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

121–130 of 204 posts

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

#121

Post by Lovesong »

magicalhippo wrote: post #113
Lovesong wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fro…

Yes, the final say is always on the particular custom where the goods will get the clearance, so they will call the shots on the way the procedure should be done.

The IT system in place is just there to accommodate how customs should proceed, so if they have different ways to solve the problem, the customs officer will just find the one he's more used to.

But you're right that if there's a HSCode for something built, furniture vs wood for example, then the more "accurate" should be used, as they will have different tariffs too.

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

#122

Post by bongodongobob »

School-Cotton wrote: post #87
gmueckl wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that customs declaration in the context of the Outer Space Treaty from 1967. It stipulates that outer space cannot be appropriated by by any nation. My hypothesis here is that the political message underneath this customs form stunt is an acknowledgement that the crew has left the United States and returned. However, I have nothing that supports this claim.

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.

I don't think so because the ship is technically US soil afaik.

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

#123

Post by xattt »

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…

I can imagine a bunch of short-sleeve wearing dudes, sitting around and shooting the shit to come up with absurd formalities for theatre. It would have been fun.

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

#124

Post by 9rx »

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #89
csomar wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities had guards. There was no border pre-1900 because there was no tech to enforce it. If you moved from one place to another, you were mostly at the whims of thieves and pirates.

Insanely misinformed. What kind of tech do you imagine is needed? Have you heard of Hadrian's Wall? The Great Wall of China? Or more generally: forts, outposts, coastal batteries, scouts, patrols?

> What kind of tech do you imagine is needed?

Agriculture, at very least. Before we created that tech you'd be way too busy trying to find something to eat to have time to stand around defending artificial borders. 1900 BCE mightn't be perfectly accurate, but close enough for a stupid comment on the internet.

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

#125

Post by ofalkaed »

School-Cotton wrote: post #87
gmueckl wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that customs declaration in the context of the Outer Space Treaty from 1967. It stipulates that outer space cannot be appropriated by by any nation. My hypothesis here is that the political message underneath this customs form stunt is an acknowledgement that the crew has left the United States and returned. However, I have nothing that supports this claim.

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.

No, not even civilians need to do that. Ultimately the only time you have to is when there is documentation of your being in the a foreign country and if there is no documentation you probably don't want to draw attention to yourself. This is why so many people where able to go to and from Cuba when it was technically illegal, US and Cuba agreed to not document/stamp the passports of private citizens.

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

#126

Post by zhobbs »

ceejayoz wrote: post #5

> Who would have guessed the regulations would have been enforced so rigorously in 1969 when three men returned to the U.S. from a rather long business trip – to the moon and back. I mean, I'd imagine it was mostly done for the joke aspect. edit: https://www.space.com/7044-moon-apollo-astronauts-customs.ht... > "Yes, it's authentic," NASA spokesperson John Yembrick told Space.com. "It was a little joke at the time."

Yeah, I think we're over analyzing it in this thread. Seems pretty light hearted and fun.

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

#127

Post by thescriptkiddie »

I-M-S wrote: post #118
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.

an interesting implication of this is that the government probably didn't want to issue them life insurance because then they would have to explain why they don't do that for all military personnel

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

#128

Post by 9rx »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #56
ceejayoz wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably a bit like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskell_Free_Library_and_Opera... > Until 2025, patrons from Canada were permitted to enter the United States door without needing to report to customs by using a prescribed route through the sidewalk of rue Church (Church Street), provided that they return to Canada immediately upon leaving the building using the same route.

it says "most Canadians from entering via the main entrance in March 2025, except for Canadian patrons with a library card" - this is probably the only documented case of a library card being valid for international travel

Remember when you could travel between USA and Canada with nothing more than a nod? Such a sad state of affairs we've found ourselves in nowadays.

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

#129

Post by 9rx »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #98
soneil wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the whole point of the parent comment - you don't trigger customs requirements by leaving and re-entering the country. You trigger them by entering from another country. for example - you don't need a passport to travel from the US mainland to Hawaii. It doesn't matter that the aircraft cross international waters, it matters what country you were in last.

You are entering from "another country" if you are coming from the Moon. For this purpose "country" has to be interpret as stepping on any land outside of the US.

> For this purpose "country" has to be interpret as stepping on any land outside of the US.

"Land" is legally (and generally) defined as pertaining to planet earth. In this case the crew did not step on any land outside of the US. The moon does not have land.

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

#130

Post by codetrotter »

9rx wrote: post #124
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insanely misinformed. What kind of tech do you imagine is needed? Have you heard of Hadrian's Wall? The Great Wall of China? Or more generally: forts, outposts, coastal batteries, scouts, patrols?

> What kind of tech do you imagine is needed? Agriculture, at very least. Before we created that tech you'd be way too busy trying to find something to eat to have time to stand around defending artificial borders. 1900 BCE mightn't be perfectly accurate, but close enough for a stupid comment on the internet.

> 1900 BCE

Nothing in the comment that we are talking about indicates that "pre-1900" is referring to 1900 BCE. It sounds squarely like it's referring to 1900 AD to me. Which is why people are saying it's ridiculous.

Post reply on HN