1 Cf. paul G. Dembling and Daniel M. Arons, ‘ ‘ Space Law and the United Nations: The Work of the Legal Subcommittee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space,” 32 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 336-349 (1966); also, for the most recent deliberations, “Report of the Legal Subcommittee on the Work of Its Sixth Session, 19 June-14 July, 1967,” U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/37, July 14, 1967. The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (reprinted below, p. 382, and hereafter referred to as the 1968 Treaty on Rescue and Return) is comprised of ten articles; only two of these, Arts. 3 and 4, can be construed to encompass assistance to or rescue and return of distressed astronauts in outer space. See discussion under “Present Status” below.

2 See Art. V, text in U. N. Doc. A/RES/2222 (XXI), Jan. 25, 1967, Annex, p. 3; also in T.I.A.S., No. 6347; and 61 A.J.I.L. 644 (1967). The treaty is hereafter referred to as the 1967 Treaty on Outer Space.

3 This paper does not compass recovery and return of man-made objects.

4 Phased development of U. S. civilian manned space flight programs has progressed through three stages: Mercury one-man earth-orbital tests, Gemini two-man earth-orbit rendezvous and docking, and, presently, Apollo three-man lunar landing and return.

5 Official inattentiveness to space rescue requirements did not pass unnoticed; comments on and proposals for space rescue services were advanced from time to time in various official and unofficial sources. Cf. Winchester, James H., “How We'll Answer an 808 From Space,” Science Digest, September, 1963, pp. 81–85 Google Scholar, review of a bid by the Air Rescue Service of the XT. S. Air Force to take charge of this problem for the Government; and Michael Stoiko, “Space Rescue—An Opportunity for International Cooperation in Space,” a paper presented at the International Astronautical Federation Congress, Athens, Greece, Sept. 13-18, 1965, in which the author estimates, based on a Martin Company traffic analysis, that seven space rescues will be required involving approximately twenty-two astronauts during the 1965-1985 period; also science writer Martin Caidin's Marooned (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1964), a fictional account of an astronaut stranded in earth orbit aboard a Mercury capsule who is rescued at the last moment by a manned Gemini spacecraft with assistance from a manned Russian spacecraft.

6 Shortly after the Gemini 8 incident, General Bernard Schriever, Commander of the Air Force Systems Command, told a briefing at the Air Force Association Convention that no space rescue capability was programmed for any of the country's military space programs. “No Rescue,” 18 Missile/Space Daily 139 (1966). Speaking of space rescue in civilian-manned space programs, Dr. Edward C. Welsh, Executive Secretary of the National Aeronautics and Space Council, voiced similar sentiment, noting that “we don't have a technical knowledge for space rescue now, nor is such knowledge likely to be developed for years … “ “Lost in Space: Astronauts are Bucking the Odds, But Rescue Seems a Long Way Off,” The National Observer, Aug. 22, 1966, p. 4. Dr. Eugene B. Konecci, also of the National Aeronautics and Space Council, later confirmed Welsh's statement, commenting that the United States did not possess a “ground-to-orbit manned space rescue system capable of bringing back stranded astronauts” in either the Gemini or Apollo manned space programs. E. B. Konecci, “Space Rescue,” a paper presented to the AIAA Third Annual Meeting at Boston, Mass., Nov. 29-Dec. 2, 1966, as reprinted in Space Flight Emergencies and Space Flight Safety—A Survey (hereafter referred to as Space Flight Emergencies), Staff Study prepared for the Subcommittee on NASA Oversight of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, TJ. 8. House of Representatives, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., Serial E, February, 1967, p. 141.

7 Space Flight Emergencies, op. cit. 2.

8 “SSD to Fund Space Escape System Study,” 22 Missile/Space Daily 28 (1966); and “NASA Opens Emergency Escape System Study,” 34 Space Business Daily 144 (1967).

9 NASA and Air Force positions are contained in ‘ ‘ Concepts to Handle Space Flight Emergencies,” Appendix IV, Space Flight Emergencies, op. cit. 21. Commenting on a 1968 NASA report, not yet released at this writing, Los Angeles Times Aerospace Editor Marvin Miles reports that NASA will continue to emphasize safety procedures and reliable hardware on board in its current manned space flight programs to the exclusion of developing bail-out or ground-to-spaee rescue capability. Study is continning, however, and future programs may have the advantage of bail-out apparatus for near-earth missions, and ground-to-space rescue as a backup. (For Soviet plans, see note 10 below.) Marvin Miles, “No Eescue System Yet: If Anything Fails, Death Awaits First Moon Men,'’ Los Angeles Times, March 29, 1968.

10 Cf. Dr. Wernher von Braun, Space Frontier 109-110, 113-114 (New York: Holt, Einehart and Winston, 1967); also the International Academy of Astronautics meeting in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in September, 1967, has urged swift creation of an international space rescue organization. Dr. C. Stark Draper of MIT, President of the Academy, asserted that “with more men going into space in the future the establishment of such an organization is essential.” “IAA Urges Establishment of Astronaut Eescue Organization,” 34 Space Business Daily 156 (1967); and Michael Stoiko, loc. cit. note 5 above. Eecent press releases indicate that the Soviet Union is sufficiently convinced of this probability to begin development of an automated “ ‘rescue rocket'— a kind of space ambulance—[which] will be ready to come to the aid of astronauts stranded in space while the United States is still studying the problem. The Soviet Union has prominently mentioned such a rescue mission in most recent discussions of its automatic rendezvous and docking flights.” “Soviet Advances in Space Awaited,” New York Times, May 5, 1968. Cf. also “Soviet Space Eescue,” 30 Aerospace Daily 184 (1968).

11 The allowable variation in the flight path angle is a function of the craft's velocity at re-entry, but there is such a small variation for a nominal lunar mission that the velocity effect is generally omitted. Frank, M. P., “Transearth Injection Through Eeentry,” Apollo Lunar Landing Mission Symposium, June 25-27, 1966, Vol. II, pp. 2–73 Google Scholar. See also “Manned Space Flight: Project Apollo,” 3 NASA Facts12 (1965). NASA Deputy Administrator Hugh L. Dryden asserted that the Apollo re-entry accuracy requirements are fantastic, “equivalent to shooting the nap off a tennis ball—but not hitting the ball—from a distance of 100 yards.” Dryden, Hugh L., “Footprints on the Moon,” 125 National Geographic 386 (1964)Google Scholar. And according to Soviet Academician Leonid Sedov, establishing modes for safe return to earth and re-entry from deep space trajectories remains one of the principal problems requiring solution in development of Eussion manned space flight beyond the earth's gravitational field. “Soviet Space Expert Eaps Eace to Moon,” The Washington Post, Sept. 17, 1967.

12 Technology permitting, a nation could pre-position an unmanned rescue satellite in orbit which could then be maneuvered at some later time to link up with a stranded manned vehicle if the plane change involved was not excessive. For details of this “orbital ambulance” concept see remarks by Theodore J. Gordon in “Current Launch Vehicles OK for Space Eescue System,” 19 Missile/Space Daily 166 (1966); and “GP Unveils Orpheus Space Eescue/Space Station Project,” 31 Space Business Daily 210 (1967). Eescue at lunar distances, on the other hand, will probably demand earthbased services. Dr. Ealph E. Lapp, a well-known American physicist, recently suggested that the Apollo-8 lunar orbit (which took place in late December, 1968) should not take place until another Saturn 5 rocket was ready on the launch pad to provide backup rescue if required. “The Coming Trip Around the Moon: an Interview with Ealph E. Lapp,” New Eepublie, Dec. 14, 1968, p. 17.

13 Besides the argument from “lack of knowledge,” it has also been suggested that the representatives of the various governments concerned purposefully left vague clauses on space rescue since, for example, no state yet possessed the “capability” for earthto- space rescue operations.

14 U.N. Doc. A/4141, July 14, 1959, Part III. While this discussion is concerned primarily with rescue and return of astronauts both on earth and in outer space, the subject of recovery and return of errant spacecraft is referred to from time to time because of its close historic connection to questions involving the rescue of astronauts.

15 Text in the New York Times, March 22, 1962, p. 18, col. 7.

16 For a thorough review, see Dembling and Arons, loc. cit. note 1 above, pp. 329- 386; and IT. 8. Congress, Soviet Space Programs, 1962-1965: Goals and Purposes Achievements, Plans, and International Implications, Staff Eeport prepared for the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, XI. 8. Senate, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess., Dec. 30, 1966, pp. 510 ff.

17 “U.N. General Assembly Ees. No. 1962 (XVIII), Dec. 13, 1963, Declaration of the Legal Principles Governing Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, text as reprinted in 49 Department of State Bulletin 1012 (1963); 58 A.J.I.L. 477 (1964).

18 IN Res. No. 1963 (also dated Dee. 13, 1963, and concurrent with the Declaration of Legal Principles, No. 1962) the U.N. General Assembly directed that UNCOPUOS proceed directly in drafting conventions on liability for spacecraft damages and on rescue and return of spacecraft and crews.

19 Dembling and Arons, loc. cit. note 1 above, pp. 338-340.

20 See Art. 4 of the U.8.S.R. draft, U.N. Doc. A/C. 105/C. 2/L. 2/Rev. 2, in U.K. Doc. A/AC. 105/21, Oct. 23, 1964, Annex I, p. 3; near coincidence of views was achieved at the Fourth Session in 1965. For the underlying rationale regarding reimbursement of expenses, see Dembling and Arons, loc. cit. note 1 above, p. 342.

21 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, loo. tit. note 2 above.

22 Copies of these mid-1967 draft treaties appear in U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/37, op. tit. note 1 above, at Annex I.

23 Paul G. Dembling and Daniel M. Arons, ‘ ‘ The Treaty on Rescue and Return of Astronauts and Space Objects,” 9 William and Mary Law Review 641 (1968).

24 Ibid. 649 (italics added). A more recent, albeit less detailed, government analysis is contained in U. S. Congress, Agreement on the Bescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, Analysis and Background Data, Staff Report prepared for the use of the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, TJ. S. Senate, July 16, 1968.

25 Von Braun, op. cit. note 10 above, p. 109.

26 Final Acts of the Extraordinary Administrative Radio Conference to Allocate Frequency Bands for Space Radio Communication Purposes, Geneva, 1963, “Resolution 2A Relating to Space Vehicles in Distress and Emergency,” p. 171

27 Herman Zhukov, ‘ ‘ International Rescue Service for Space Travelers,'’ Moscow News, No. 6, Feb. 18-25, 1967, p. 6.

28 For example, it would not be sufficient to provide Mercury one-man or Gemini two-man space vehicles for space rescue missions in which three or four astronauts are stranded aboard a space station.

29 C. Wilfred Jenks notes that, although the Safety of Life at Sea Convention and the Search and Eescue Annex to the International Civil Aviation Convention do not provide for reimbursement of expenses incurred for saving human life at sea or in the event of an aircraft accident, the expected expenses involved in the rescue of astronauts in outer .space will be of such an altogether different order of magnitude as to render any analogy with these conventions inappropriate. Jenks, Space Law 249-250 (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1965).

30 For a review of maritime precedent on this question as it relates to public vessels and their crews, see Martin J. Norris, The Law of Seamen, Vol. 1, pp. 219 ff. and passim (New York: Baker, Voorhis and Co., Inc., 1962). A separate convention on salvage of man-made objects in outer space is proposed in Hall, “Comments on Salvage and Eemoval of Man-Made Objects from Outer Space,” 37 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 288 ff. (1967).