[garmaine]

Yeah but NASA doesn’t get to just say no out of spite or anything, which legaly speaking is what a planetary protection objection would be. There is no statute they can point to that says commercial entities can’t litter the solar system with microbes if they want.

[danaliv]

Article IX of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies reads in part (emphasis added):

"State Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose."

[JoeAltmaier]

Sure, they wrote that. But once you're out there, what treaties apply? Nobody exerts hegemony over the Moon. Its all hot air.

[danaliv]

This conversation is about whether NASA would object to an FAA-issued launch license on the basis of potential contamination, not whether there are police on the moon.

[JoeAltmaier]

Right; NASA would have to decide to observe some unenforceable treaty. They also have to decide whether to launch on national leprechaun day or not. I'm not sure why either is an issue NASA would step up to try and enforce.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

There's a National Leprechaun Day? How comes I missed that memo?