Annotated Bibliographical Entries 4-8

Source:

Krishen, Kumar. "Multiple Aspects of Space Technology Transfer." IETE Technical Review 28, no. 3 (2011): 195-206. doi:10.4103/0256-4602.81228. http://search.proquest.com/docview/871575576?accountid=285.

Annotation:

                This source is a Technical Review written by a man named Kumar Krishen. Extremely advanced technology and engineering is required in order to put a man, robot or satellite into space, much less to bring him back. This article begins to show how these technologies have applications other than space travel and how these technologies can be used to improve people’s day to day lives. While this article isn’t directly related to my topic, it is somewhat tangential to it, it provides rationale as to why humans should continue to pursue space. It’s easy to argue that governments are wasting their money putting people into space, because the money could be used much more efficiently to solve problems here on earth. This article provides a counterargument, a reason for private space companies to do what they do, because the technology that private space travel companies can achieve also will help better the lives of the average human, because technology is transferable.

Source:

Miller, Ryder W. "Astroenvironmentalism: The Case for Space Exploration as an Environmental Issue." Electronic Green Journal no. 15 (2001): 2-7. http://search.proquest.com/docview/197579864?accountid=285.

Annotation:

               Astroenvironmentalism is the concept that outer space should be as well respected as is the environment on earth. We must create precautionary measures / laws to prevent outer space from being put through the same negative impacts that the environments of our own earth were /are being put through during this time of increased manufacturing and carbon dioxide production. This article references international law and how the inability of entities from proclaiming ownership of space or anything in space as a good thing because this provides the protection required to keep space safe from the destructive nature of humanity.

Source:

Kistler, Walter P. "Humanitys Future in Space." The Futurist 33, no. 1 (1999): 43-46. http://search.proquest.com/docview/218565782?accountid=285.

Annotation:

                This article gives an overview of the useful resources that are relatively easily obtainable. The article provides the reasons that entrepreneurs and businesses would turn their eyes toward this new realm in an attempt to reap profit. It also touches on the idea of Space Tourism again, and how it would drastically decrease the cost of space travel because of the lack of government involvement, since we know how wasteful the government can be with tax dollars. The author also makes a note that it is required of us as a race to move toward space, so that we do not become a stagnant race. My use of this source will be to show that there are beneficial and viable ways to use space and that these ways will cause private entities to work toward that profit and will also be making space travel less expensive for anyone whom would like to tour space.

Source:

Krause, Jason. "Making Space Matter." ABA Journal. 94. (2008): 54-60.

Annotation:

            This journal article gives background on the development of International Space Law, from its birth during the Cold War to its current state. At first, only the USSR and the USA were involved in space, but today, everyone wants their voice heard, whether or not they even possess the ability to put something into orbit, much less into space. The article also talks about the early progression of commercial space flight, from its incredibly expensive state to its more, but still not really, affordable price currently. Overall, this resource provides a good history of how private space law has advanced as well as how international space law has proceeded since its beginning.

Source:

Glenn Harlan, Reynolds. "International Space Law in Transformation: Some Observations."          Chicago Journal of International Law. 6. (2005): 69-80.

Annotation:

            This article talks about how International Space Law has changed within the context of four important aspects, I will only be focusing on two of the aspects mentioned in the article. Firstly, when International Space Law was drafted and written prior to this decade, there was no mentioning of Space Tourism, mostly because law makers back then envisioned that space travel would be something exclusive to the governments of the world, and that private entities wouldn't take an interest in it. However, today, there are newer laws that have been created that have some mention of Space Tourism. Secondly, Space Environmental Issues are important as well. While the resources in space are relatively infinite, the ones easily assessable and monetarily feasible to attain are not, and we ought to figure out a sustainable and fair way to distribute and collect these resources.

Analytical Review #4

Source:

                Hertzfeld, Henry R. "Bringing Space Law into the Commercial World: Property Rights without Sovereignty." All Business. Dun & Bradstreet, Summer 2005. Web. 04 Feb. 2012. <http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/883692-1.html>.

Analytical Review:

                "Bringing Space Law into the Commercial World: Property Rights without Sovereignty," by Henry Hertzfeld, is an analysis of the current situation regarding commercial space travel and any related tangent topics. Firstly, Hertzfeld opens the article with an overview, stating that the current belief, or claim, is that no entity can claim the rights to any celestial body or part of outer space and this fact will hinder expansion into space because private, as well as public, entities will shy away from investing money into space exploration if they cannot guarantee a profit on their investment due to the inability to claim ownership of anything that takes place in space. Hertzfeld believes that misinterpretations and conflicting laws will allow entities to use the corrupt law system in a way that could be detrimental to future plans in space. For example, the illegal vending of property rights to land in space. If people end up seeing these as legitimate land-rights, then serious problems could arise in the future, when this land becomes more assessable to the average person.

                To set a sort of basis for his argument, Hertzfeld begins the analysis portion of his article by talking about the current laws, treaties and regulations in place with regards to space sovereignty. He notes that because the idea that space should be shared amongst every nation in the world, any profit made in space would thus need to be distributed as well, decreasing economic drive of investors. Another interesting point is that the government is liable for anything its citizens do in space.

                Next, Hertzfeld goes on to point out ambiguities as well as conflicting laws present. The major source of this conflict of laws is over the idea that if no one can own anything in space, then who should be taking responsibility for anything that occurs in space, whether it be good or bad. Some laws say that whoever owned the craft on earth is therefore liable, while other laws contradict.

                Next, intellectual property rights, basically, if anything is invented in space, who is liable / able to get patents. The biggest controversy here is with regards to the International Space Station. While the name would lend one to believe that the station is owned by multiple nations. But, actually, different parts are made by different countries, thus jurisdiction over the International Space Station is a somewhat tricky subject.

                The article continues to show the intricacies of space law and how they are currently affecting the population involved with space travel. Hertzfeld then wraps up the article by stating that private firms aren't really all that interested in owning anything in space, all they're interested about is the profit margin. The author begins by stating his thesis, that property rights may inhibit private expansion into space and allow for corrupt entities to make a quick buck, and then backs up his ideas with the various loopholes that are currently present in law and then how these loopholes can be manipulated in order to either claim ownership over something or to profit illegally from something.

Analytical Review

Source:

Kistler, Walter P. "Humanity's Future in Space." Editorial. The Futurist [Washington State] Jan. 1999. Science; Comprehensive Works, Technology: Comprehensive Works. Web. 2 Feb. 2012. http://search.proquest.com/docview/218565782/fulltext/13503C6DA9D7EEF54F/1?accountid=285.

Review:

            In the fourth major paragraph, the author states his thesis, "Exploring space and colonizing other planets is not an option. It is a necessity if humanity is to evolve and not become a stagnant species with no room and no incentive for further development." Prior to this, the author puts forth the different beliefs and agendas involved with the rationale behind each of the arguments in the debate over whether space travel should be something that we, as a race, are spending a significant portion of our resources on.

            The author structures the article into 5 parts: the first being the two different rationales that I mentioned earlier, the second is the decision that it is necessary for humanity to exist and explore space for the betterment of the race, thirdly, a list of short term goals that ought to be achieved in space, fourth, and somewhat a detour, the author includes a tangent relating to Space Tourism and what impacts it will have on the space scene and lastly, the longer term goals that humanity should once it has established itself in space.

            The author dwells on the short term uses of space as being in the realm of energy and resources. From putting massive solar energy panels into orbit to finding other sources of energy and income space can provide positive returns on investments.

            While space travel is expensive, opening it up to private entities will help to reduce the cost, as companies will increase efficiency and improve flight costs in order to attract more customers.

            When the author starts to look toward the long term goals, he gets somewhat pessimistic, pointing out that the long distances that must be traveled in space to get to the nearest star or planet inhibits a person from getting there during his / her lifetime. However, with advances in technology and with the help of space probes, humans will slowly but surely begin to branch out into other regions of space.

            The only problem I had with this article, even though I find it very useful still, is that the author doesn't explain why he believes that going into space is a good use of humanity's resources when we obviously could be using that large chunk of money on other things such as feeding people that are hungry or research toward curing incurable diseases. However, the ideas of this article still serve a very good purpose in the context of my research paper because I have other sources to help show why commercial and governmental branches of space travel are beneficial and what each of the two branches will lead to.

Analytical Review

Source:

Hertzfeld, Henry, der Dunk von, Robert Harding, and Joanne Gabrynowicz. "International Space Law Panel." The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations 11, no. 2 (2010): 7-26. http://search.proquest.com/docview/867268159?accountid=285.

                The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations (WJDIR) attended a panel discussion during October of 2009. The panel was called the International Space Law Panel and consisted of experts from different backgrounds, but each of their backgrounds was in some way tangent to Space Law; these experts’ names are Henry Hertzfeld, whom was the author of another one of my sources, Frans von der Dunk, Robert Harding and Joanne Gabrynowicz. The article is basically a synopsis with quotations of the questions asked by the WJDIR and the responses from each of the panel members. The questions posed by the WJDIR have quite a variety of topics such as the effectiveness and controllability of different types of weapons in space, the policies and viewpoints that the United States should take when cooperating with other countries regarding space, how international aid and assistance play a role in the abilities of underdeveloped countries to achieve space travel as well as what the roles of these underdeveloped countries should be when it comes to creating treaties that would potentially limit the more developed countries and how the advancements of technology in the near future could change the world’s view of space.

                As of right now, the only treaties in place regarding the limitation of weapons in space tend to concentrate on keeping strictly nuclear weapons out of orbit, as this was obviously a main concern during the times of the Cold War. These treaties are somewhat outdated because they do not completely specify what nuclear weapons are, the treaties merely reference them as WMD (weapons of mass destruction), or even mention other types of weapons, such as biological or chemical for example. However, the majority of the panel agreed that the definition of space weapons is very broad at the moment, thus it is very difficult to limit them. Also, they believed that it would be nearly impossible to control weapons in space once they were there and believed that space should be kept clear of such weapons, even though they thought it probably wouldn’t happen as once one country decides to put a weapon into space for its own protection, every other country will follow the trend in an attempt to protect its own wellbeing.

                During the cold war, international aid had one main hope, in persuading neutral countries to choose a side, either the US or the USSR. However, today, that is no longer the case, and the panelists believe that today financial aid and assistance can be much more mutually beneficial things. In fact, the panel believed that aid must be this way; otherwise it is simply one country gaining and the other country losing. Also, countries that do not have access to space should play a more limiting role in the creation of international treaties as they are obviously less affected by its outcomes and limitations; but, once a country became more prevalent in the “space scene” their influence would increase also.

                Another topic discussed by the panel is Obama’s new space policy that, in summary, says that the US needs to be and will be more international in its outlook and use of space, as opposed to the previous outlook of the United States during the Bush years, which tended to view space as solely a means of national security by the means of space superiority. The panel mentions that this type of cooperation will cause a greater amount of competition between the parties / countries involved. But, overall, this type of cooperation will be beneficial to the countries involved, even if a certain country’s space capabilities only range to putting simple satellites in orbit.

                The reason I picked this source was because it brought together a wide range of viewpoints and backgrounds and intellects and focused them on talking about a topic that could help to move my paper along. Also, it provides opinions that aren’t prevalent in some of my other important major sources.

Analytical Review

Source:

          Miller, Ryder W. "Astroenvironmentalism: The Case for Space Exploration as an Environmental Issue." Electronic Green Journal no. 15 (2001): 2-7. http://search.proquest.com/docview/197579864?accountid=285.

                In "Astroenvironmentalism: The Case for Space Exploration As An Environmental Issue," by Ryder Miller, Ryder brings up a very different way to look at space exploration that I had not previously considered or had even thought existed. When one thinks of space one tends to think of vast distances of nothingness, with the occasional comet, planet, star or moon, completely void of organisms and without the intricate systems that earth posses. However, Miller brings up a sort of ethical debate pertaining to protecting the environment  of space from the destructive tendencies of the human race. Obviously this is a reasonable claim when you're talking about keeping earth's upper atmosphere and orbital zone free of debris that is made of harmful chemicals that could eventually end up back on earth. This type of pollution can easily be agreed upon as something that we, as a species, would like to keep to a minimum. But, Miller relates other parts of space to earth and he believes that human beings must take the same precautions that we do here on earth with regards to our environment and translate them into space. Miller believes that property rights shouldn't be allowed in space because it increases the probability of conflict among entities in space. Conflicts can lead to worse things that can only have negative impacts on the immediate surroundings. Miller says that is it our moral obligation to keep space free of the stains we have put our earth through during our existence as a species.

                Basically, Miller desires that our race take the utmost caution when moving into space, showing the most respect possible to the various systems and environmental systems that are present on other celestial bodies. Terraforming, while it won't be economically feasible for another 150 or so years, is the process in which a group of pioneers, 100-150, inhabit a planet and attempt to create large scale environments on other celestial bodies like the environmental systems that exist on earth, for example, the creation of oxygen on a planet or the implementation of a water cycle, or a way to moderate temperatures to more easily support life. It's basically "earthifying another planet." Miller worries that humans tend to act arrogantly toward nature and this may cause us to trample over systems that have been in place since the dawn of our solar system. While Miller isn't completely against the idea of moving into space, he emphasizes the necessity for caution. Miller also worries that during the early days of International Outer Space Law the environment was not taken into consideration.

                My reason for choosing to use this article is, while it's not factually saturated, it provides another viewpoint in the expansion of technology and humans into space. A viewpoint more oriented toward nature, caution and compassion toward something that hasn't been messed with for over four billion years. If this paper is going to be successful, I'm going to need to compile a multitude of different viewpoints toward space expansion so that I can hypothesize the different outcomes and implications of each viewpoint.

Annotated Bibliographical Entries:

Source:  

                Hertzfeld, H. R. (2005). Bringing space law into the commercial world: Property rights without sovereignty. Chicago Journal of International Law, 6(1), 81-99. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/237216667?accountid=285

Bibliographical Entry:

                This article attempts to sum up various aspects of relevant laws regarding the sovereignty, or property rights, or space, whether it be physical ownership rights or intellectual ones. Touching on important points such as past international treaties, ideas that the UN has brought up in the recent past and what they continue to focus on, the ambiguity present in most of these ideas and treaties, how ownership on earth transitions into  space and vice versa and why property rights are even important to the people / entities involved this article a solid basis of information and good elementary rationale about the topic of sovereignty in space. One of the major important points that I got out of the article is that business will be less inclined to get involved in the realm of space if their assets cannot be protected whilst in space, thus, the advancement into space is being hindered by incongruities in property right laws  in space. This article should be used as a resource to inform readers of the basic aspects of the space property debate and to inform them as to why the debate is important.

Source:

                Freeland, S. (2005). Up, up and . . . back: The emergence of space tourism and its impact on the international law of outer space. Chicago Journal of International Law, 6(1), 1-22. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/237208027?accountid=285

Bibliographical Entry:

                My use of this article stems at the fact that it can help me to show how available space travel can be to the average human in the near future if we can allow businesses to work the magic of efficiency that seems to go along with competition. The article also touches on some major inconsistencies in various national laws and international laws throughout the world as well as the vague nature of most laws. Space tourism, putting an average "Joe" into orbit, also isn't anywhere in space law, and that's most likely going to be one of the more important topics once space becomes more economically assessable. The article also mentions actual land rights in space. Yes, I realize this is somewhat farfetched, but it may be a good starting paragraph to get a hold of the audience's attention, I mean, everyone loves a little science fiction. Overall, this article may provide some information to make a solid intro paragraph as well as provide data on Space Tourism, a relatively new idea on the space frontier.

Source:

                Freeland, S. (2010). Fly me to the moon: How will international law cope with commercial space tourism? Melbourne Journal of International Law, 11(1), 90-118. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/745603338?accountid=285

Bibliographical Entry: 

                     This article is extremely legalistic in its outlook. I was thinking this may provide some of the backbone to some of the legal information needed to create concrete and realistic scenarios with which I can analyze and infer outcomes and how each scenario may affect the lives of individual humans once the capacity for economical space travel is achieved. The article mentions the five major factors that are referenced when dealing with sovereignty in space and legalistically looks at what each says and why each is important. The five main treaties are: 1. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 2. Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 3. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 4.Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, and 5. the Moon Agreement. Purpose of this article: legal rationale and analysis of the current "Space Tourism / Sovereignty in Space" that can be easily used to create plausible outcomes that can then be analyzed.

Article Summary #1

Article Citation:

                Panel weighs price of space launch range privatization. (2000). Defense Daily, 207(63), 1-1. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/234070804?accountid=285

Accessed: 1/9/12

Summary:

                Kerry Gildea, in her article regarding the privatization of US space/shuttle launch sites, depicts multiple arguments for and against the privatization and grazes over some of the possible implications of each argument. A group of people, called the Defense Science Board (DSB), have recently put together a plan to interweave both governmental and non-federal ownership involvement in the management and use of three major launches ranges in the US. Under the plan, the government would be responsible for "the range infrastructure and [in] carry[ing] out its fundamental responsibilities for public safety, ballistic missile testing and flight worthiness of civil and national security payloads" and the private sector would overlook "the operations of the future launch pads and launch and satellite vehicle processing and much of the range support functions through a joint Air Force/NASA base operations and support contract." However, the DSB hinted that no matter what happened there would still be a  fairly prevalent level of government involvement within the infrastructure of these launch facilities. The reason for the creation of this plan is that in the recent past, commercial launching has exceeded its previous quota, which has placed a strain on the Air Forces ability to use these facilities as well as maintain its infrastructure. The main argument against more control being given to the private sector is that it will give an unfair advantage to those with the most money, as they will be the only ones with means to achieve space travel because of its extremely expensive nature. However, industries argue almost the exact opposite. Their argument is that if space travel were to be commercialized, both competition and the drive to be as profitable  as possible would lead to reusable spacecrafts. Also, competition and profit desire would allow almost anyone in the United States access to space, as costs to travel  would be low enough to enable this. In the past, the cost of space was so high because the government wasn't using reusable ships and thus had to rebuild them every so often, which is incredibly expensive. But, if businesses were put in charge,  they would find a means to create much more durable space crafts, reducing the cost of space remarkably, allowing a much much greater percentage of the population access to space.