
debated of this kind of ventures.
Dalam beberapa waktu terakhir, entitas swasta AS telah memutuskan untuk berinvestasi dalam kegiatan ruang non-tradisional, yaitu kegiatan
yang tidak dimaksudkan untuk melakukan fungsi ruang tradisional dan yang diharapkan terjadi di orbit Bumi dan di luar [10]. Penambangan dan
pemanfaatan sumber daya benda langit tentu yang paling dipublikasikan dan diperdebatkan tentang hal ini.

∗
Corresponding author. Director, Institute of Aviation Law and Standard, Beihang University, China. E-mail
address: liuhaobeihang@yahoo.com (H. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2018.02.004
Received 23 December 2017; Received in revised form 9 February 2018; Accepted 27 February 2018
0265-9646/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Please cite this article as: Liu, H., Space Policy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2018.02.004
H. Liu, F. Tronchetti
Importantly, non-traditional space activities lack clear and dedi-cated
international rules to govern them. The absence of dedicated rules raises two
fundamental questions: a) are these activities legal under international space
law? Do States have the right to license domestic entities to undertake them?
The case of space resources utilization is emblematic in this respect [11].
While Article II of the Outer Space Treaty prohibits the national appropriation
of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, it is silent on
whether this prohi-bition also extends to the resources contained therein.
While some scholars argue that Article II's restriction covers both celestial
bodies and their resources, other believe that once removed from their original
site, space resources can be appropriated and used for both scientific and
commercial purposes [12].
Yang penting, kegiatan ruang non-tradisional tidak memiliki aturan
internasional yang jelas dan terdidik untuk mengaturnya. Tidak adanya
aturan khusus menimbulkan dua pertanyaan mendasar: a) apakah
kegiatan ini legal di bawah hukum antariksa internasional? Apakah
Negara memiliki hak untuk melisensikan entitas domestik untuk
melaksanakannya? Kasus pemanfaatan sumber daya ruang adalah simbol
dalam hal ini [11]. Sementara Pasal II dari Perjanjian Luar Angkasa
melarang perampasan ruang angkasa luar nasional, termasuk Bulan dan
benda-benda langit lainnya, diam mengenai apakah larangan ini juga
meluas ke sumber daya yang terkandung di dalamnya. Sementara beberapa
ahli berpendapat bahwa pembatasan Pasal II mencakup baik benda langit
dan sumber dayanya, yang lain percaya bahwa setelah dipindahkan dari
situs asli mereka, sumber daya ruang dapat disesuaikan dan digunakan
untuk tujuan ilmiah dan komersial [12
For several years, US space mining companies argued that the cur-rent
state of uncertainty was harmful to their interests and demanded US
authorities to set up a domestic regulatory framework favorable to their
operations [13]. The United States answered this call by enacting the
Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act in November 2015 [14].
Title IV of the Act, while pointing out that the United States did not intend to
claim sovereignty, exclusive rights or jurisdiction over, or ownership of,
celestial bodies, attributed to US citizens the right to possess, own, transport, 3. RUU American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017
use and sell the resource that they have ob-tained in space. Notably, once
released, the Act spurred international controversy with certain countries and
scholars openly questioning its legality [15].
Selama beberapa tahun, perusahaan penambangan luar
angkasa AS berargumen bahwa keadaan ketidakpastian saat ini berbahaya
bagi kepentingan mereka dan menuntut otoritas AS untuk membuat
kerangka peraturan domestik yang mendukung operasi mereka [13].
Amerika Serikat menjawab panggilan ini dengan memberlakukan UU
Daya Saing Peluncuran Ruang Komersial pada bulan November 2015 [14].
Judul IV dari Undang-Undang, sambil menunjukkan bahwa Amerika
Serikat tidak berniat untuk mengklaim kedaulatan, hak eksklusif atau
yurisdiksi atas, atau kepemilikan, benda langit, dikaitkan dengan warga
negara AS hak untuk memiliki, memiliki, mengangkut, menggunakan dan
menjual sumber daya yang mereka miliki di ruang angkasa. Khususnya,
setelah dirilis, Undang-Undang tersebut memicu kontroversi internasional
dengan negara-negara dan para sarjana tertentu secara terbuka
mempertanyakan legalitasnya [15].
The Act requested the US President to issue a report clarifying how the
US intended to comply with its international obligations, especially the
requirement to authorize and supervise non-governmental space activities.
Indeed, due to the novelty of space resources utilization ac-tivities, no
dedicated domestic mechanism to license and control them was in place.
Undang-undang itu meminta Presiden AS untuk
mengeluarkan laporan yang menjelaskan bagaimana AS bermaksud untuk
memenuhi kewajiban internasionalnya, terutama persyaratan untuk
mengotorisasi dan mengawasi kegiatan ruang non-pemerintah. Memang,
karena kebaruan kegiatan pemanfaatan sumber daya ruang, tidak ada
mekanisme domestik khusus untuk melisensikan dan mengendalikannya.
On April 4, 2016, the Office of Science and Technology Policy of the
Executive Office of the US President sent a letter to Congress in ful-fillment
of such a requirement [16]. Accordingly, the letter suggested a “Mission
Authorization Procedure” for the authorization and super-vision of ‘innovative
and unprecedented on-orbit space activities’, in-cluding, inter alia,
commercial space habitats, satellite refueling, com-mercial missions to Mars
and space resources utilization. The Procedure was envisioned to consist of an
interagency review process to be managed by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) which had the primary purpose of licensing
experimental technology development and demonstration.
Pada tanggal 4 April 2016, Kantor Kebijakan Sains dan
Teknologi Kantor Eksekutif Presiden AS mengirim surat ke Kongres untuk
memenuhi persyaratan tersebut [16]. Oleh karena itu, surat itu
menyarankan "Prosedur Otorisasi Misi" untuk otorisasi dan super-visi
'kegiatan ruang on-orbit inovatif dan belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya',
termasuk, antara lain, habitat ruang komersial, pengisian bahan bakar
satelit, misi komersial ke Mars dan pemanfaatan sumber daya ruang.
Prosedur ini diharapkan terdiri dari proses peninjauan antar lembaga yang
akan dikelola oleh Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) yang memiliki
tujuan utama melisensikan pengembangan dan demonstrasi teknologi
eksperimental.
At first this proposal seemed to be positively received. However, in recent
hearings held in the Subcommittee on Space of the House of Representatives
[17] and in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Sci-ence and Transportation
[18] it became evident that this support had been lost. Numerous witnesses
pointed out that the Mission Author-ization Procedure created unnecessary
administrative burdens to the nascent private space (mining) [19] industry.
These views led to the emergence of a new approach aimed at relieving such
obstacles and facilitating the realization of non-governmental space (mining)
projects which will eventually constitute the core of the American Space
Com-merce Free Enterprise Act.
Awalnya proposal ini sepertinya diterima secara positif. Namun, dalam
dengar pendapat baru-baru ini yang diadakan di Subkomite Ruang Dewan
Perwakilan Rakyat [17] dan di Komite Senat tentang Perdagangan, Ilmu
Pengetahuan dan Transportasi [18] menjadi jelas bahwa dukungan ini
telah hilang. Banyak saksi menunjukkan bahwa Prosedur Otorisasi Misi
menciptakan beban administrasi yang tidak perlu ke ruang privat
(pertambangan) yang baru lahir [19]. Pandangan-pandangan ini
mengarah pada munculnya pendekatan baru yang bertujuan
menghilangkan hambatan-hambatan tersebut dan memfasilitasi realisasi
proyek-proyek ruang (penambangan) non-pemerintah yang pada akhirnya
akan menjadi inti dari Undang-undang Perusahaan Bebas Antariksa
Ruang Angkasa Amerika.
3. The bill American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017
3.1. Preliminary remarks
3.1. Kata sambutan
The bill American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017 is a
comprehensive commercial space regulatory streamlining bill which aims at
fostering the US private space sector. In order to meet this goal, the bill takes
a double direction: first, it sets out a new authorization and control procedure
for non-traditional private space activities under the authority of the Office of
Space Commerce (OSC) within the Department of Commerce; secondly, it
streamlines the existing procedure to obtain a permit to operate private remote
sensing systems. The bill is rather extensive, as it consists of seven Sections.
The present viewpoint focuses its attention only on the most relevant pro-
visions of the newly proposed authorization procedure for non-gov-ernmental
space activities, in particular on their implications for future space mining
operations and the overall interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty by the
United States. The analysis of the clauses dealing with remote sensing
operations falls outside of the limited scope of this
viewpoint [20].
RUU Amerika Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act 2017 adalah undang-
undang perampingan ruang komersial yang komprehensif yang bertujuan
mendorong sektor ruang angkasa swasta AS. Untuk memenuhi tujuan ini,
RUU ini mengambil arah ganda: pertama, RUU ini menetapkan prosedur
otorisasi dan kontrol baru untuk kegiatan ruang pribadi non-tradisional di
bawah wewenang Kantor Ruang Angkasa (OSC) di dalam Departemen
Perdagangan; kedua, merampingkan prosedur yang ada untuk
mendapatkan izin untuk mengoperasikan sistem penginderaan jauh
pribadi. RUU ini agak luas, karena terdiri dari tujuh Bagian. Sudut
pandang saat ini memfokuskan perhatiannya hanya pada provisi yang
paling relevan dari prosedur otorisasi yang baru diusulkan untuk kegiatan
ruang non-pemerintah, khususnya pada implikasinya untuk operasi
penambangan luar angkasa di masa depan dan interpretasi keseluruhan
dari Perjanjian Luar Angkasa oleh Amerika Serikat. Analisis klausa yang
berkaitan dengan operasi penginderaan jauh berada di luar ruang lingkup
terbatas ini
3.2. Content of the bill
3.2. Isi dari tagihan
 The first part of the bill lays down its ideological and strategic foundation.
First, while pointing out that mechanisms to authorize private space activities
are already in place, the bill emphasizes the need to improve them to ease
administrative burdens to favor the de-velopment of innovative space
technology [21]. In this respect, the establishment of a new procedure for
authorization and supervision of non-governmental space activities represents
as a means to address misperception of legal uncertainty [22].
Bagian pertama dari RUU ini meletakkan fondasi ideologis
dan strategisnya. Pertama, sementara menunjukkan bahwa mekanisme
untuk mengotorisasi kegiatan ruang pribadi sudah ada, RUU tersebut
menekankan perlunya meningkatkan mereka untuk meringankan beban
administrasi untuk mendukung pengembangan teknologi ruang angkasa
yang inovatif [21]. Dalam hal ini, pembentukan prosedur baru untuk
otorisasi dan pengawasan kegiatan ruang non-pemerintah merupakan
sarana untuk mengatasi kesalahan persepsi tentang ketidakpastian hukum
[22].
Interestingly, except space resources utilization operations, the bill does
not spell out precisely which activities are covered by said pro-cedure.
However, from the analysis of the text of the bill and its drafting one may
make the following considerations: a) activities should have an innovative and
non-traditional nature (i.e. on orbit servicing); [23] b) the existing licensing
competences of the FAA/AST and the FCC remain unchanged.
Menariknya, kecuali operasi pemanfaatan sumber daya
ruang, RUU itu tidak menguraikan dengan tepat kegiatan mana yang
dicakup oleh prosedur tersebut. Namun, dari analisis teks rancangan
undang-undang dan rancangannya, seseorang dapat membuat
pertimbangan berikut: a) kegiatan harus memiliki sifat inovatif dan non-
tradisional (mis. Pada layanan orbit); [23] b) kompetensi lisensi yang ada
dari FAA / AST dan FCC tetap tidak berubah
Secondly, the bill indicates the key points of the US policy with respect to
non-governmental space operations, respectively: a) the right of US citizens
to freely explore and use outer space and the resources contained therein
without conditions or limitations; b) limitations to this right can only be
imposed when necessary to meet national security interests and to make sure
consistency with the Outer Space Treaty's obligations; c) the United States
shall interpret and implement its in-ternational obligations to minimize
regulations and limitations of US non-governmental entities in space; d) steps
to protect the safety of space objects operated by the United States shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, not involve limitations on the freedoms of
US non-governmental entities; e) the process to license and control non-gov-
ernmental space activities shall be transparent and cost efficient [24].
Kedua, RUU tersebut menunjukkan poin-poin utama dari kebijakan AS
sehubungan dengan operasi antariksa non-pemerintah, masing-masing: a)
hak warga negara AS untuk secara bebas menjelajahi dan menggunakan
ruang luar dan sumber daya yang terkandung di dalamnya tanpa syarat
atau batasan; b) pembatasan terhadap hak ini hanya dapat dikenakan bila
perlu untuk memenuhi kepentingan keamanan nasional dan untuk
memastikan konsistensi dengan kewajiban Perjanjian Luar Angkasa; c)
Amerika Serikat akan menafsirkan dan mengimplementasikan kewajiban
internasionalnya untuk meminimalkan peraturan dan batasan entitas non-
pemerintah AS di luar angkasa; d) langkah-langkah untuk melindungi
keselamatan benda-benda luar angkasa yang dioperasikan oleh Amerika
Serikat harus, sejauh dapat dipraktikkan, tidak melibatkan pembatasan
kebebasan entitas-entitas non-pemerintah AS; e) proses untuk
melisensikan dan mengendalikan kegiatan ruang non-pemerintah harus
transparan dan efisien biaya [24].
2
H. Liu, F. Tronchetti
meet the international obligations of the United States [33].
memenuhi kewajiban internasional Amerika Serikat [33].
The purpose of the certification procedure is to reduce, to the maximum
possible extent, limitations on the operator. One of the ex-ceptions to this rule
is the possibility for the Secretary to impose con-ditions to ensure compliance
with the Outer Space Treaty [34]. How-ever, in doing so, the Secretary shall
not only have clear evidence that the proposed operation violates the Treaty
but shall also interpret its provisions in a way that minimize limitations on the
freedom of US private entities to explore and use outer space [35].
Furthermore, the Federal Government shall not assume that all obligations of
the United States under the Outer Space Treaty are imputable to US non-
govern-mental entities [36].
Tujuan dari prosedur sertifikasi adalah untuk mengurangi,
sampai batas maksimum yang mungkin, pada operator. Salah satu
The bill then elaborates upon the new procedure to authorize and
supervise non-governmental space activities. Accordingly, the Secretary of
Commerce (or the Secretary), operating through the Office of Space
Commerce, is empowered to issue certification to operate space objects
belonging to US entities [25]. Starting one year after the entry into force of
the bill, no US entity will be allowed to operate a space object without
holding such certification [26].
RUU tersebut kemudian menguraikan prosedur baru untuk
mengotorisasi dan mengawasi kegiatan ruang non-pemerintah. Dengan
demikian, Sekretaris Perdagangan (atau Sekretaris), yang beroperasi
melalui Kantor Space Commerce, diberdayakan untuk mengeluarkan
sertifikasi untuk mengoperasikan objek ruang milik entitas AS [25]. Mulai
satu tahun setelah berlakunya RUU tersebut, tidak ada entitas AS yang
akan diizinkan untuk mengoperasikan objek luar angkasa tanpa
memegang sertifikasi tersebut [26].
The Secretary of Commerce plays a predominant role in the pro-posed
authorization procedure. Indeed, even though it shall consult other federal
agencies when reviewing an application for certification [27], the Secretary
retains exclusive authority to authorize, place con-ditions and supervise the
activities of space objects certified under the bill [28]. The Secretary of
Commerce might accept or deny an appli-cation for certification based on
compliance with rules and timetables set in the bill. For example, an
application shall explain the proposed operation of the space object, describe
the space debris mitigation plan, indicate the launch provider and inform
about third-party liability in-surance to cover damage caused by operating that
object [29]. The Secretary of Commerce would then have 90 days to approve
an appli-cation or not [30]. If the Secretary does not act within this timeframe,
the application is automatically approved [31]. If the Secretary dis-approves
the application, it shall give a clear explanation to the ap-plicant and enable it
to reapply to address the shortcomings [32]. Im-portantly, in determining
whether to approve or reject an application, the Secretary shall presume that
any attestation and any reasonable commercially available efforts made by the
applicant is sufficient to
Sekretaris Perdagangan memainkan peran utama dalam
prosedur otorisasi yang diajukan. Memang, meskipun harus berkonsultasi
dengan badan-badan federal lain ketika meninjau aplikasi untuk sertifikasi
[27], Sekretaris tetap memiliki wewenang eksklusif untuk mengotorisasi,
menempatkan kondisi dan mengawasi kegiatan benda-benda luar angkasa
yang disertifikasi di bawah undang-undang [28]. Sekretaris Perdagangan
mungkin menerima atau menolak aplikasi sertifikasi berdasarkan
kepatuhan pada aturan dan jadwal yang ditetapkan dalam RUU tersebut.
Sebagai contoh, aplikasi harus menjelaskan operasi yang diusulkan dari
objek ruang angkasa, menggambarkan rencana mitigasi puing-puing
ruang, menunjukkan penyedia peluncuran dan menginformasikan tentang
pertanggungjawaban pertanggungjawaban pihak ketiga untuk mencakup
kerusakan yang disebabkan oleh pengoperasian objek tersebut [29].
Sekretaris Perdagangan akan memiliki 90 hari untuk menyetujui aplikasi
atau tidak [30]. Jika Sekretaris tidak bertindak dalam jangka waktu ini,
aplikasi secara otomatis disetujui [31]. Jika Sekretaris tidak menyetujui
aplikasi, itu harus memberikan penjelasan yang jelas kepada pemohon dan
memungkinkan untuk mengajukan kembali untuk mengatasi kekurangan
[32]. Yang penting, dalam menentukan apakah akan menyetujui atau
menolak aplikasi, Sekretaris harus menganggap bahwa setiap pengesahan
dan segala upaya komersial yang wajar yang dilakukan oleh pemohon
cukup untuk
pengecualian terhadap aturan ini adalah kemungkinan bagi Sekretaris
untuk memaksakan kondisi untuk memastikan kepatuhan dengan
Perjanjian Luar Angkasa [34]. Akan tetapi, dalam melakukan hal itu,
Sekretaris tidak hanya akan memiliki bukti yang jelas bahwa operasi yang
diusulkan melanggar Perjanjian tetapi juga harus menafsirkan ketentuan-
ketentuannya dengan cara yang meminimalkan pembatasan pada
kebebasan entitas swasta AS untuk mengeksplorasi dan menggunakan
ruang angkasa [35 ] Selain itu, Pemerintah Federal tidak akan
menganggap bahwa semua kewajiban Amerika Serikat berdasarkan
Perjanjian Luar Angkasa tidak dapat diterapkan pada entitas non-
pemerintah-mental AS [36].
No later than 30 days after issuing a certification the Secretary shall
review whether the certified object poses risks to the safety of space objects
operated by the Federal Government [37]. If the Secretary identifies a risk it
may invite the certification holder to participate in a consultation process with
the Government. In that framework the Se-cretary may encourage voluntary
agreements between the parties to mitigate the physical safety threat [38].
 Selambat-lambatnya 30 hari setelah mengeluarkan sertifikasi
Sekretaris harus meninjau apakah objek yang disertifikasi menimbulkan
risiko terhadap keselamatan objek ruang angkasa yang dioperasikan oleh
Pemerintah Federal [37]. Jika Sekretaris mengidentifikasi risiko, ia dapat
mengundang pemegang sertifikasi untuk berpartisipasi dalam proses
konsultasi dengan Pemerintah. Dalam kerangka kerja tersebut, Se-cretary
dapat mendorong perjanjian sukarela antara para pihak untuk mengurangi
ancaman keselamatan fisik [38].
The last part of the bill deals with the administrative provisions related to
certification. Accordingly, the Secretary may decide to end certification or the
certified operations if it determines that the certi-fication holder has violated
the provisions of the Act or the terms of such certification. Based on the
seriousness of the violation, the Secretary may impose civil penalties not
exceeding $10,000 per day (each day of operation constituting a separate
violation) and not ex-ceeding $500,000 in total [39].
Bagian terakhir dari RUU ini membahas ketentuan
administrasi terkait sertifikasi. Dengan demikian, Sekretaris dapat
memutuskan untuk mengakhiri sertifikasi atau operasi bersertifikat jika
menentukan bahwa pemegang sertifikasi telah melanggar ketentuan
Undang-Undang atau ketentuan sertifikasi tersebut. Berdasarkan
keseriusan pelanggaran, Sekretaris dapat menjatuhkan hukuman sipil
tidak melebihi $ 10.000 per hari (setiap hari operasi merupakan
pelanggaran terpisah) dan tidak melebihi total $ 500.000 total [39].
The bill concludes by stating that outer space shall not be con-sidered a
global commons [40].
RUU ini menyimpulkan dengan menyatakan bahwa ruang
angkasa tidak akan dianggap sebagai milik bersama global [40].
luar angkasa, termasuk yang dilakukan oleh operator swasta AS [42].
Lebih lanjut, RUU itu menolak proposal untuk membiarkan usaha ruang
angkasa swasta baru dilakukan dalam lingkungan tanpa izin, yaitu tanpa
melalui proses otorisasi dan pengawasan berdasarkan Pasal VI Perjanjian
Luar Angkasa. Usulan seperti itu dianggap tidak menguntungkan bagi
kepentingan jangka panjang Amerika Serikat. Khususnya, juga presentasi
ulang dari industri penambangan luar angkasa berbagi pandangan ini.
Sebagai contoh, Peter Marquez, wakil presiden untuk keterlibatan global di
Plane-tary Resources menyatakan bahwa: “Tujuan kami adalah memiliki
lingkungan ruang yang dihuni oleh orang-orang yang bertindak secara
bertanggung jawab; jika itu berubah menjadi Barat yang liar hanya
melakukan apa pun yang Anda inginkan, maka hal semacam itu
bertentangan dengan konsep dan aturan Luar Angkasa ”[43].
The new procedure for authorization and supervision of non-gov-
ernmental space activities represents the core of the bill. In the words of its
proponents the Bill enhances U.S. compliance with international obligations,
improves national security and removes regulatory barriers facing innovative
space companies [44]. While it is unquestionable that the bill puts in place a
regulatory environment favorable to the US
Prosedur baru untuk otorisasi dan pengawasan kegiatan
ruang non-pemerintah merupakan inti dari RUU tersebut. Dalam kata-kata
para penganjurnya, RUU ini meningkatkan kepatuhan AS terhadap
kewajiban internasional, meningkatkan keamanan nasional, dan
menghilangkan hambatan peraturan yang dihadapi perusahaan ruang
angkasa yang inovatif [44]. Meskipun tidak perlu dipertanyakan lagi, RUU
itu menempatkan lingkungan regulasi yang menguntungkan bagi AS

4. The bill American Space Free Commerce Act: a commentary

4. RUU Amerika Space Commerce Commerce: komentar

The drafting of the bill marks a potential turning point in the do-main of
space law. Indeed, the bill introduces a new interpretation of the Outer Space
Treaty that arguably disputes the way the Treaty has been understood and
applied so far. For this reason, if enacted in its current version, the Act is
likely to have an impact that goes well be-yond the boundaries of US
jurisdiction.
Penyusunan rancangan undang-undang menandai titik balik
potensial di bidang utama undang-undang ruang angkasa. Memang, RUU
tersebut memperkenalkan interpretasi baru dari Perjanjian Luar Angkasa
yang bisa diperdebatkan cara Perjanjian telah dipahami dan diterapkan
sejauh ini. Karena alasan ini, jika diberlakukan dalam versi saat ini,
Undang-Undang tersebut kemungkinan akan berdampak yang berjalan
baik di luar batas-batas yurisdiksi AS.

Before looking into the most controversial features of the bill, its positive
features should be highlighted. In this regard, the bill confirms the US
willingness to stay a Party to the Outer Space Treaty and to abide to its basic
obligations. During the Hearing held in the Senate the past May [41], the
possibility for the United States to withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty, or
to push for its amendment, was discussed based on the alleged negative
impact of the Treaty on the advancement of the US commercial space
industry. The bill does not accept this suggestion and, instead, confirms the
fundamental role that the Treaty plays in providing a level playing field for
space activities, including the one undertaken by US private operators [42].
Furthermore, the bill rejects the proposal to let new private space ventures to
be undertaken in a permissionless environment, namely without going
through the process of authorization and supervision under Article VI of the
Outer Space Treaty. Such a proposal was considered to be disadvantageous to
the long terms interests of the United States. Notably, also the re-presentatives
of the space mining industry shared this view. For ex-ample, Peter Marquez,
vice president for global engagement at Plane-tary Resources stated that: “Our
goal is to have a space environment that is populated by people acting
responsibly; if it turns into the wild West of just do whatever you want, then
that kind of runs against concepts and precepts of Outer Space Treaty” [43].
Sebelum melihat fitur yang paling kontroversial dari RUU
ini, fitur positifnya harus disorot. Dalam hal ini, RUU tersebut menegaskan
kesediaan AS untuk tetap menjadi Pihak dalam Perjanjian Luar Angkasa
dan mematuhi kewajiban dasarnya. Selama Sidang yang diadakan di Senat
Mei lalu [41], kemungkinan bagi Amerika Serikat untuk menarik diri dari
Perjanjian Luar Angkasa, atau untuk mendorong amandemennya, dibahas
berdasarkan dugaan dampak negatif dari Perjanjian terhadap kemajuan
industri luar angkasa komersial AS. RUU tersebut tidak menerima saran
ini dan, sebaliknya, mengkonfirmasi peran mendasar yang dimainkan
Perjanjian dalam menyediakan medan bermain yang setara untuk kegiatan
 Space Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
space industry, it is debatable if it increases compliance with interna-tional
obligations. In this respect, much depends on the interpretation and
implementation of the OST provisions. Arguably, it is from that perspective
that the Bill enters its most innovative, yet debatable, as-pects. Indeed, the bill
states that: 1) US citizens have the right to ex-plore and use outer space,
including its resources, without conditions;
industri luar angkasa, masih bisa diperdebatkan jika
meningkatkan kepatuhan dengan kewajiban internasional. Dalam hal ini,
banyak tergantung pada interpretasi dan implementasi ketentuan OST.
Dapat diperdebatkan, dari sudut pandang itulah Bill memasukkan hal-hal
yang paling inovatif, namun dapat diperdebatkan. Memang, RUU tersebut
menyatakan bahwa: 1) warga negara AS memiliki hak untuk menggali dan
menggunakan luar angkasa, termasuk sumber dayanya, tanpa syarat;
2) non all the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty are imputable upon US
private entities.
2) tidak semua ketentuan Perjanjian Luar Angkasa tidak dapat diterapkan
pada entitas swasta AS.
The first statement is not only legally debatable but it also appar-ently
contradicts the terms of Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty as well as with
the ideological foundation of the bill. US private space activities, including
those in the area of space resources utilization, are inherently ‘conditioned’ by
the requirements set in Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, according to
which such activities need to be ap-proved and controlled by an appropriate
State. Notably, this represents the main difference between States and private
operators as far as space endeavors are concerned; while the formers do not
need any form of permission, the latter do so and any space operation that
they carry out without a proper authorization amounts to a breach of
international law imputable on the appropriate State. Furthermore, as
explained above, the bill rejects the recommendation to let ‘new’ private space
activities to be undertaken without permission and adequate super-vision. It is
also significant that the bill itself provides that private space activities can be
limited to preserve national security interests and to make sure consistency
with international obligations. Even though the bill does not specific the exact
extent of such limitations, it is relevant that it lists two reasons to restrict
private entities' freedom. Overall, it remains uncertain what the drafters of the
bill were trying to convey while stating that US citizens have the right to
engage in space activities without conditions; if their argument was that US
private space activ-ities should be exclusively limited by the terms of their
respective do-mestic licenses, regardless of any widespread interpretation of
the Outer Space Treaty, they could have chosen a different wording. As it
stands, the language of the Bill arguably clashes with basic principles of
international space law.
Pernyataan pertama tidak hanya dapat diperdebatkan secara
hukum tetapi juga tampaknya bertentangan dengan ketentuan Pasal VI
Perjanjian Luar Angkasa serta dengan landasan ideologis RUU tersebut.
Kegiatan ruang pribadi AS, termasuk yang di bidang pemanfaatan sumber
daya ruang, pada dasarnya 'dikondisikan' oleh persyaratan yang
ditetapkan dalam Pasal VI Perjanjian Luar Angkasa, yang menurutnya
kegiatan tersebut perlu dibuktikan dan dikendalikan oleh Negara yang
tepat. . Khususnya, ini merupakan perbedaan utama antara Negara dan
H. Liu, F. Tronchetti
the Soviet Union and the United States according to which private space
activities were allowed upon the condition to be authorized and su-pervised
by an appropriate State which would be eventually responsible to ensure their
consistency with international space law broadly con-sidered, not just with
few provisions selected by each state [46].
Validitas pernyataan kedua juga dipertanyakan. Gagasan bahwa
tidak semua kewajiban Perjanjian Luar Angkasa tidak dapat diterapkan
pada entitas swasta AS berasal dari pendekatan untuk memahami efek dari
perjanjian internasional dalam sistem domestik AS yang menekankan sifat
mengeksekusi diri sendiri atau tidak dari ketentuan suatu perjanjian [45].
Dalam kasus sebelumnya, ketentuan tersebut dianggap segera berlaku
untuk subyek AS setelah perjanjian itu disahkan. Dalam contoh terakhir,
beberapa langkah legislatif diperlukan untuk memungkinkan penerapan
dalam negeri mereka untuk mata pelajaran AS. Karena beberapa
ketentuan Perjanjian Luar Angkasa, terutama yang dari Pasal VI, diklaim
tidak dapat dijalankan sendiri, ketentuan tersebut tidak akan menciptakan
kewajiban terhadap entitas AS sampai Kongres AS mengatakan demikian.
Sayangnya, pendekatan ini menyesatkan. Pada prinsipnya, orang bahkan
operator swasta sejauh menyangkut upaya ruang; sementara para
pembentuk tidak memerlukan segala bentuk izin, yang terakhir
melakukannya dan operasi ruang apa pun yang mereka lakukan tanpa
otorisasi yang layak sama dengan pelanggaran hukum internasional yang
tidak dapat diterapkan pada Negara yang tepat. Lebih jauh, seperti yang
dijelaskan di atas, RUU itu menolak rekomendasi untuk membiarkan
kegiatan ruang pribadi 'baru' dilakukan tanpa izin dan super visi yang
memadai. Juga penting bahwa RUU itu sendiri menetapkan bahwa
aktivitas ruang pribadi dapat dibatasi untuk menjaga kepentingan
keamanan nasional dan memastikan konsistensi dengan kewajiban
internasional. Meskipun undang-undang tersebut tidak secara spesifik
menyebutkan batas pasti dari pembatasan tersebut, adalah relevan bahwa
undang-undang tersebut mencantumkan dua alasan untuk membatasi
kebebasan entitas swasta. Secara keseluruhan, masih belum pasti apa yang
coba disampaikan oleh para perancang undang-undang tersebut sambil
menyatakan bahwa warga AS memiliki hak untuk terlibat dalam kegiatan
luar angkasa tanpa syarat; jika argumen mereka adalah bahwa aktivitas
ruang angkasa AS harus dibatasi secara eksklusif oleh ketentuan lisensi
do-mestic masing-masing, terlepas dari interpretasi luas dari Perjanjian
Luar Angkasa, mereka bisa memilih kata-kata yang berbeda. Seperti
berdiri, bahasa RUU itu bisa dibilang bentrok dengan prinsip-prinsip dasar
hukum ruang angkasa internasional.
The validity of the second statement is also questionable. The idea that
non all Outer Space Treaty obligations are imputable to US private entities
derives from an approach to understand the effects of an in-ternational treaty
within the US domestic system that emphasizes the self- or not self-executing
nature of the provisions of a treaty [45]. In the former case, such provisions
are deemed immediately applicable to US subjects once that treaty is ratified.
In the latter instance, some legislative steps are needed to enable their
domestic applicability to US subjects. As several provisions of the Outer
Space Treaty, especially those of Article VI, are claimed to be not self-
executing, those provi-sions would not create obligations on US entities until
the US Congress says so. Regrettably, this approach is misleading. In
principle, one might even agree that certain articles of the Outer Space Treaty
are not self-executing; after all, Article VI leaves States free to determine the
content of the license granted to domestic entities. However, the self-
executing or not self-executing nature of the Outer Space Treaty pro-visions
is irrelevant here and neither eliminates the obligation for States to authorize
private space ventures nor makes un-authorized private space ventures legal.
Most importantly, it does not give any legal ground to argue that only certain
obligations of the OST are imputable to US private entities. Indeed, Article VI
of the OST is to be understood in line with the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties pursuant to which: “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in
accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in
their context and in the light of its object and purpose (emphasis added).”
Paragraph 1 of Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty is crystal clear in
establishing that national activities in outer space, including those of non-
govern-mental entities (emphasis added), shall be consistent with (all) the
pro-vision of the Outer Space Treaty, not just few of them. This inter-
pretation is also confirmed by study of the drafting history of the Outer Space
Treaty. Article VI was largely the result of a compromise between
mungkin setuju bahwa pasal-pasal tertentu dari Perjanjian Luar Angkasa
tidak dijalankan sendiri; setelah semua, Pasal VI membebaskan Negara
untuk menentukan konten lisensi yang diberikan kepada entitas domestik.
Namun, sifat melaksanakan atau tidak melaksanakan sendiri dari
ketentuan-ketentuan Perjanjian Luar Angkasa tidak relevan di sini dan
tidak menghilangkan kewajiban bagi Negara untuk mengotorisasi usaha
ruang pribadi atau membuat ruang angkasa pribadi yang tidak resmi legal.
Yang paling penting, tidak memberikan dasar hukum untuk menyatakan
bahwa hanya kewajiban tertentu dari OST yang dapat diterapkan pada
entitas swasta AS. Memang, Pasal VI OST harus dipahami sejalan dengan
Konvensi Wina tentang Hukum Perjanjian berdasarkan yang: "Suatu
perjanjian harus ditafsirkan dengan itikad baik sesuai dengan makna biasa
untuk diberikan kepada ketentuan perjanjian itu. dalam konteks mereka
dan dalam terang objek dan tujuannya (penekanan ditambahkan).
"Paragraf 1 dari Pasal VI Perjanjian Luar Angkasa sangat jelas dalam
menetapkan bahwa kegiatan nasional di luar angkasa, termasuk yang dari
entitas non-pemerintah-mental ( penekanan ditambahkan), harus konsisten
dengan (semua) pro-visi dari Perjanjian Luar Angkasa, tidak hanya
beberapa di antaranya. Inter-pretasi ini juga dikonfirmasi oleh studi
tentang sejarah penyusunan Perjanjian Luar Angkasa. Artikel VI sebagian
besar merupakan hasil kompromi antara Uni Soviet dan Amerika Serikat
di mana kegiatan ruang angkasa swasta diizinkan dengan syarat untuk
disahkan dan diawasi oleh Negara yang tepat yang pada akhirnya akan
bertanggung jawab untuk memastikan konsistensi mereka dengan undang-
undang ruang angkasa internasional dipertimbangkan secara luas, tidak
hanya dengan beberapa ketentuan yang dipilih oleh masing-masing negara
[46].
Ultimately, the idea that only certain articles of the Outer Space Treaty
would be applicable to US non-governmental entities is un-justifiable under
the Treaty. Additionally, it is also in contrast with the wording of the bill
itself, which indicates adherence to the OST as one of its core principles.
Indeed, as it has been explained in the section above, the Treaty requires
national space activities to be consistent with all its provisions, not just few of
them. One can also argue that the position taken by the bill has the potential to
be detrimental to both US interests and the overall stability of the space law
regime. On one side, the United States might risk foreign retaliation
undermining the busi-ness case and the activities of U.S. commercial space
companies [47]. On the other side, if other countries would follow the
example of the United States, one could end up with a situation where private
com-panies act according to diverging interpretations of the Outer Space
Treaty. If this scenario is applied to space resources utilization projects, it is
easy to see its danger and potentially destabilizing effects. For example, while
some companies could act within the limits of Article II of the Treaty, others
could act otherwise and thus proceed to claim ownership of the extracted
space resources as well as of the mining site. Furthermore, while some
companies might be required to take mea-sures to preserve the rights and
interests of foreign space users based on the requirements set by their
domestic license, others might not do so due to the absence of similar
provisions in their national authorization. Additionally, certain entities could
decide to engage in ‘police’ opera-tion to keep the safety of their ‘space
mining’ site, by thus endangering other users' right to free explore and use
outer space and possibly the ‘peaceful’ nature of outer space. Evidently, this
would be a situation disadvantageous to all entities involved and likely to
result in disputes, if not conflict.
Pada akhirnya, gagasan bahwa hanya artikel tertentu dari
Perjanjian Luar Angkasa akan berlaku untuk entitas non-pemerintah AS
tidak dapat dibenarkan berdasarkan Perjanjian. Selain itu, ini juga berbeda
dengan kata-kata dari RUU itu sendiri, yang menunjukkan kepatuhan
pada OST sebagai salah satu prinsip intinya. Memang, seperti yang telah
dijelaskan dalam bagian di atas, Perjanjian mensyaratkan kegiatan ruang
angkasa nasional agar konsisten dengan semua ketentuannya, tidak hanya
beberapa di antaranya. Orang juga dapat berargumen bahwa posisi yang
diambil oleh RUU tersebut berpotensi merusak kepentingan AS dan
stabilitas keseluruhan rezim hukum ruang angkasa. Di satu sisi, Amerika
Serikat mungkin berisiko pembalasan asing yang merusak kasus bisnis dan
kegiatan perusahaan ruang komersial AS [47]. Di sisi lain, jika negara-
negara lain akan mengikuti contoh Amerika Serikat, orang bisa berakhir
dengan situasi di mana perusahaan swasta bertindak sesuai dengan
interpretasi yang berbeda dari Perjanjian Luar Angkasa. Jika skenario ini
diterapkan pada proyek pemanfaatan sumber daya ruang, mudah untuk
melihat bahayanya dan efeknya yang berpotensi mengganggu stabilitas.
Misalnya, sementara beberapa perusahaan dapat bertindak dalam batas-
batas Pasal II Perjanjian, yang lain dapat bertindak sebaliknya dan dengan
demikian melanjutkan untuk mengklaim kepemilikan sumber daya ruang
yang diekstraksi serta dari lokasi penambangan. Selain itu, sementara
beberapa perusahaan mungkin diminta untuk mengambil langkah-langkah
untuk menjaga hak dan kepentingan pengguna ruang asing berdasarkan
persyaratan yang ditetapkan oleh lisensi domestik mereka, yang lain
mungkin tidak melakukannya karena tidak adanya ketentuan serupa dalam
otorisasi nasional mereka. Selain itu, entitas tertentu dapat memutuskan
untuk terlibat dalam operasi 'polisi' untuk menjaga keamanan situs
'penambangan luar angkasa' mereka, dengan demikian membahayakan
hak pengguna lain untuk bebas menjelajahi dan menggunakan ruang luar
dan mungkin sifat 'damai' dari luar. ruang. Jelas, ini akan menjadi situasi
yang tidak menguntungkan bagi semua entitas yang terlibat dan cenderung
menimbulkan perselisihan, jika tidak konflik.
Another controversial provision of the bill claims that outer space is not a
global commons. Such a provision derives from a certain line of thought that
argues that outer space is not a common or a public good but a geographical
area where property rights could be extended and activities should be
regulated by national licensing regimes rather than international rules [48].
Ketentuan lain yang kontroversial dari RUU ini mengklaim
bahwa angkasa luar bukanlah milik bersama global. Ketentuan semacam
itu berasal dari garis pemikiran tertentu yang berpendapat bahwa ruang
angkasa bukan merupakan barang publik atau umum tetapi area geografis
di mana hak properti dapat diperpanjang dan kegiatan harus diatur oleh
rezim perizinan nasional daripada aturan internasional [48].
Such a view does not find legal justification in the drafting history of the
Outer Space Treaty or its main text. Even though the Outer Space Treaty
never formally says so, the global commons nature of outer space was one of
the first space law principles ever agreed upon and has today found
widespread recognition in literature and practice [49]. In the early days of
space activities, the debate about the legal status of outer space was open.
While some suggested to consider outer space as a res nullius [50], namely an
area not belonging to anybody but sus-ceptible of being occupied and
appropriated by anyone, others, based on the expected benefits that space
could bring to all States, proposed to deem it as a res communis omnium (or
global commons) [51], namely an area not capable of being appropriated by
anybody but open for ex-ploration and use by all [52]. Eventually, the
international community endorsed the second view and included it in the legal
instruments governing activities in outer space [53]. Already the UN
Resolution 1962 of 1963 declared the non-appropriative nature of outer space,
including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and the right of all States to
explore and use outer space. Articles I and II of the Outer Space Treaty
confirmed these principles. Notably, Article I emphasizes the ‘common’ nature
of outer space by stating that outer space shall be explored and used for the
benefits and interest of all countries and shall be the province of mankind
[54].
Pandangan seperti itu tidak menemukan pembenaran hukum
dalam sejarah penyusunan Perjanjian Luar Angkasa atau teks utamanya.
Meskipun Perjanjian Luar Angkasa tidak pernah secara formal
mengatakan demikian, sifat bersama global ruang angkasa adalah salah
satu prinsip hukum ruang angkasa pertama yang pernah disepakati dan
hari ini telah menemukan pengakuan luas dalam literatur dan praktik [49].
Pada hari-hari awal kegiatan antariksa, perdebatan tentang status hukum
ruang angkasa terbuka. Sementara beberapa menyarankan untuk
mempertimbangkan ruang luar sebagai res nullius [50], yaitu area yang
bukan milik siapa pun tetapi rentan untuk ditempati dan dirampas oleh
siapa pun, yang lain, berdasarkan manfaat yang diharapkan bahwa ruang
dapat membawa ke semua negara, diusulkan untuk menganggapnya
sebagai res communis omnium (atau commons global) [51], yaitu suatu
area yang tidak mampu diambil alih oleh siapa pun tetapi terbuka untuk
eksplorasi dan digunakan oleh semua [52]. Akhirnya, komunitas
internasional mendukung pandangan kedua dan memasukkannya ke
dalam instrumen hukum yang mengatur kegiatan di luar angkasa [53].
Resolusi PBB 1962 tahun 1963 telah menyatakan sifat luar angkasa yang
tidak sesuai, termasuk Bulan dan benda langit lainnya, dan hak semua
Negara untuk mengeksplorasi dan menggunakan ruang luar. Artikel I dan
II dari Perjanjian Luar Angkasa menegaskan prinsip-prinsip ini.
Khususnya, Pasal I menekankan sifat 'luar biasa' ruang luar dengan
menyatakan bahwa ruang luar harus dieksplorasi dan digunakan untuk
kepentingan dan kepentingan semua negara dan akan menjadi provinsi
umat manusia [54].
The suggestion that outer space is not a global commons is not only not
supported by the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty or its drafting history
but it is also potentially detrimental to the long-term stability of outer space.
Once again, the example of space resources utilization may help us to explain
this point. If outer space was no longer considered as a global common, States
could possibly restrict access to celestial bodies, limit other countries rights to
explore and use them and even make sovereignty claims over their surface.
Furthermore, States could domestically recognize private property claims over
the extracted space resources as well as the mining sites. Arguably, in a
similar scenario entities would compete to access and use the most valuable
sites/re-sources by thus enhancing the likelihood of conflict and disputes.
Saran bahwa ruang angkasa bukan milik bersama global
tidak hanya tidak didukung oleh ketentuan-ketentuan Perjanjian Luar
Angkasa atau sejarah perancangannya tetapi juga berpotensi merusak
stabilitas jangka panjang ruang angkasa. Sekali lagi, contoh pemanfaatan
sumber daya ruang dapat membantu kita menjelaskan hal ini. Jika ruang
angkasa tidak lagi dianggap sebagai kesamaan global, Negara mungkin
dapat membatasi akses ke benda langit, membatasi hak negara lain untuk
mengeksplorasi dan menggunakannya dan bahkan membuat klaim
kedaulatan atas permukaan mereka. Lebih jauh, Negara dapat secara
domestik mengakui klaim properti pribadi atas sumber daya ruang yang
diekstraksi serta lokasi penambangan. Dapat diperdebatkan, dalam
skenario yang sama, entitas akan bersaing untuk mengakses dan
menggunakan situs / sumber daya yang paling berharga dengan demikian
meningkatkan kemungkinan konflik dan perselisihan.
As explained above in section 3, the bill attributes to the Secretary of
Commerce the primary role to authorize and supervise new private space
activities. This decision is certainly consistent with the Bill's goal to minimize
regulations and limitations on the freedom of US entities to explore and use
outer space. However, the choice to select the Secretary of Commerce and not
the FAA/AST raises some concerns. First, the former does not have a level of
expertise comparable to the latter in dealing with activities occurring beyond
Earth's orbit. Indeed, while the Secretary of Commerce has been in charge of
licensing private remote sensing ventures, it has no experience in addressing
operations taking place on the Moon or other celestial bodies. On the
contrary, the FAA/ AST has exercised its authority to perform payload review
and de-termination of spacecraft envisioned to carry out activities on a
celestial body's surface [55]. Secondly, while the FAA/AST largely bases its
as-sessment on the ability of the proposed operation/vehicle to match strict
safety requirements, the focus of the Secretary of Commerce under the Bill
appears to impose minimal burdens on the operator, the economic value of the
proposed activity and the quickness of the au-thorization process. It is
certainly true that safety is still a matter of primary importance, as
demonstrated by the requirement to assess the risk that the certified operation
poses to space objects operated by the Federal Government. It is, nevertheless
notable that such an assessment takes place after the operation has already
started (one would assume that such an evaluation would be done prior to the
mission) and that the risk is evaluated only in relation to US space objects,
regardless of their potential hazardous impact on the long-term sustainability
of space activities broadly considered (including those undertaken by foreign
entities). It is also notable that the bill never addresses concerns over issues
like space situational awareness and traffic management.
Sebagaimana dijelaskan di atas dalam bagian 3, RUU tersebut
memberi atribut kepada Sekretaris Perdagangan peran utama untuk
mengotorisasi dan mengawasi kegiatan ruang pribadi baru. Keputusan ini
tentu konsisten dengan tujuan RUU untuk meminimalkan peraturan dan
pembatasan kebebasan entitas AS untuk mengeksplorasi dan menggunakan
ruang angkasa. Namun, pilihan untuk memilih Sekretaris Perdagangan dan
bukan FAA / AST menimbulkan beberapa kekhawatiran. Pertama, yang
pertama tidak memiliki tingkat keahlian yang sebanding dengan yang terakhir
dalam menangani aktivitas yang terjadi di luar orbit Bumi. Memang,
sementara Sekretaris Perdagangan telah bertanggung jawab atas lisensi usaha
penginderaan jauh swasta, ia tidak memiliki pengalaman dalam menangani
operasi yang terjadi di Bulan atau badan langit lainnya. Sebaliknya, FAA /
AST telah menggunakan wewenangnya untuk melakukan peninjauan payload
dan penghentian pesawat ruang angkasa yang dibayangkan untuk melakukan
aktivitas pada permukaan benda langit [55]. Kedua, sementara FAA / AST
sebagian besar mendasarkan penilaian pada kemampuan operasi / kendaraan
yang diusulkan untuk mencocokkan persyaratan keselamatan yang ketat,
fokus Sekretaris Perdagangan di bawah RUU tersebut tampaknya
memberikan beban minimal pada operator, nilai ekonomi kegiatan yang
diusulkan dan kecepatan proses au-thorization. Memang benar bahwa
keselamatan masih merupakan masalah yang sangat penting, seperti yang
ditunjukkan oleh persyaratan untuk menilai risiko yang ditimbulkan oleh
operasi bersertifikasi terhadap benda-benda luar angkasa yang dioperasikan
oleh Pemerintah Federal. Namun demikian, perlu dicatat bahwa penilaian
semacam itu terjadi setelah operasi telah dimulai (orang akan menganggap
bahwa evaluasi seperti itu akan dilakukan sebelum misi) dan bahwa risiko
dievaluasi hanya dalam kaitannya dengan objek ruang angkasa AS, terlepas
dari mereka. potensi dampak berbahaya pada keberlanjutan jangka panjang
dari kegiatan ruang dipertimbangkan secara luas (termasuk yang dilakukan
oleh entitas asing). Juga perlu dicatat bahwa RUU tersebut tidak pernah
membahas masalah-masalah seperti kesadaran situasional ruang dan
manajemen lalu lintas.
5. Conclusion
5. Kesimpulan
The bill represents the latest, and arguably most controversial, at-tempt to
regulate US space activities. If adopted, the bill would in-troduce a new
procedure to authorize and supervise US private space endeavors based on a
series of unprecedented principles, such as the idea that the US private entities
have the right to undertake space ac-tivities without limitations and that outer
space is not a global com-mons. While these principles should be understood
in light of the overall goal of the bill, namely to promote the growth of the US
private space sector with minimal regulatory burdens, one should not under-
estimate their controversial nature, their arguable contrast with the traditional
understanding of basis space law principles as well as their potentially
destabilizing effects. Particularly in the area of space re-sources utilization the
approach endorsed by the bill, if followed by other States, could lead to
uncertainty in the interpretation and appli-cation of space law rules as well as
to the emergence of conflicting claims and disputes among the actors
involved. The hope remains that before adopting the bill the US legislator
might tone down some of its most questionable aspects and find a more
balanced compromise be-tween supporting the US space industry and
preserving the interna-tional space law system.
RUU tersebut mewakili yang terbaru, dan bisa dibilang
paling kontroversial, siap untuk mengatur kegiatan luar angkasa AS. Jika
diadopsi, RUU tersebut akan memperkenalkan prosedur baru untuk
mengotorisasi dan mengawasi upaya ruang pribadi AS berdasarkan
serangkaian prinsip yang belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya, seperti
gagasan bahwa entitas swasta AS memiliki hak untuk melakukan kegiatan
ruang tanpa batasan dan bahwa luar angkasa bukan merupakan gabungan
global. Sementara prinsip-prinsip ini harus dipahami dalam terang tujuan
keseluruhan dari RUU tersebut, yaitu untuk mempromosikan pertumbuhan
sektor ruang angkasa AS dengan beban peraturan minimal, orang tidak
boleh meremehkan sifat kontroversial mereka, perbedaan mereka yang
diperdebatkan dengan pemahaman tradisional tentang dasar prinsip-
prinsip hukum ruang angkasa serta efeknya yang berpotensi mengganggu
kestabilan. Khususnya di bidang pemanfaatan sumber daya ruang,
pendekatan yang disahkan oleh undang-undang, jika diikuti oleh Negara-
negara lain, dapat menyebabkan ketidakpastian dalam interpretasi dan
penerapan aturan hukum ruang serta munculnya konflik klaim dan
perselisihan di antara mereka. para aktor yang terlibat. Harapannya tetap
bahwa sebelum mengadopsi undang-undang tersebut, legislator AS
mungkin mengurangi beberapa aspek yang paling dipertanyakan dan
menemukan kompromi yang lebih seimbang antara mendukung industri
luar angkasa AS dan melestarikan sistem hukum luar angkasa
internasional.
References
[1] Bill, American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, HR 2809, available
at: https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/
2017%2006%2001%20232%20Free%20Enterprise%20Act%20HR%20Blank.pdf
iu, F. Tronchetti
(accessed 22 December 2017).
[2] For the details of the Markup process of the bill see http://docs.house.gov/
Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=106087 (accessed 22 December 2017).
[3] See https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/sst-committee-approves-
american-space-commerce-free-enterprise-act-2017;https://spacepolicyonline.
com/news/new-commercial-space-bill-clears-house-committee/(accessed 22
December 2017).
[4] In order to do so, the Bill will have to be passed by the House of Representatives, by the
Senate and then signed by the US President.
[5] The bill does not affect the existing licensing procedures for launching and satellite
telecommunication activities.
[6] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Chapter 803, Administrative
provisions related to certification and permitting, § 80309. Global Commons.
[7] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Chapter 801, Certification to
operate space objects, § 80103. Certification application and requirements, C) Compliance
with the Outer Space Treaty, 2) Limitations for determination, lett. c.
[8] Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of
Outer Space, Including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies art. 2, Jan. 27, 1967, 610
U.N.T.S. 205.
[9] For an analysis of Art. VI of the Outer Space Treaty see, M. Gerhard, S. Hobe,
B. Schmidt-Tedd, K.U. Schrogl (Eds.), Cologne Commentary on Space Law, vol. I, Carl
Heymanns Verlag, Cologne, 2009, pp. 103–125 F.G. von der Dunk, The Origins of
Authorization: Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty and International Space Law, in: F.G.
von der Dunk (Ed.), National space legislation in Europe, Martinus Nijhoff/ Brill, Leiden,
2011, pp. 3–28.
[10] Notably, also government actors have invested in non-traditional space activities;
however, the bill focuses its attention on how private companies take part in these
activities.
[11] On the legal issues related to space resources utilization see F. Tronchetti, Legal
aspects of space resources utilization, in: F.G. von der Dunk, F. Tronchetti (Eds.),
Handbook on Space Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015, pp. 769–814; F.
Tronchetti, The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial
Bodies: A Proposal for a Legal Regime, Martinus Nijhoff/Brill, Leiden, 2009, F.G. von
der Dunk, The Moon agreement and the prospect of commercial ex-ploitation of lunar
resources, Annals of Air and Space Law 32 (2007) 91–113.
[12] For a discussion on Article II of the Outer Space Treaty see for example, R. Jakhu,
S. Freeland, Article II. in: S. Hobe, B. Schmidt-Tedd, K.U. Schrogl (eds.). Cologne
Commentary on Space Law, Vol. I, Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne, 2009, pp.
44–63 ; L. Tennen, Article II of the Outer Space Treaty, the status of the Moon and
resulting issues, In Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Colloquium on the Law of Outer
Space; 2004, pp. 520–531; F. Tronchetti, The non- appropriation principle as a structural
norm of international law: a new way of interpreting Article II of the Outer Space Treaty,
Air & Space Law 33 (2008) 277–305, M.J. Listner, The own-ership and exploitation of
Outer Space: a look at foundational law and future challenges to current claims, in 1
Regent, J. Int'l L. 1 (2003) 75–94.
[13] On this point see, F. Tronchetti, Private property rights on asteroids resources: as-
sessing the legality of the ASTEROIDS Act, Space Pol. 30 (2014) 193–196.
[14] The text of the CSLCA is available at
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262/text (accessed 22
December 2017).
[15] See, for instance, the statements delivered by the representatives of Belgium and
Germany at the 56th session of the Legal Subcommittee of the United Nations Committee
on the Peaceful Uses of Outer space, 27 March- 7 April 2017 The voice recording of
these statements is available at: http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/audio/ v2/meetings.jsp?
lng=en (accessed 22 December 2017). For an analysis of Title IV of the CSLCA see F.
Tronchetti, Title IV of the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization of the US
Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act: a legal and political assessment, Air and
Space Law, 41 (2016) 143-156; P.J. Blount, C.J. Robinson, One small step: the impact of
the US Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 on the exploitation of resources in
outer space, N. Car. Jour. L. & Tech. 18(2016) 160–186.
[16] The letter is available at < https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp (accessed 22
December 2017).
[17] Space Subcommittee Hearings – Regulating Space: Innovation, Liberty and
International Obligations, March 8, 2017. The transcript of the Hearing is available at:
https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/space-subcommittee-hearing-regulating-
space-innovation-liberty-and (accessed 22 December 2017).
[18] Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Hearings –
Reopening the American Frontier: Exploring How the Outer Space Treaty Will Impact
American Commerce and Settlement in Space, May 23, 2017. The transcripts of the
hearing is available at: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/ hearings?
ID=5A91CD95-CDA5-46F2-8E18-2D2DFCAE4355 (accessed 22 December 2017).
[19] The reason why the term ‘mining’ is inserted between brackets is because the Mission
Authorization Procedure was supposed to be applicable to the nascent US space industry,
not exclusively to space mining operations.
[20] Here, it suffices to say that NOAA’s Office of Commercial Remote Sensing
Regulatory Affairs would be abolished, with the OSC taking on its duties.
[21] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Sec. 2. Finding; policy;
purposes, a) findings (3).
[22] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Sec. 2. Finding; policy;
purposes, a) findings (4).
[23] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Sec. 2. Finding; policy;
purposes, a) findings (2).
[24] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Sec. 2. Finding; policy;
5
Space Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
purposes,b) Policy (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5).
[25] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Subtitle VIII – Authorization
and supervision of non-governmental space activities, Chapter 801 – Certification to
operate space objects, Ԥ 80102. Certification authority (a).
[26] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Subtitle VIII – Authorization
and supervision of non-governmental space activities, Chapter 801 – Certification to
operate space objects, § 80102. Certification authority (c).
[27] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Subtitle VIII – Authorization
and supervision of non-governmental space activities, Chapter 801 – Certification to
operate space objects, Ԥ 80102. Certification authority (b). Interestingly, in the version of
the Bill submitted to the House on June 6, the Secretary was not under the obligation to
consult the other agencies, but it could choose to do depending on the circumstances.
During the Markup such a con-sultation requirement was made mandatory.
[28] Chapter 803 – Administrative provisions related to certification and permitting,
‘§80304. Exclusive authority for determination of international obligations, § 80305.
Limitation on certain agency supervision.
[29] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Subtitle VIII – Authorization
and supervision of non-governmental space activities, Chapter 801 – Certification to
operate space objects § 80103. Certification application and re-quirements, (1), (2).
[30] Originally, the bill submitted to the House on June 6 suggested a framework of 60 days.
The current timeframe of 90 days was inserted during the Markup process.
[31] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Subtitle VIII – Authorization
and supervision of non-governmental space activities, Chapter 801 – Certification to
operate space objects § 80103. Certification application and re-quirements, (b) Review of
application, (3) Automatic approval.
[32] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Subtitle VIII – Authorization
and supervision of non-governmental space activities, Chapter 801 – Certification to
operate space objects § 80103. Certification application and re-quirements, (b) Review of
application, (2) Determination (b).
[33] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Subtitle VIII – Authorization
and supervision of non-governmental space activities, Chapter 801 – Certification to
operate space objects § 80103. Certification application and re-quirements, (c)
Compliance with the Outer Space Treaty, (3) Presumptions (A), (B).
[34] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Subtitle VIII – Authorization
and supervision of non-governmental space activities, Chapter 801 – Certification to
operate space objects § 80103. Certification application and re-quirements, (c)
Compliance with the Outer Space Treaty, 1 (A), (B).
[35] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Subtitle VIII – Authorization
and supervision of non-governmental space activities, Chapter 801 – Certification to
operate space objects § 80103. Certification application and re-quirements, (c)
Compliance with the Outer Space Treaty, 1 (A), (B).
[36] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Subtitle VIII – Authorization
and supervision of non-governmental space activities, Chapter 801 – Certification to
operate space objects § 80103. Certification application and re-quirements, (c)
Compliance with the Outer Space Treaty, 1 (C).
[37] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Chapter 803 –
Administrative provisions related to certification and permitting, § 80102.
Consultation (b) Review.
[38] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Chapter 803 –
Administrative provisions related to certification and permitting, § 80102.
Consultation, (c), (d), (e), (f).
[39] American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017, Chapter 803 –
Administrative provisions related to certification and permitting, § 80101.
Administrative authority.
[40] Supra footnote 6.
[41] See supra footnote 18.
[42] Notably, during the Hearing in the Senate neither the representatives of the in-
dustry nor academy experts supported the suggestion to withdraw from the Outer Space
Treaty or to push for its amendment, see for instance the statements by Mike Gold, Peter
Marquez and Matthew Schaefer available at: https://www.commerce.
senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=5A91CD95-CDA5-46F2-8E18-
2D2DFCAE4355 (accessed 22 December 2017).
[43] The statement delivered by Mr. Peter Marquez is available at: https://www.
commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?Id=5A91CD95-CDA5-46F2-8E18-
2D2DFCAE4355&Statement_id=5D0517C9-F6C8-4992-BCAE-8DF51F16B3CF
(accessed 22 December 2017).
[44] Press release, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, June 8, 2017,
https:// science.house.gov/news/press-releases/sst-committee-approves-american-space-
commerce-free-enterprise-act-2017 (accessed 22 December 2017).
[45] See, for instance, the statements delivered by Laura Montgomery and Dennis
Burnett at the Space Subcommittee Hearing – Regulating space: innovation, liberty and
international obligations, March 8, 2017, available at: https://science.house.
gov/legislation/hearings/space-subcommittee-hearing-regulating-space-innovation-
liberty-and (accessed 22 December 2017).
[46] See von der Dunk, Supra footnote 9.
[47] Statement delivered by Matthew Schaefer during the Senate Hearing entitled
‘Reopening the American Frontier: Exploring How the Outer Space Treaty Will Impact
American Commerce and Settlement in Space’, May 23, 2017, https://www.
commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?Id=5A91CD95-CDA5-46F2-8E18-
2D2DFCAE4355&Statement_id=3F6CD4B3-2EED-442D-AE0A-B5423E7812AF
(accessed 22 December 2017).
[48] H. Hertzfeld H., B. Weeden, How simple terms mislead us: the pitfall of thinking
about outer space as a commons. IISL Proceedings 2015; 1-11, B. Weeden, T. Chow,
Taking a common pool resources approach to space sustainability: a framework and
H. Liu, F. Tronchetti
potential policies, Space Pol. 28 (2012) 166–172.
[49] N. Schrijver, Managing the global commons: common good or common sink? Third
World Quarterly 37 (2016); G. Oduntan, Imagine there are no possessions: legal and
moral basis of the common heritage principle in space law, 2 Manchester J. Int’L Econ. L.
2(2005) 30–59; C.Q. Christol, The Modern international law of outer space, Pergamon
(1982), 249. Even NATO has confirmed the ‘global commons’ nature of outer space, see
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Assured Access to the Global Commons Final
Report, Apr. 18, 2009, available http://www.act.nato.int/ globalcommons (accessed 22
December 2017) .
[50] J. Verplaetse, Can individual nations obtain sovereignty over celestial bodies?
Proceedings of the Third Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, 1961, pp.
311–314. A. Haley, Space law – The development of jurisdictional concepts, in
Proceedings of the Eighth International Astronautical Congress, 1958, p. 170.
[51] M.S. McDougal, L.S. Lipson, Perspectives for a Law of Outer Space, Legal
Problems of Space Exploration, Washington, (1961), p. 417 E. Pepin, Introduction to
Space Law, New York Law Forum 4 (1958) pp. 258–262; M. Smirnoff, Legal status of
celestial bodies, J. Air & L. Comm. 28 (1961–62) 385–404; D. Goedhuis, Air
Space Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Sovereignty and the Legal Status of Outer Space, ILA Report of the 49th Conference,
(1960)..
[52] L.L. Butler, The commons concept: an historical concept with modern relevance. WM
& Mary L. Rev. 23 (1982) 835–855.
[53] For a good overview of the theories and debates on the status of the Moon and
other celestial bodies see, J.C. Cooper, Who will own the Moon? The need for an answer,
32, J. Air & L. Comm 32 (1966) 155–166.
[54] On art. I of the outer space treaty see generally Hobe S, article, in: S. Hobe,
B. Schmidt-Tedd, K.U. Schrogl (Eds.), Cologne Commentary on Space Law, vol. I, Carl
Heymanns Verlag, Cologne, 2009, pp. 25–43.
[55] For example, on July 20, 2016, the FAA/AST made a favorable payload determi-
nation for the Moon Express MX-1E Mission. The MX-1E is a spacecraft/lander capable
of transfer from Earth orbit to the Moon, making a soft landing on the lunar surface, and
performing post-landing relocations through propulsive “hops.” For more information see
https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm? newsId=20595.