I'm puzzled as to why you think the Apollo 13 Lunar Module reentry with the ALSEP RTG was in violation of the Outer Space Treaty? Nuclear weapons in Outer Space are banned by the Treaty, but nuclear powered instruments are not. What Article of the Treaty do you believe was violated?For right reasons we have violated Outer Space Treaty during Apollo 13 reentry where the Lunar Module carrying the Radioisotope Thermal Generator RTG with Plutonium for ALSEP expts on Lunar Surface attached to LM leg also re-entered the Earth atmosphere with command Module and we tracked it using NORAD and Baker Nunn Cameras global network and it fortunately landed safely in Marian Trench off Japan. I was one of investigators of the team that tracked the space craft and any releases during lunar missions using 60+ telescopes.
The Engineering was perfectly planned, just in case RTG had to reenter, the body was designed as independent reentry heat shielded body so frangrament would not easily spread.
Still we were in violation but US must have informed the UN on this incident.
The principles in the Artemis Accords -- NASA's statement on the US approach to lunar development and resource extraction -- build directly on the OST, offering clarity and doubling down on this historic international treaty. In NASA's own words, the Accords represent "a shared vision for principles, grounded in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, to create a safe and transparent environment which facilitates exploration, science, and commercial activities for all of humanity to enjoy."Quite right - glad somebody brought up the OST as it seems to have been largely forgotten in the blind rush to repeat all the same mistakes that we've already made on Earth.
Again, this is simply inaccurate. I recommend reading the OST before using it to back your points. Resources can arguably be claimed by non-state actors under the OST, though discussions to clarify this are underway, and some countries have passed national law that does so.No one has the right to "claim" anything in space, not a country, nor a company, nor an individual.
Again incorrect. Space itself is not the province or common heritage of all mankind. This is commonly misquoted.Space should be the preserve of all mankind as stated in the OST
Nations are certainly allowed to criticize the illegal invasion and seizure of other nations' sovereign territory. In the case of Chinese military seizure of the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines, the UN ruled in 2016 in favor of the Philippines, backed by an international coalition of 40 nations. China ignored the finding and proceeded anyway with more warships. What sort of precedent does this behavior set? What does this communicate to the international community about Chinese regard for national legislation when aggressive resource exploitation is concerned?The US can't very well turn around to China and criticise that country's actions in the South China Sea on the basis that those islands don't belong to China under international law, and then flout international law (namely the OST)...
There are indeed more- and less-advantageous locations that render certain mine sites more profitable than others. This is an important point of contention, and all parties must work together to reach a sustainable, fair solution....to grab finite mineral resources from the Moon or elsewhere the moment it senses a profit to be had.
Again, this is not the text of the OST, which does not advocate for the equal distribution of resources to all nations, regardless of participation. Benefits should certainly be shared, and open access/collaboration encouraged, but equal distribution is a laughable concept that destroys any incentive for any commercially motivated actor, even those with the best intentions, to invest effort into an inherently risky space resources venture.If space truly is the "preserve of all mankind" then any resources mined by anyone should be distributed equally among all, and not simply hoarded for profit.