Thank you Cllr. Hufton for provoking this discussion in the council, its been a topic I have been meaning to tackle for quite some time but was unsure of how to tackle it. That being said, this act has many sections that go against the Archrepublic's goals, ethics, and current successes in space exploration. Unless this act is massively overhauled, the Archrepublic will not support it.
Truth be told, I had about fifteen or so amendments ready to effectively rewrite this act. Many of which would gut it and change entire goals of the act. I realized however it would be more useful to say that this act just is incompatible with what I and the Archrepublic view as necessary to successful exploration of the stars. For now I will not propose these amendments as I am still researching and cutting them as necessary to be effective ways to amend this act, but I did wish to get my thoughts out before this.
Firstly, the first section covers the establishment of some European Space Administration. That was to be expected with such an proposed act on this topic, however, it stays that the ESA will build a "Space Complex" in the Free City of Europolis. I can only assume without proper definitions that this act is proposing building a launch site not just in the middle of highly populated landlocked section of the European continent , but in a major city!?!?! For the safety of the citizens here in Europolis I can not support such a dangerous proposal.
Launch sites are typically built by the water or in extremely rural areas. This is to ensure that in case of a major launch disaster that the danger to civilians will be as limited as possible. If the ESA is to have its own launch site it must fit one of these parameters. However, this rests on the definition of a "Space Complex" being a launch site, and not just a generic headquarters or mission control area. I request Cllr. Hufton propose an amendment to properly define "Space Complex".
If "space complex" is to mean a launch site, I would much rather that the ESA work as some sort of optional intermediary for EU Member-states and private corporations that get those who need an area to launch their space-related projects together with those who already have the necessary facilities in the right location. This would be a far more effective use of European budget funds as well as give the intention of fostering cooperation in the EU.
Moving onto section two. I have significant issues with the wordings on this section. This section states that the ESA will have total authority over space technology by any member-state in the European Union, much like Speaker Firoux I am confused as to whether this may or may apply to private companies. I am more concerned however by how this would cover military applications of space technology, as well as a completely overarching European arm not on the relatively young space industry. Alongside blanket authority to dull out "appropriate punishments" and more possibly unnecessary regulations with little if any say from the member-states; this entire section is a non-starter with the Archrepublic. It either needs to be completely reworked or removed completely to have any chance of being accepted by us.
I would love to see the ESA work to instead cross-harmonize regulations between member-states.
The Archrepublic will also not stand for the limitations proposed in the first portion of Section 3. The Archrepublic's position geographical makes launches both a big investment and risk for any party involved. If this act were to pass it would violate this entire section, as the Archrepublic will not deorbit any satellites to meet these completely artbitary and rather insane limitations. This is also on my working assumption that this section seeks to limit the total number of satellites, or is it mass? Possibly number and mass? It's quite hard to tell without properly defining what this entire portion of the section means with hard numbers and units. Does it apply to private organizations as well? I'm sorry but this attempt to limit space exploration is not only outrageous but detrimental for the development of continued spaceflight.
Does the act intend to ban the use of nuclear energy for only launch vehicles or any space vehicle? Nuclear propulsion is theoretically among the safest and most outright efficient in propulsion methods for long term space vehicles and the Archrepublic would like to see this section more defined or removed until more research has been finalized on the subject. It should be noted you can not use nuclear energy in any way right not as a fuel for launch vehicles due to the practical limitations.
Finally, does the three launches a day apply across the union or per member-states? Overall I would like to see this section removed nonetheless.
I would prefer the ESA not be an additional middleman for private organizations to get involved in the space industry, Vayinaod has worked extremely hard over the last 15 years to foster its private space industry. I believe that the ESA, if its governing bodies were expanded to all member-states with representatives, could establish basic guidelines and requirements but it should remain up to the memberstates, The ESA could limit these organizations in cross border functions obviously however.
Finally in Section 4, I would like to see how other Councillors would feel if this entire section was amended to be simply a European Space Advisory Council, where every national agency was awarded one representative automatically, with one Director elected annually by the council. Similar to my European Aviation Standardization Act.
I think my thoughts as best summarized as such, this act needs definitions and better ways to describe what it intends, but if its intentions are what I am reading right now. I can not support this act, and I am afraid my amendments would completely dismantle the author's intentions and I have no wish to hijack someone else's act without their consent.
Finally I would request a debate extension of 72 hours from Speaker Firoux.
Cllr. Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod