Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Neil Armstrong's customs form for moon rocks (2016)

magazine.uc.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 204 posts

Re: Neil Armstrong's customs form for moon rocks (2016)

#111

Post by joezydeco »

cgriswald wrote: post #69
perihelions wrote: post #6

These things were mainly publicity stunts. The supposed biohazard quarantine for returning Apollo astronauts was a theater performance, too. https://www.livescience.com/space/the-moon/the-apollo-moon-l... ( "The Apollo moon landing was real, but NASA's quarantine procedure was not" ) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/science/nasa-moon-quarant... ( "A review of archives suggests that efforts to protect Earth from con…

The actual claims of the paper are not that this was 'for show', but that NASA considered the risks unlikely and prioritized the more likely risks to the astronauts lives. I see how the authors got to 'so it was all for show', but it simply isn't true. There is plenty of evidence that the risk was taken seriously (regulations and treaties surrounding the issue, ICBC activities in the years prior to launch, the expens…

Seems incongruous to take your national heroes and make them sit in a hot trailer for a few days "for show" instead of whisking them home for their debrief and ticker-tape parades.

Unless it was not for the benefit of the astronauts, but the skeptical public back home? Hmm.

Re: Neil Armstrong's customs form for moon rocks (2016)

#112

Post by School-Cotton »

csours wrote: post #96
School-Cotton wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do US Navy sailors in international waters have to go through customs on returning to port in the US? I don’t know the answer, but that’s probably the closest analogy.

Following this line of thought - this is may be the exact analogy that NASA wanted to counteract.

Why? What's the difference between a US spacecraft in international space and a US watercraft in international waters?

Re: Neil Armstrong's customs form for moon rocks (2016)

#113

Post by magicalhippo »

Lovesong wrote: post #104
lucianbr wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't they split it into "Oil platform part 1" "part 2" and so on? Or "Oil platform metal parts" and such. Kinda seems like one object being too large in some measure for a single message is a predictable edge case.

They can, the problem is that if you declare this as different parts then you will have to pay taxes accordingly to the chosen HSCode for each one in the declaration. If you search for the HSCODE you will find that offshore oil and natural gas drilling and production platforms have their own, 8431434000, which means if you declare only this one you will pay no taxes.

In my experience they're also a bit particular about declaring things as they are on the border.

An oil platform getting towed into place is one piece, not an IKEA kit or similar.

That said, could very well be the local customs officer was just totally unprepared and this was the solution they came up with on the spot. I've seen other cases where different companies have gotten directly contradictory instructions from different customs offices on the exact same scenario.

Re: Neil Armstrong's customs form for moon rocks (2016)

#114

Post by tsimionescu »

joezydeco wrote: post #111
cgriswald wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual claims of the paper are not that this was 'for show', but that NASA considered the risks unlikely and prioritized the more likely risks to the astronauts lives. I see how the authors got to 'so it was all for show', but it simply isn't true. There is plenty of evidence that the risk was taken seriously (regulations and treaties surrounding the issue, ICBC activities in the years prior to launch, the expens…

Seems incongruous to take your national heroes and make them sit in a hot trailer for a few days "for show" instead of whisking them home for their debrief and ticker-tape parades. Unless it was not for the benefit of the astronauts, but the skeptical public back home? Hmm.

A quarantine is never for the sake of those you quarantine, it's for the sake of the public, by definition.

Re: Neil Armstrong's customs form for moon rocks (2016)

#115

Post by csours »

School-Cotton wrote: post #112
csours wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following this line of thought - this is may be the exact analogy that NASA wanted to counteract.

Why? What's the difference between a US spacecraft in international space and a US watercraft in international waters?

NASA wants space to feel non-militarized.

US Service Personnel don't follow the civilian process for Customs, so making astronauts actually follow the civilian process reinforces the non-militarized feeling for space.

Re: Neil Armstrong's customs form for moon rocks (2016)

#116

Post by ben_w »

bawolff wrote: post #103
nickff wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one of the Apollo documentaries (I can't remember which one), the astronauts joked that it was the least effective quarantine ever; they talked about how there was a stream of ants going in and out of the Airstream they were in.

A stream of ants would not necessarily render a quarintine ineffective.

If you're protecting against the possibility of an unknown hypothetical pathogen that can survive on the moon, but which you have no specific reason to think favours or disfavours any randomly selected Earth life, you want something that can at the very least stop ants.

Re: Neil Armstrong's customs form for moon rocks (2016)

#117

Post by quartz »

School-Cotton wrote: post #112
csours wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following this line of thought - this is may be the exact analogy that NASA wanted to counteract.

Why? What's the difference between a US spacecraft in international space and a US watercraft in international waters?

Since the astronauts were up there planting flags... I'd think it's less about the vessel in space and more about making it clear that the land visited isn't considered claimed as part of the US.

Re: Neil Armstrong's customs form for moon rocks (2016)

#118

Post by I-M-S »

ortusdux wrote: post #26

Makes me think of the Apollo insurance covers: "The Apollo insurance covers are autographed postal covers signed by the astronaut crews prior to their mission. The primary motivation behind this action was the refusal of life insurance companies to provide coverage for the astronauts. Consequently, the astronauts devised a strategy involving the signing of hundreds of postal covers. These were to be left behind for t…

A country that sends men to the Moon but isn't able to guarantee the wellbeing of their families shouldn't be able to send men to the Moon.

Re: Neil Armstrong's customs form for moon rocks (2016)

#119

Post by nrb »

School-Cotton wrote: post #112
csours wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following this line of thought - this is may be the exact analogy that NASA wanted to counteract.

Why? What's the difference between a US spacecraft in international space and a US watercraft in international waters?

If the distinction is that the US watercraft are military and as such are not subject to customs, then making it clear that returning astronauts are not on a military mission sends a diplomatic signal.

Re: Neil Armstrong's customs form for moon rocks (2016)

#120

Post by CobrastanJorji »

perihelions wrote: post #6

These things were mainly publicity stunts. The supposed biohazard quarantine for returning Apollo astronauts was a theater performance, too. https://www.livescience.com/space/the-moon/the-apollo-moon-l... ( "The Apollo moon landing was real, but NASA's quarantine procedure was not" ) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/science/nasa-moon-quarant... ( "A review of archives suggests that efforts to protect Earth from con…

It's funny. You want to blame NASA for the ridiculous publicity stunts, but they were totally right that a loss of public interest was one of the biggest risks to the program. Neil Armstrong stood on the moon in 1969, but by 1971, Nixon had cancelled Apollo.
Post reply on HN