If you’ve ever been on an Amtrak train slowly chugging from New York to Washington D.C.–or vice versa–you surely have fantasized about a faster mode of transportation. And you weren’t alone. New York’s Penn Station and D.C.’s Union Station were ranked the #1 and #2 busiest stations respectively for Amtrak in 2015. So, with all that demand, entrepreneur Elon Musk seems to think he can create a better mode of travel. He’s been dreaming about something called the Hyperloop–a seriously high-speed train that would take you from NYC to D.C. in roughly 30 minutes. Yesterday, he claimed that he received “approval” from the government to begin work. But is that actually true?

Yesterday, Musk tweeted this:

Just received verbal govt approval for The Boring Company to build an underground NY-Phil-Balt-DC Hyperloop. NY-DC in 29 mins.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2017

City center to city center in each case, with up to a dozen or more entry/exit elevators in each city

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2017

Immediately, people were excited, but they were also confused. Who, exactly, approved this project? Presumably, it’s going to cross over multiple states and take quite a bit of construction and disruption in order to be fully realized.

Then, Musk somewhat backed down, saying that he had just received “verbal” approval, and tweeted some more tempered ideas:

Still a lot of work needed to receive formal approval, but am optimistic that will occur rapidly

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2017

If you want this to happen fast, please let your local & federal elected representatives know. Makes a big difference if they hear from you.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2017

A number of news outlets dug into Musk’s claims, attempting to figure out who, exactly, gave him that “verbal approval.” While the White House didn’t deny that a conversation had taken place, a spokesperson’s answer was incredibly vague. And local officials certainly didn’t seem to know what was going on. Multiple city and state leaders commented to the Washington Post, among other outlets, that they had never heard of Musk’s plan. BBC’s Dave Lee wrote:

We’ve been trying to track down whom exactly Mr Musk might have been talking to about this. I won’t keep you in suspense: we failed.

Firstly, it is not clear where this ‘verbal government approval’ could possibly have come from, given that no government entity – even if it were the president himself – could make such an assurance given the complexity of laying out such a plan.

The idea of an incredibly fast route from New York to D.C. is very promising, and tempting. But is it really a priority? Both cities have been plagued by local transportation issues recently. While Musk’s idea sounds great, maybe we should focus on fixing what’s broken now before we delve into uncertain promises about the future.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Elon Musk Actually Get Approval for the Hyperloop? appeared first on Law Street.

Space: the final frontier. Outer space has been in the news a lot recently. The recent discovery of seven Earth-sized planets orbiting TRAPPIST-1 in February excited many people at the possibility to explore further into space. What’s more, different companies have been conducting successful experiments to launch commercial flights to space. Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and Elon Musk’s SpaceX have both been conducting successful tests of their burgeoning passenger spaceships.

SpaceX launches previously used cargo capsule, a big stride toward eventually reusing spacecraft carrying astronauts https://t.co/QSMb8K0nHj

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) June 3, 2017

The allure of space goes beyond the human need to explore new places and see new sights. The financial gain could be huge as well. There are asteroids full of valuable elements, such as platinum. According to a 98-page client memo, Goldman Sachs said that a craft could be built for $2.6 billion and could extract anywhere from $25 to $50 billion worth of platinum from an asteroid.

Of course this raises many issues, one of which is the risk of inundating the market with platinum and tanking its value.

via GIPHY

Another potential issue is the Outer Space Treaty, drafted in 1967 by the U.S. and the USSR. The countries’ main fear was nuclear weapons being put in space, but the treaty laid the groundwork for space exploration. Essentially what the treaty established was that the act of space exploration should be used to benefit humankind. In fact, one line of the treaty explicitly says:

…Believing that the exploration and use of outer space should be carried on for the benefit of all peoples irrespective of the degree of their economic or scientific development…

When the treaty was signed, national governments, and not private companies, had the capital available to venture into space exploration. In 2017, the economic landscape is a bit different. If Goldman Sachs wants to send its own personal spaceship to an asteroid to mine it for platinum, will the profits be used “for the benefit of all peoples” as the treaty would require?

Article VI of the treaty, the only article that addresses “non-governmental entities,” says that the nation the private entity is located in would have to police its actions. It states:

States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty…

The U.S. would have to ensure that Goldman Sachs use the profits of its mining to benefit all peoples.

Space, as of right now, is technically res communis, or common territory, like a park or the high sea. Unfortunately, what you can and cannot do there is not as clearly defined as it is in these territories. The treaty prohibits “national appropriation by claim of sovereignty,” so does that mean that no one can build a hotel on Mars? And what about that gold mine (well, platinum mine) in the asteroid? Does Goldman Sachs even have the right to mine it, even if it can get there?

For now, space is a legal gray area. We have a long way to go before we become like The Jetsons or Zenon. But it’s still fun to think that one day we could get there.

via GIPHY

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Space Exploration: Can Private Companies Operate in Space? appeared first on Law Street.

The past few months have been uncertain for NASA: President Donald Trump, after all, has shown greater affection to the private space industry than the public one. The space administration received a shot in the arm on Tuesday, however, when the House passed the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017, which sets an ambitious path for the space administration’s future, and earmarks $19.5 billion to finance its agenda for the coming fiscal year. Unanimously passed by the Senate in February, the bill is a bipartisan effort, and the first NASA-related legislation Congress has passed in over six years.

Along with outlining NASA’s funding–the largest allotment being “for science,” and the second largest “for space operations”–the bill is a blueprint for future programs. For example, the “TREAT Astronauts Act” section of the bill approves a NASA request “to provide medical monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment to former United States government astronauts for psychological and medical conditions associated with human space flight.”

Other approved programs involve probes into deep space, including a plan to eventually send astronauts to Mars. The bill enjoyed wide support from Democrats and Republicans, and its passage was applauded by NASA and space advocacy groups. Mary Lynne Dittmar, the executive director of the Coalition of Deep Space Exploration, a space advocacy group, said in a statement that the bill “sends a clear message to the American people and our international partners that our nation remains committed to NASA’s space exploration program.”

“We appreciate the hard work of both the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee over the last two years that have led to approval of this bipartisan legislation,” Dittmar added.

The Trump Administration now seems to favor an “Old Space” (NASA) versus “New Space” (Elon Musk’s SpaceX or Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin) approach to space exploration. And while the government’s $19.5 billion in funding is not much of a bump, it is also not less than NASA’s previous yearly budget, which usually hovers around $19 billion. The bill should placate concerns that Trump was going to slash NASA’s budget, but it also might not satisfy scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson, who has called on the government to increase NASA’s budget. But Congress was proud it passed a bill that promises a bright future for the furthest reaches of space.

“This bipartisan and bicameral bill grew to maturity through many long and serious discussions about the future of our nation’s space program,” said Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX). “I’m encouraged by the bill’s persistent emphasis on the continuity of purpose and stability.” And Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Science Committee, said in a statement that the bill “reiterates the importance of maintaining NASA’s continuity of purpose to ensure America remains a leader in space exploration.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congress Passes Bill That Charts Ambitious New Path for NASA appeared first on Law Street.

While President Donald Trump seeks to build walls around the United States, his administration is pursuing a robust plan when it comes to further frontiers–like space. According to internal White House documents obtained by POLITICO, the Trump team is looking to encourage competition between “Old Space” (traditional contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing) and “New Space” (private firms like SpaceX and Blue Origin) to develop new technologies and push the boundaries of U.S. space exploration.

Trump has yet to name a NASA director–a top contender is Republican Rep. Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma–but his administration is shooting for the stars: they’d like to see a return to the moon by 2020; space stations built and operated by private companies; and a return to “the large-scale economic development of space,” according to the internal documents.

During an October rally in Sanford, Florida, Trump gave the most recent public statement regarding his vision for space exploration: “A cornerstone of my policy is we will substantially expand public private partnerships to maximize the amount of investment and funding that is available for space exploration and development,” he said. “This means launching and operating major space assets, right here, that employ thousands and spur innovation and fuel economic growth.”

A major competition could be brewing between traditional space players and new, ambitious projects from private tech titans like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. NASA, which currently has an annual budget of $19 billion, could be in for budget cuts. And more government investment could be poured into private efforts like Musk’s SpaceX and Bezos’ Blue Origin.

According to a briefing the administration provided NASA during the transition period, Trump plans to “see private American astronauts, on private space ships, circling the Moon by 2020; and private lunar landers staking out de facto ‘property rights’ for American on the Moon, by 2020 as well.” It went on to instruct NASA on how it should direct its activities moving forward. “NASA’s new strategy will prioritize economic growth and the organic creation of new industries and private sector jobs, over ‘exploration’ and other esoteric activities,” it said.

However Trump’s space strategy plays out, its clear that NASA will not necessarily be the nucleus of America’s forays beyond Earth. Former Rep. Robert Walker (R-PA) who helped draft Trump’s space policy plans, and is currently involved in discussions on the plans, sees NASA as somewhat of the stalwart of a bygone era. “There are billions of dollars at stake. It has come to a head now when it has become clear to the space community that the real innovative work is being done outside of NASA,” he told POLITICO.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Will Space Exploration Look Like Under Trump? appeared first on Law Street.

What is Duffgate 2016?

Misappropriation or mistake? Hilary Duff and her new boyfriend Jason Walsh wandered around town this weekend to take part in Halloween festivities. But when this picture hit the stands…it kind of sucked out all the fun.

Hillary Duff made her first public appearance with boyfriend Jason Walsh, but many questioned their costume choices. https://t.co/p2HpdDGt2Z pic.twitter.com/l0msDyRKIm

— EntertainmentTonight (@etnow) October 30, 2016

What could have been an innocent costume choice is not so innocent anymore because of these implications…

why did hillary duff and her boyfriend think it was a okay to dress up as a pilgrim and a Native American

— yesica (@yfjgtr) October 30, 2016

But are people really being too harsh?

Hillary Duff joins the ranks of T Swift and Amy Schumer in the “most tone deaf to privilege and racism” competition.

— Nat 8 Days Purser (@NatPurser) October 30, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 31, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

This Fake Doctor/Con Man Must Be Stopped…Stat

Nope, it’s not Martin Shkreli! Malachi Love-Johnson is back in the news. Love-Johnson gained national attention in February after he was charged with practicing medicine without a license.

This past weekend Malachi was arrested at a luxury car dealership for attempting to buy a Jaguar for $35,000 using his godmother’s credit. Thing is, Love-Johnson’s godmother did not know that the teenager was using her name to co-sign a Jaguar and had done so TWICE before in the same week.

Love-Johnson had also conned his way into buying two iPads and a cellphone using his godmother’s credit card. Man, this poor, oblivious woman.

Fla. teen ‘Dr. Love’ arrested at Va. car dealership; ‘He fooled me at first,’ employee says https://t.co/jpy9wlZPy8 pic.twitter.com/GRQESodWm7

— WTVR CBS 6 Richmond (@CBS6) September 11, 2016

Love-Robinson is being held on charges of Identity Fraud, False Statements to Obtain Credit, and Obtaining Money by False Pretenses.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 13, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Tesla, the company responsible for making super-cool, totally electric, ultra-luxurious, better-than-any-car-ever sports cars, just held a press conference that might be this generation’s iPod announcement. That sounds kind of bombastic, but there’s reason to believe that the car Tesla is making could mark the beginning of a seismic shift in transportation and energy.

Just yesterday, Tesla Motors revealed the Model 3, the product that many suspect the company has been aiming to release since its inception. During the announcement, CEO Elon Musk commemorated the success of Tesla’s earlier cars, the Model S and the Model X, but recognized that they’re far from affordable. The presentation’s exact phrasing for the two cars was “high price” and “less high price.” Now, they’re ready for the mainstream, with the five-seater Model 3, beginning at $35,000. With a series of claims that seem almost too good to be true, including ample space, a 215-mile range on a single charge, and Tesla’s autopilot features baked into the car, the Model 3 is poised to break Tesla out of the exclusive world of luxury vehicles.

That $35,000 price tag is a real sweet-spot for the non-premium market, as the average price of a new car last year was $33,560. Plus, an electric car like the Model 3 is in an enviable position: it’s eligible for federal and state-level tax incentives and rebates, which can reduce the effective price of the car substantially. These incentives are part of a larger government program designed to improve the fuel economy of cars in America. You’ll still need to pony up the initial $35,000, but you’ll be able to reduce your income tax by $7,500 for that year. Individual states have their own incentives as well, with states like Lousiana offering incentives of up to $9,000 depending on battery size. This means that depending on where you live, your totally-electric Model 3 could be less than $25,000. Thankfully, Tesla’s website has a cheat sheet where you can see if your state offers an extra bonus.

There’s one catch–these tax credits are only available until the company sells 200,000 cars. The idea is that once an environmentally friendly car brand has established itself, it will be able to handle costs better on its own. Tesla claims to be able to make 50,000 cars a year with its current robot-army factories, so that number might be reached in the time it takes you to get tired of your current vehicle. Tesla claims people have pre-ordered an estimated $7.5 billion worth of vehicles, with pre-order numbers around 198,000.

Aside from the tax advantages, there are several other pluses to owning an electric car that help keep expenses down. For one, you’ll no longer have to pay $30 to $50 at every fill-up. Tesla-provided “superchargers” will fill your car’s battery to 80 percent capacity in only 30 minutes, with no charge. Plus, you can charge your car at home for your typical electricity rate, which is about $0.10 per kilowatt-hour on average and some third party chargers have rates around $0.30 per kWh. Tesla hasn’t announced how large the battery in the Model 3 will be, but numbers around 40 or 50 kWh have been speculated. That would make a fill-up cost around $15 at the more expensive charging stations, and only about $5 in your home.

While the currently low gas prices across the country right don’t make electric cars seem like a necessity, we don’t know how long these prices will last. While it sounds like a QVC sales pitch—we really don’t know for how long these deals will last. Of course, make sure to take this announcement with a grain of salt, because although Tesla has a pretty good track record of producing amazing vehicles, a promise of this magnitude may prove difficult to follow through on.

Read More: The Tax Credit Battle Over Environmentally Friendly Cars

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Government Wants You to Buy the New Tesla Right Now appeared first on Law Street.

No one has ever stopped their friend in a parking lot and said, “Quick, take a photo of me with that Prius.” But on the stage of the Fremont warehouse where Elon Musk revealed the Tesla Model X two weeks ago, every smartphone camera in the room was flashing as invitees to the event jostled each other in attempts to take the best Instagram. Tesla Motors is a brand committed to making electric energy exciting, creative and even sexy. Yet Tesla is frequently categorized as a niche product reserved for Silicon Valley that will never create significant change outside of a designated tax bracket.

This perception of Tesla is a key part of green energy’s clique mentality–only a narrow percentage of green activists are considered to be truly making impactful change and other innovators and policymakers get written off as merely jumping on the bandwagon. The stereotype of the aging hippie with a handmade sign and a tie dye shirt is not a comical caricature–it’s a key part of why green energy movements freeze out certain voices and interests. The idea of “selling out” or “going corporate” is so antithetical to the roots of the green energy movement that activists fear even being associated with luxury products. Here lies the paradox of the Tesla Model X: it is an innovative and high performing electric vehicle yet because it is priced as a luxury product, the green energy movement feels uncomfortable endorsing it. Silicon Valley, for all of its flaws, is one of the world’s greatest incubators of alternative energy and technology but in recent years, it has been labeled too elitist and narrowly-focused. Green energy leaders tend to laud the advances of American technology but then proceed to write Silicon Valley off as disconnected from the economic and political realities of energy implementation. Yet this criticism comes without any proposed reforms–Silicon Valley gets dismissed without advice on how to improve.

Take the Model X as an example. After the initial slew of articles describing the features of the Model X, newspapers picked up a second story: the potential $25,000 tax loophole for small business owners who purchase a Model X. The Model X was immediately transformed from a feather in the cap of electric energy into a symbol of corrupt capitalism. The phrase “tax cuts for the rich” is almost a curse word in the green energy world and may create significant backlash against the Model X. Why? Because being “part of the establishment” is the cardinal sin of the green energy movement (even in the case of the Model X, where Tesla is merely following the rules of the IRS tax code). However, opponents of this tax break present no other viable solution to get more drivers behind the wheel of electric vehicles. In fact, tax breaks for electric vehicles are a key part of green energy reforms across the country–so why attack one electric energy tax break while lauding another?

Green energy no longer lives on the periphery–the fact that multiple candidates in the 2016 presidential race have outlined detailed alternative energy plans that reach as far as 2050 is proof that activists have done incredible work in educating policymakers. However, green energy will never match the lobbying power of traditional energy companies if it continues to subscribe to the outdated idea that green energy can’t exist across a broad range of commercial interest–including the luxury market. Environmental activism was born out of populist desire to protect the environment, for both current and future populations, regardless of class, creed, or color. Green energy can’t fully commit to this goal unless it lets go of its own prejudices and accepts that you don’t have to rock a peace sign and long hair to care about alternative energy.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Fear and Loathing in Green Energy: Prejudice Against the Tesla Model X appeared first on Law Street.

Innovation is only imagined in the face of a problem without a solution. Take the electric car, for example. An electric car could save drivers gas money–you get Tesla. Let’s create an app that brings a car to your location on demand–you get Uber.

That’s what tech startups do: they brainstorm new innovations to help overcome challenges. Sometimes they can find homes in surprising places. In Southeast Asia, Myanmar is becoming a new and fast-growing land for tech startups.

After nearly 50 years under a military junta, Myanmar transitioned to a civilian-led government in 2011. Under President Thein Sein, the government initiated a series of political and economic reforms leading to the opening of the long-isolated country. Reforms included releasing political prisoners, reaching preliminary peace agreements with major armed ethnic groups,  providing better protections for basic human rights, and gradually reducing restrictions on the press.

Out of all Southeast Asian countries, why Myanmar?

After such a long isolation, things are changing very quickly. When the military junta was ruling the country in the early 2000s, a SIM card could cost $2,000; today it costs $1.50. The government took a $105 million loan from Japan in order to upgrade the local telecommunication infrastructure, and it is expected that nearly everyone will be carrying smartphones and tablets by the end of 2015. There is room for competition and new products, and the tech community recognizes that.

One of the parties helping to shape the entrepreneurial ecosystem is Sydney-based Pollenizer.

Pollenizer’s “Startup Science” is a framework designed to build incubation and acceleration programs that help entrepreneurs and big companies all over the world get started with high-growth, tech-powered businesses. Part of its support is providing services such as management training or office space.

Here are some of the latest featured developments in Myanmar:

• Carmudi, the Carmax of Myanmar: an online vehicle marketplace.
• Hush, a mobile app that allows you to post anonymous messages based on location. You are then able to view what others have posted while in the same location.
• Harmoneat, Myanmar’s first food truck. Harmoneat runs cooking classes and other tourist services to finance the operations of a community food truck.
• Nexy Keyboard, “the first iOS8 keyboard in Myanmar” that allows users to type in “Myanglish.”
• SmartSales, a point-of-sale (POS) system for restaurants that runs on batter power to overcome power outages.
• Fyre, web-based software that helps businesses set up online stores and mobile apps without needing any programming knowledge.

With celebrity entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and record-breaking valuations leading the headlines, it’s easy to forget the markets that are at the beginning of their tech revolutions and ready for explosion. The Myanmar market is very big as there are many places people still use pen and paper to conduct business. This new frontier for entrepreneurs has an exciting future.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Myanmar the Next Big Destination for Startups? appeared first on Law Street.

The popular image of an asteroid field–a chaotic clutter of rocks so dense that the odds of successfully navigating one in a spacecraft are immensely slim–is something of a misnomer. In reality, most known fields are spread over such a vast distance that there are titanic spaces between each body; it would be more like driving on a gently winding road through the mountains; however, there is a dense and dangerous field much closer to home. It orbits tightly around the Earth, and is composed of man-made objects and debris and poses many dangers and problems to those on space missions as well as those of us at home.

Space missions, particularly the earlier ones at the dawn of the space age, have left many things behind. Sometimes it has been accidental from equipment or crafts breaking, other times it has been a discharge of unnecessary material. In this sense, missions are inefficient. Further, there have been reckless and irresponsible actions that produced enormous quantities of space debris. For example, in 2007 China demonstrated its missile defense program by shooting down a satellite orbiting in space. “Shoot down” is a misleading term, because in did not come back down to Earth. Instead, it blew into countless pieces that now orbit us.

Imaging of space debris in a tight cloud and an outer ring. Courtesy of NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, photo gallery via Wikipedia.

Estimates suggest that there are at least 500,000 pieces of debris. In addition to the fact that NASA can only know of and track so many pieces, they all travel at velocities of around 17,500 miles per hour. This is a phenomenal speed, and can inflict massive damage. Debris has collided with satellites and spacecraft, damaging or destroying them, thus adding more debris to the field. The International Space Station is particularly vulnerable. The impact from a larger object can tear away an entire section of a spacecraft, dooming it. Even the smallest pieces traveling at such speeds can tear the airtight suits of astronauts, shatter their face shields, or conjure up other horrifying images we only thought existed in science fiction.

Courtesy Fragile Oasis via Flickr.

Back on solid ground, human society’s ever-growing network of communications deeply depends on orbiting satellites and space relays. This is more than just getting a signal on our cell phones; our entire way of life is tied into outer space relays. Man-made objects in space often face decaying orbits in time. This means that they come back down to Earth. The smaller ones are likely to burn up in the atmosphere, and the ones that make it through face large odds of crashing in the ocean. Hopefully they are subsequently retrieved, as garbage and man-made objects in the oceans is a problem in and of itself; however, there is a chance that these things will hit land. In 2001, the upper stage of a rocket that launched a satellite in 1993, which had been orbiting the Earth as space debris, crashed down in the Arabian desert. Although there have yet to be any deaths or injuries reported in conjunction with space debris, it is an ever more likely scenario.

The crashed rocket module. Courtesy of NASA via Wikipedia.

NASA has protocol for tracking space debris and maneuvering spacecraft in evasive manners if necessary. But what do we do about trying to reduce the problem? We can’t exactly send people up in orange vests to pick up the pieces one by one. There exist some proposals regarding specific trips to the larger objects with the intention of dragging them down, as well as lasers for destroying and redirecting some of the smaller ones. These ideas would be incredibly expensive and highly inefficient. Ultimately, the problem seems irreversible.

The best course of action is to reduce further debris from becoming part of the field. This comes in the form of making parts of rockets and ships that are reusable. As we continue to face questions of sustainability on Earth, our presence in space demands the same standards. Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, or SpaceX, one of the companies that NASA has hired to bring supplies to and from the International Space Station, is working on multi-use rockets. The CEO of SpaceX, Elon Musk, stated that using a one-time rocket is equivalent to flying a 747 on a transcontinental flight once and then throwing it away. In this sense, SpaceX’s endeavors are largely motivated by financial concerns. Musk projected that reusing all the stages of a rocket could cut operational costs to a hundredth of what they are now. Nonetheless, a couple of weeks ago the company launched a rocket intended for a cargo run to the International Space Station, a stage of which they subsequently intended to land on a barge in the Atlantic Ocean; however, the piece landed in a rough manner and exploded. Nonetheless it was a good attempt and has positive implications for the future.

After several hundred years of living high environmental impact lives, we only recently have begun to ask serious questions about the damage we have been doing, how to fix it, and how to change for the future. After half a century of venturing into space, we have already left an ugly mark on that environment too. The fact that we are now seeing attempts to address that is optimistic. As we contemplate how to live sustainably on Earth, we attempt to venture sustainably into space.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Near Space is Choked With Debris That We Put There appeared first on Law Street.