[deleted]

Sending probes and stuff is fine because they are not causing any permanent change, but here in they are basically causing a permanent change in the space. Doesnt that mean that it should be regulated by some body.

[removed]

The Galactic Empire or United Nations Space Command, duh

Permanent change of what? Of an asteroid circling 7 million miles away from earth? It had no effect on us, it was a test.

I agree but lets say tomorrow they want to run a similar test on an asteroid in the asteroid belt. It can affect the Earth, doesnt that necessitate that NASA or any space body at least gets a consensus from different space agencies

[removed]

There is no regulatory body to seek permission from. It simply doesn't exist.

[removed]

[deleted]

General treaties on space say "no weapons" there is literally not a regulatory body that covers space, it does not exist. NASA does not need to get permission from anyone but the FAA so that they don't accidentally send a rocket into a plane. I'm almost certain they tell other countries they're sending something up so that nobody thinks we're launching nukes at them, but there's no need to seek permission because there's literally no one to get permission from.

For a second I contemplated wether or not this is a serious question or someone is trolling…. Space’s size is infinite. NASA does not need anyone’s permission to explore space. Hitting an asteroid with a probe is as consequential as butterfly fart in the meadow. Quit spewing nonsense.

[removed]

[removed]

As far as I know, no one is allowed to claim ownership of anything in space, so there’s no way to ask for permission to hit something that someone doesn’t own.

As far as I’m aware the only regulatory framework governing space is the Outer Space Treaty, which is more concerned with preventing military activities in space and preventing individual nations from claiming ownership of extraterrestrial territory. There’s currently no mechanism for other countries to tell NASA they can’t punch a space rock in the face.

I think there’s probably an argument to be made that some kind of international council should be established as more and more countries are starting to get into the game, but that hasn’t happened yet. I don’t think any of them would’ve objected to DART anyway.

[removed]

I sincerely hope you never get your way, and no such governing body is created- at least not until most people could have access to most of the solar system (if they so choose). Developing infrastructure to start moving people, mining operations, and polluting industries- among other things- out of Earth's fragile biosphere is more important than whether or not you, a nobody who knows nothing, are comfortable with some of the smartest and most talented people on the planet poking a rock millions of miles away.

[removed]

There are five space treaties: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html. Article II of the Outer Space Treaty states no one owns moons or other celestial bodies, asteroids including. The Moon Agreement, the last of the treaties states it covers more than just the Moon and Article VII, Section I talks about disrupting the environment of the object, but it seems more geared towards changes and/or contamination.

I’m not sure, but maybe the idea of colliding with an asteroid to change its trajectory was not around at the time the space treaties were drafted. So outside of getting the proper approval for launch, registering the spacecraft, etc… there does not appear to be a policy or law governing this.

Definitely something that should be addressed in future space law policies. Think about this: there is the Liability Convention and the Registration Convention space treaties. DART is registered and what happens if fragments from the collision cause damage to another spacecraft, hurts an astronaut, or is big enough to reach Earth’s surface to cause damage?

The asteroid belt is much farther away than the DART target. They targeted a near earth asteroid and the purpose of this test was to protect the earth from potentially hazardous asteroids. Any such consensus would be nice to have but not at all required under any current treaty. Plus who is going to try to stop the US from sending interplanetary probes

That’s not true, the UN Space Treaty from the 60s states that no country can claim sovereignty on planetary bodies. But Obama signed a law that states that companies can own material they mine on other bodies. In fact, the lander on its way to the moon right now from ispace will gather a small amount of lunar regolith and they have already pre sold that material to NASA to establish precedent