Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 10, 2015, October 10, 2017, January 27, 2019, and October 10, 2021. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Space Preservation Treaty was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 April 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Outer Space Treaty. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This got to be wrong.--181.110.134.241 (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Which senate? Clarify. SD6-Agent 12:26, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Inserting an interpretation that treaty did not mention "all other weapons" ("not just the placement or use of weapons in orbit") and not necessarily capable of being or is "weapons of mass destruction". How about defining "peaceful purposes" ?
Re above: The USA prosecuted the remaining Marathon bomber for using a "weapon of mass destruction" (a pressure cooker packed with explosives). What then can we say of the 12th in the series of Keyhole Satellites which is armed with maser weaponry capable of focusing two maser beams on a ground target one meter wide? Then there is the short term orbital K-UBAN. It can (and has) send a lased X-ray beam through a momentary column of vacuum (created by an extremely powerful maser blast) through the armor and engine block of a tank over 300 miles below. If a pressure cooker bomb is considered by the US to be a "weapon of mass destruction", then the USA (probably among others) has violated the International Agreement Banning Weapons from Space. 107.182.41.56 (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is extremely POV, and i am about to fix it. I know a bit about the subject from the selling space article, and there are some factual ommissions and inaccuracies too. THE KING 07:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Removing POV seems to have made this page the subject of a low-level edit war. What is a practical way to calm this down? Anonymous--11:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I want to suggest removing the link http://www.moonestates.com/cat_Questions.asp from this article, because I am regarding it as unethical to sell property which isn't owned by anyone. Consequently, I find this FAQ highly questionable, and imho it doesn't add to the plausibility of said article. Digital Dan 08/07/2006, 22:07 (UTC + 1)
The colour of the legend for 'signed and ratified' countries has been changed from light green to green, on account of the former's closeness to the grey used for countries that are not signatories. It is still a bit too dark, but requires someone with a better knowledge of the colours used in the legend template to simulate the green in the diagram better. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 03:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
What countries signed the outer space treaty? Did all the countries of the UN sign it?
That information is available here: http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm
The above link is invalid NJackson300 (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The entry for 1967 has two different dates for the signing of the treaty, 27 Jan and 27 Feb. Which is it, someone who knows? Thanks. --Myke Cuthbert 15:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC) For which countr(y/ies)? Did all signatories sign it at once? MrZaiustalk 18:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The article says "However, the Treaty does not expressly prohibit the placement or use of weapons in orbit, so long as they are for peaceful purposes." What exactly is considered a peaceful purpose for a space weapon? The terms seem contradictory. Kevin 00:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
to destroy incoming asteroids that would obliterate humanity? 69.140.35.147 (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
"A test (of sorts) of the Outer Space Treaty is being put forward by Canadian artist Cesar Saez's project to float a giant helium-filled banana over Texas in 2008, a very serious project supported by the Canada and Quebec Arts Councils. The Michigan consulting firm of nearSpace Technology is also involved in the project.[1]"
The above is copied from the article. Can someone explain to me in what way floating a giant Helium-filled banana over Texas constitutes a contravention of this treaty? Is it considered a weapon of mass destruction? Or is this paragraph just an attempt to publicise an un-related arts project? ColourSarge 12:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
much of this article is copied from this site http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.163.209 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
North Korea signed and ratified the treaty earlier this month. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
removed from article http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/treaties.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt1955 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
According to Currie, the words "for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" does not mean that outer space is "common heritage of mankind", but rather "res communis omnium" (communal use of all). I've noticed quite a view articles that come up on Google use the two concepts interchangeably. Can someone clarify this?
Reference: Curie, John H. Public International Law, Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., 2001. pp. 285-286, 287 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.47.237.130 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
or, in simpler terms, the moon is UN territory 69.140.35.147 (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the section "Effect of the Outer Space Treaty." You can see the text of the section here: [diff]. The content amounted to some guy's (or gal's) opinions on the treaty -- that all outer space territories should be public property and belong to everyone without any one nation actually having rights or claim over it. That all sounds great, but Wikipedia isn't the place for writing legal or philosophical or legal/philosophical essays on res communis (i.e. public domain) and its applications in the realm of outer space. Similarly, the articles U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea and Admiralty law aren't the places to expound upon whether there should be national rights/claim over the sea. If there's a source-able debate on this among legal/maritime law/international relations professionals, then write about it, and document it. Otherwise, this material can't be kept. From a scholarly perspective, there is certainly legitimate philosophical argument to be made; I just don't think the actual parties -- the representatives of governments around the world who negotiate with one another -- actually care about scholarly, philosophical arguments. Furthermore, any "scholarly argument" needs sourcing and to pass a notability litmus test. This one didn't. ask123 (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't Newt Gingrich's future Moon state violate the Outer Space Treaty? I think so, but I am not blessed with the intellect of Newter, he of the inevitable Presidency.--172.190.57.14 (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- You do realize the treaty isn't worth the paper its written on right? The instant that any nation obtains practical and cheap space flight is going to withdraw from both the outer space treaty and moon treaty. All Newt did was show the truthful future position that we will see.
The article claims that there are 100 parties, as at October 2011, citing this resource: . That page links to which states that there are 101 parties, as at 1 January 2011. The same website also provides a database but it doesn't seem to be working correctly so I cannot check when the last signatory was added.
Can anyone illuminate the discrepancy? I would be bold and update the figure, except that the article claims the data to be accurate to October 2011 which was after the source says it was updated. —sroc (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
What about private parties, are they subject to the Outer Space Treaty? --JorisvS (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
@JorisvS: This is a matter of much ongoing discussion. There is no way for a government to claim territory. An individual can of course claim anything they like and many have e.g. claimed to own the Moon. But without support of a government those claims are meaningless. It's not permitted for a government to support such claims under the OST. However if we have mining in space, then there needs to be some form of property rights. There are several ideas for ways to do it consistent with the OST. One is functional rights - that you have the right to your mining operation and as long as you keep it functioning then you can continue to mine without interference but if you abandon it then anyone else can take over. Another idea is to use safety zones around your habitats - which the ISS already has. One way or another it's likely to be sorted out within the OST as modifying the treaty is next to impossible at this stage and nobody wants to abandon it (well apart from some space mining enthusiasts and the like posting in forums but no government) - not without something else everyone agrees on to take its place, as the only treaty that is preventing nuclear weapons in space and militarization of the Moon etc. Robert Walker (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
(This question is a continuation of this question, but since there's a shift in topic, I've split it.)
Does the treaty address what is to be done if, say, one superpower wants to terraform Mars, and another doesn't?
And (this is going slightly sci-fi, but it could happen, you never know, so I'll ask it anyway) in a similar vein, does the treaty address what is to be done if we meet intelligent life - i.e. does the treaty specifically forbid any one superpower from taking it upon themselves to speak for the entirety of humanity? Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
If someone were Red-Green colorblind they wouldn't be able to read the map very well. Also, for those of us who aren't the colors are obnoxious together and sort of bother the eye to stare at too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D13C:6BF0:A56C:B049:C529:64A6 (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the North Korea status from Accessed to Ratified. It is shown as ratified (R) here, page 5/12 under "Democratic People’s Republic of Korea". Robert Walker (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Latvia does not appear to be listed under countries which have or have not signed the treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.227.57 (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I revamped the article to improve is structure and syntax while adding more about the origin and development of the treaty. I understand this was controversial, so I'd like to discuss what, if anything, is disputed in my changes? Thanks! Zurkhardo (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not a good editor, so I gotta ask you guys. Add the Japanese name of the treaty please, which is "宇宙条約" 66.58.196.236 (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia withdrew from the treaty in January 2023 and that still isn't reflected in the article. I can change the map colors to reflect that, but I'm not sure where else to note that in the article. Do we need a new column on the table of signatories? ChrisMeabe (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.