frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Made with ♥ by @iamnishanth

Open Source @Github

fp.

OpenCiv3: Open-source, cross-platform reimagining of Civilization III

https://openciv3.org/
510•klaussilveira•8h ago•141 comments

The Waymo World Model

https://waymo.com/blog/2026/02/the-waymo-world-model-a-new-frontier-for-autonomous-driving-simula...
848•xnx•14h ago•507 comments

How we made geo joins 400× faster with H3 indexes

https://floedb.ai/blog/how-we-made-geo-joins-400-faster-with-h3-indexes
61•matheusalmeida•1d ago•12 comments

Show HN: Look Ma, No Linux: Shell, App Installer, Vi, Cc on ESP32-S3 / BreezyBox

https://github.com/valdanylchuk/breezydemo
168•isitcontent•9h ago•20 comments

Monty: A minimal, secure Python interpreter written in Rust for use by AI

https://github.com/pydantic/monty
171•dmpetrov•9h ago•77 comments

Show HN: I spent 4 years building a UI design tool with only the features I use

https://vecti.com
282•vecti•11h ago•127 comments

Dark Alley Mathematics

https://blog.szczepan.org/blog/three-points/
64•quibono•4d ago•11 comments

Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

https://github.com/microsoft/litebox
340•aktau•15h ago•164 comments

Show HN: If you lose your memory, how to regain access to your computer?

https://eljojo.github.io/rememory/
228•eljojo•11h ago•142 comments

Sheldon Brown's Bicycle Technical Info

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/
332•ostacke•14h ago•90 comments

Hackers (1995) Animated Experience

https://hackers-1995.vercel.app/
425•todsacerdoti•16h ago•221 comments

An Update on Heroku

https://www.heroku.com/blog/an-update-on-heroku/
364•lstoll•15h ago•253 comments

Delimited Continuations vs. Lwt for Threads

https://mirageos.org/blog/delimcc-vs-lwt
11•romes•4d ago•1 comments

PC Floppy Copy Protection: Vault Prolok

https://martypc.blogspot.com/2024/09/pc-floppy-copy-protection-vault-prolok.html
35•kmm•4d ago•2 comments

Show HN: ARM64 Android Dev Kit

https://github.com/denuoweb/ARM64-ADK
12•denuoweb•1d ago•1 comments

Why I Joined OpenAI

https://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2026-02-07/why-i-joined-openai.html
84•SerCe•4h ago•66 comments

How to effectively write quality code with AI

https://heidenstedt.org/posts/2026/how-to-effectively-write-quality-code-with-ai/
214•i5heu•11h ago•159 comments

Show HN: R3forth, a ColorForth-inspired language with a tiny VM

https://github.com/phreda4/r3
59•phreda4•8h ago•11 comments

Introducing the Developer Knowledge API and MCP Server

https://developers.googleblog.com/introducing-the-developer-knowledge-api-and-mcp-server/
35•gfortaine•6h ago•9 comments

Female Asian Elephant Calf Born at the Smithsonian National Zoo

https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/female-asian-elephant-calf-born-smithsonians-national-zoo-an...
16•gmays•4h ago•2 comments

I spent 5 years in DevOps – Solutions engineering gave me what I was missing

https://infisical.com/blog/devops-to-solutions-engineering
123•vmatsiiako•13h ago•51 comments

Learning from context is harder than we thought

https://hy.tencent.com/research/100025?langVersion=en
160•limoce•3d ago•80 comments

Unseen Footage of Atari Battlezone Arcade Cabinet Production

https://arcadeblogger.com/2026/02/02/unseen-footage-of-atari-battlezone-cabinet-production/
3•videotopia•3d ago•0 comments

Understanding Neural Network, Visually

https://visualrambling.space/neural-network/
258•surprisetalk•3d ago•34 comments

I now assume that all ads on Apple news are scams

https://kirkville.com/i-now-assume-that-all-ads-on-apple-news-are-scams/
1022•cdrnsf•18h ago•425 comments

FORTH? Really!?

https://rescrv.net/w/2026/02/06/associative
53•rescrv•16h ago•17 comments

Evaluating and mitigating the growing risk of LLM-discovered 0-days

https://red.anthropic.com/2026/zero-days/
44•lebovic•1d ago•13 comments

WebView performance significantly slower than PWA

https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40817676
14•denysonique•5h ago•1 comments

I'm going to cure my girlfriend's brain tumor

https://andrewjrod.substack.com/p/im-going-to-cure-my-girlfriends-brain
98•ray__•5h ago•48 comments

Show HN: Smooth CLI – Token-efficient browser for AI agents

https://docs.smooth.sh/cli/overview
81•antves•1d ago•59 comments
Open in hackernews

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

https://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/armstrong/moonrocks.html
295•ajuhasz•6mo ago

Comments

jleyank•6mo ago
I think at least one astronaut needed to file a request for tax deadline extension due to being “out of the country” at filing time. Didn’t have an entry in the system for “off the planet” I guess…
elijaht•6mo ago
Ha, that was actually Apollo 13: https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/john-swigert-jr
whycome•6mo ago
If they said they were away on the moon that would be a lie.
voidUpdate•6mo ago
I believe he was simply "abroad", which is true, since he wasn't in the US at the time (I think... How high do countries reach?)
whycome•6mo ago
As in apollo13 didn’t make it to the moon.
Bluestein•6mo ago
I mean, technically ...
ceejayoz•6mo ago
> 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."

more_corn•6mo ago
No. This is one example of many. NASA astronauts have to fill out government business travel paperwork for travel to the ISS. The rules must be followed even if the rules don’t make sense.
ceejayoz•6mo ago
The article covers that.

> Space station crews launching on Russian Soyuz spacecraft have to make their way to the Central Asian spaceport of the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. No matter what the mission, even astronauts have to go through customs, NASA officials said. As part of their routine airline flights to other countries and back, they of course encounter airport customs.

It's not to/from the ISS that's the issue there.

A US-only crew on a US-launched spacecraft that lands in US territory won't need to do it. (ISS may add a few complexities, but if you stay on, say, the Shuttle, you're not leaving US-controlled territory.)

sidewndr46•6mo ago
For travel to Kazakhstan it makes sense to show a passport of some kind as they want to know why someone is entering the country. Traveling to Baikonur of course being a legitimate reason to enter the country. There's one aspect of this I don't understand entirely. What if the astronaut travels to the ISS from Baikonur, then used some of form return vehicle that lands in US territory? How would we handle that?
ceejayoz•6mo ago
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.

sidewndr46•6mo ago
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
9rx•6mo ago
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.
ahazred8ta•6mo ago
On a couple of occasions, cosmonauts came back from the ISS on the shuttle. A US immigration clerk came to stamp their passport.
sidewndr46•6mo ago
That'd be really awkward if they were denied a visa and had to go back the way they came.
gaius_baltar•6mo ago
Would CBP pay the travel costs? :)
potato3732842•6mo ago
If the rules don't make sense for a situation why do they apply? Why isn't there a carve out?

It's easy to screech about potentially unforeseeable future cases and precedents but it's not like this stuff is free.

The cost of this attitude applied at scale is mind boggling.

ceejayoz•6mo ago
There are carve-outs. They're just pretty general so human judgement can be applied to the odd edge cases - "at the discretion of the Secretary of State" sort of things.

Random example: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/101.8

potato3732842•6mo ago
It's easier to just have them fill out the form than get a common sense exception.
zhobbs•6mo ago
Yeah, I think we're over analyzing it in this thread. Seems pretty light hearted and fun.
perihelions•6mo ago
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 contamination by any organism brought back from the lunar surface were mostly for show")

skeezyboy•6mo ago
allowing the "to be determined" answer sat at odds with the implied dilligency of the customs agency
refulgentis•6mo ago
Unlikely, it was a stunt.
montjoy•6mo ago
This. Also, maybe setting legal precedent?
refulgentis•6mo ago
No. They're saying it was a stunt. Not setting legal precedent. There was no practical value.
Lammy•6mo ago
The practical value is reinforcing among the general public the idea that humans should not be able to move freely around their own planet. In the future only money will have that right. The modern passport didn't even exist until World War Ⅰ: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521634938 / https://archive.org/details/pdfy-S0NQwPjPkMlzZ2eS/mode/2up
refulgentis•6mo ago
Purple prose tripe re: some personal hobbyhorse masquerading as relevant commentary. Their obvious plan to subjugate hasn't come to fruition 50 years later, so its time to adjust your priors.
ahmeneeroe-v2•6mo ago
"modern passport not existing in past" ≠ "free human movement"

borders have largely had guards, who had no obligation to let people through, or even to treat them fairly and not rob them. frontiers had bandits who existed solely to prey on travelers.

even if you could move to a different settlement, you did not have the same legal rights as citizens of that city.

the "modern passport" has done more for free human movement than anything that came before.

csomar•6mo ago
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.
Alupis•6mo ago
Pre-1900? Are you aware of how many wars were fought around the world just in the 1800's regarding border and territory disputes?
ahmeneeroe-v2•6mo ago
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?

joecool1029•6mo ago
Do you think they will be shocked to find out color wasn't invented in the 1900's?
bigfishrunning•6mo ago
It has always existed in the merry old land of Oz.
9rx•6mo ago
> 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.

codetrotter•6mo ago
> 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.

9rx•6mo ago
> It sounds squarely like it's referring to 1900 AD to me.

What part of "If you moved from one place to another, you were mostly at the whims of thieves and pirates." suggests 1900 CE to you? Have you never looked at a history book?

codetrotter•6mo ago
There was plenty of pirates around still in the 1800s AD. Aka "pre-1900" AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy

9rx•6mo ago
There are still plenty of pirates around to this very day; a "significant issue" according to your own link. Despite that, the aforementioned statement doesn't make me think it has anything to do with today. What, specifically, makes you think it has something to do with the time leading up to 1900 CE rather than 1900 BCE?
codetrotter•6mo ago
> What, specifically, makes you think it has something to do with the time leading up to 1900 CE rather than 1900 BCE

Normally when someone says "1900" they are referring to 1900 AD. Unless BCE had already been mentioned, which here it had not. And if they were referring to 1900 BCE they normally would specifically say 1900 BCE. That's why.

And furthermore, the parent comment above the one talking about "pre-1900" was talking about modern passports. Why would anyone immediately jump from modern passports to 1900 BCE? That don't make no sense at all. Jumping to 1900 AD however, that does make sense. You see?

9rx•6mo ago
Absent of any other context one might reasonably assume "1990" Refers to 1900 CE. But we have additional context, such as:

"Cities had guards.", "you were mostly at the whims of thieves and pirates."

What in that speaks to 1900 CE over 1900 BCE? There is evidence of pirates in both time periods, so that feature alone isn't telling. But the context doesn't end with that feature in a vacuum, does it?

hammock•6mo ago
>These things were mainly publicity stunts. The supposed biohazard quarantine for returning Apollo astronauts was a theater performance, too.

Wow. What else about Apollo was theater performance?

pinkmuffinere•6mo ago
It feels as if this question is intended to make a strong implication, but I'm not sure what the implication is -- Can you clarify? I almost think you are suggesting the moon landing was fake, but that's very stereotypical, so I don't want to assume.
schneems•6mo ago
Not OP but: The very essence of the program was publicity. As soon as the public lost interest (mission accomplished!), the program was canceled. We built Saturn V rockets that we never launched.

That being said, I know a lot of things were unknown. We didn’t know if the surface of the moon would interact with the atmosphere inside the capsules to combust. Some of these unknowns were downplayed. Some others were played up for dramatic effect.

The whole process of getting a person to the moon took hundreds of thousands of involved workers and the. coordinated effort of a country’s politicians and populace to fund it. I think it’s unfair to boil it down to “just publicity” but it is a big part in keeping it afloat.

ta1243•6mo ago
The entire thing was theater. It was to show off American technical superiority (the US having already lost the space race in terms of first sub-orbital flight, first satellite, first animal in orbit, first man in orbit, first spacecraft to the moon, first woman in space, first spacewalk etc)
AdamN•6mo ago
The expense report for mileage was another one. Kind of cute and an interesting insight into the time period but it wasn't really needed.
whycome•6mo ago
What aspect of the review suggested that it was mostly for show?
stronglikedan•6mo ago
Considering the source, the source is probably the only thing that "suggested" it, as they are known to do.
cynicalkane•6mo ago
Are you claiming the New York Times is more likely than a comparable newspaper to fabricate random suggestions about astronauts? This is something they are "known to do"?

If you actually read the article, they include a direct link to the sources they cite and explain specifically what those sources say.

whycome•6mo ago
Okay I didn’t have access to paywalled article before.

The NYT article is about one specific study that’s a review of archival material. It doesn’t actually seem to suggest that it was a “publicity stunt” or “theater” as OP suggested. Rather, it says that NASA believed that the threat was very real. The threat was real enough to hold a “high level conference” (held by National Academy of Sciences). The outcome there was also that “the risk was real and the consequences could be profound”.

So, the major spending on the quarantine system wasn’t out of nowhere.

The study conclusion seems to be more that it would be nearly impossible to contain the threat if it existed. But, that wouldn’t mean that the precautions taken were only for show — just that it would be really fucking hard to stop. And with the hypothetical microbe, they couldn’t know anything about means of transmission or lifespan — so the precautions could have some value.

Even in the failure of their quarantine procedure, it still demonstrated that they thought it was (in principle) important:

“24 workers were exposed to the lunar material that the facility’s infrastructure was supposed to protect them from; they had to be quarantined”

It wasn’t security theater so much as it was just quarantine procedure that had many gaps, failures, and trade offs.

shayway•6mo ago
The source paper for both articles is paywalled, so maybe it has a better argument than the articles. But to call it theater or a publicity stunt is to imply it didn't have a point beyond public relations, which isn't the case.

Microbes can't be completely contained - easily, anyway - and we knew that perfectly well back then. But we also knew to minimize contact with potentially infected people. Put it this way: if there were lunar germs that the astronauts took back with them, would it have been better to skip the containment procedures, as inadequate as they may have been? Of course not.

NASA played up their ability to contain extraterrestrial microbes for sure. But the containment procedure itself was the best that could be done. If 'absolute isolation' is the bar to which containment is held, by that logic everything short of just not visiting other celestial bodies is theater.

cgriswald•6mo ago
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 expense on things the public would never have known about, medical and biological testing done for the first three missions, NASA's openness with the ICBC about the imperfection of the system and the existence of contingency plans...).

nickff•6mo ago
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.
bawolff•6mo ago
A stream of ants would not necessarily render a quarintine ineffective.
ben_w•6mo ago
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.
jeremyjh•6mo ago
That’s right, it made it completely a joke.
dmix•6mo ago
They quarantined in an Airstream van? That's hilarious. Very 1960s

Found the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_quarantine_facility

Gracana•6mo ago
You can go look at one up close at the Udvar-Hazy Center in VA. I highly recommend a visit there if you are in the area and interested in aerospace stuff. They've got a ton of amazing exhibits.
philsnow•6mo ago
The USS Hornet is the ship that picked them up, it's permanently docked in Alameda, CA and has been transformed into a museum. They have footprints painted on the floor to show the astronauts' path walking (across the deck) into the Airstream. You also get to walk on the (wooden) flight deck and see the jet elevator, etc.

https://www.wired.com/2009/07/hornet/

https://uss-hornet.org/

joezydeco•6mo ago
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.

tsimionescu•6mo ago
A quarantine is never for the sake of those you quarantine, it's for the sake of the public, by definition.
rogerrogerr•6mo ago
Except after the 2019 strain of coronavirus was identified, then we turned it all upside down and said “stay home, stay safe” as loud as possible for two years straight.
jrockway•6mo ago
I mean, if people had quarantined then we wouldn't have had a pandemic.
tsimionescu•6mo ago
"Social distancing" was not quarantine. It was a recommendation to reduce the frequency of meeting with others, but it wasn't strictly enforced: you were allowed to go out and do things, but in limited capacity. And this was both for your own sake to some extent, and for the sake of everyone else to some extent - and it was explicitly presented as such, at least in more in-depth discussions. It wasn't just "stay home, stay safe", but "stay home, keep yourself safe, keep others safe". Especially since the main goal has always been to avoid overwhelming hospitals with serious cases, since the most disastrous death rated were seen in areas where this happened, at the start of the pandemic (in Wuhan, in the Milan/Bergamo area, in Iran).

You still had actual quarantines during the pandemic - anyone who had a positive test and anyone who had been in direct contact with them for the last X days, were often strictly forced to stay either at home or in isolated hospital rooms. This was quite explicitly not for their own sake, but to keep the public at large safe from them.

scottyah•6mo ago
I assume the "hot trailer" was better than the small capsule in space, which was also just "for show".
marcusverus•6mo ago
I think it's a mixed bag. It seems like they were genuinely concerned about contamination that could harm the astronauts or others on the team, but not particularly concerned about other biological contamination. From the article:

> For example, the Apollo spacecraft hadn't been designed to prevent potential lunar contaminants from being exposed to Earth's environment; once it splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, the capsule's cabin had to be fully opened in order to let astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins out.

Another obvious "oversite" was that the "biological isolation garments" (BIGs) they wore were tossed into the open capsule door, and donned by the potentially contaminated astronauts! It's true that they were sprayed down with disinfectant afterwards, however the spray and whatever it washed off were drained directly into the ocean.

gmueckl•6mo ago
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.
umanwizard•6mo ago
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.
csours•6mo ago
Following this line of thought - this is may be the exact analogy that NASA wanted to counteract.
umanwizard•6mo ago
Why? What's the difference between a US spacecraft in international space and a US watercraft in international waters?
csours•6mo ago
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.

quartz•6mo ago
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.
nrb•6mo ago
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.
jcranmer•6mo ago
I don't think so, but you do need to fill out a customs form to ship a package to someone on a US Navy ship.
RandomBacon•6mo ago
If you're shipping the package from the U.S., that is incorrect.

I ordered Amazon packages addressed to me on U.S. Navy ships.

Ships have FPO addresses which are treated and formatted like a domestic ship.

RandomBacon•6mo ago
Corrction: … like domestic address.
agagagag•6mo ago
Of course not, if we did they’d find my dog I bought in Vietnam
bongodongobob•6mo ago
I don't think so because the ship is technically US soil afaik.
ofalkaed•6mo ago
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.
umanwizard•6mo ago
It is still technically illegal to go to Cuba without a specific whitelisted reason (and tourism isn’t on the list). It’s just not strictly enforced.
ofalkaed•6mo ago
So it is not illegal? you just need to go through the proper bureaucracy as you do with every countries. Last I looked into it a few years back it was easy to get the paper work, one person I found who went there just signed up for guitar lessons in Havana to study Cuban guitar, showed the paperwork for the guitar classes and was good to go because it was for educational reasons even if the guitar lessons only accounted for a tiny portion of their time there. The white listed reasons are fairly broad and easy to work within, sure you can't just hop on a plane for a weekend visit but that is true of many countries that no one would say it is illegal to go to.
umanwizard•6mo ago
The point is nothing has changed about the legality. It has always been allowed to go for one of these whitelisted reasons, you just had to apply in advance.

Now it is still legal to go for exactly the same set of reasons, they just don't bother actually checking. There's no "paperwork" you need to get; you just tell the check-in agent which legal reason you fall under.

ofalkaed•6mo ago
I have only researched this from the standpoint of going there by private boat which is different and has some extra work including getting approval from the USCG but what I picked up about general travel is that doing the paper work allows you to take a direct flight, can save you from headaches down the line and offers some protection from headaches caused by how this changes in the future. What changed is how the law is enforced, not the law itself and this changes every decade or so.
jki275•6mo ago
If we make port calls anywhere outside the US we definitely go through customs on return.
kevin_thibedeau•6mo ago
I met an AF cargo loadmaster once who told me that they can smuggle anything back to the US that they can fit in the plane. He was importing E-bikes from Japan.
pyuser583•6mo ago
The US Space Treaty rejected using the high seas as a legal metaphor. Instead it went with Antarctica.

The high seas are easy to use commercially, but also very prone to conflict. Wars are fought over tiny straits, and understandably so.

The Antarctic treaty decided the antarctic was too useless to fight over, so the signers decided to make it difficult to use in exchange for making it difficult to fight over.

Obviously space is a more like the seas. But nobody wanted a war over outer space (just look at the reaction to the Star Wars programs in the 1980s).

Antarctica is just a legal dead zone. What happens if a scientist on a station murders another scientist? On an American station, it was unclear until the 1980s. What happens if a passenger on a cruse ship murders another passenger? The FBI has people on standby - you'll be arrested when you return to your home port. Probably sooner.

The legalities are space are difficult because we decided to make them so. This is changing, and fast. Which is good.

CobrastanJorji•6mo ago
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.
jeremyjh•6mo ago
Because it was done. The goal was to win the race against the Soviets. The future mission plans were mostly budget padding to ensure that was accomplished.
GuB-42•6mo ago
I didn't feel like the original author was blaming NASA. The entire Apollo program was a publicity stunt. That doesn't make it less awesome. A moon landing definitely earns you the right to show off.

Not sure about the quarantine, but the customs form is a nice touch. Cheap, simple, effective and harmless.

xattt•6mo ago
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.
GCA10•6mo ago
My father was one of the scientific Principal Investigators (PIs) who analyzed the Apollo 11 lunar samples, back in 1969. Flipping through some of his notes from back then, it sounds as if a rotating assortment of bureaucrats injected themselves into the chain-of-custody with weird and embarrassing effects. To wit:

Some Agriculture Department folks decided that their legal authority to quarantine soil samples brought into the U.S. applied to lunar soils, too. They insisted on building a three-week quarantine facility with slivers of lunar samples, exposed to "germ-free mice born by cesarean section." Only after the mice survived this ordeal was it safe to release the fuller batch of samples.

Another character insisted that the aluminum rock boxes be sealed, while on the moon, with gaskets of indium (soft, rare metal) which would deform to create a very tight seal. The geochemists on earth protested, in vain, that this procedure would ruin their hopes of doing any indium analysis of the samples themselves, shutting down an interesting line of research. No luck in changing the protocol. Turns out that the indium seals didn't work, and the rock boxes reached the earth-based quarantine facilities with normal air pressure anyway.

There's more silliness about trying to keep the lunar samples in a hard vacuum while designing rigidly mounted gloves that could be used to manipulate/slice/divide the samples without breaking the vacuum. Maybe we know today how to sustain flexible gloves in such an environment. We didn't, back then.

dmix•6mo ago
> They insisted on building a three-week quarantine facility with slivers of lunar samples

There was a ton of money flowing in for space and it was the big new thing of the future. Makes sense other agencies would try to insert themselves and try to seem relevant to the new popular thing in the news and latch themselves onto any future spending/authority.

stinkbeetle•6mo ago
Yep, government bureaucracy has always been horribly corrupt, incompetent, and self-serving, unfortunately.
jrockway•6mo ago
I can kind of see why someone whose job it is to quarantine soil samples from other places on Earth would want to quarantine soil samples from another planet. Sort of.
lazide•6mo ago
Good thing corporations don’t have different divisions vying for relevancy by being super important to the new hotness (cough AI cough), and this is just the government being weird eh?
robertlagrant•6mo ago
As long as they're wasting profits from people giving them money voluntarily and not taxes taken on pain of imprisonment, it's fine.
simgt•6mo ago
Bureaucracy is always corrupt, incompetent and self-serving to varying degrees. There is no way around it, it's a necessary evil for communication and organisation. At least governments in democracies have some form of oversight on them, there is less oversight in corporations or dictatorships.

Maybe an AI dictatorship would rid us of bureaucracy, but we'd both end up in a paperclip sweatshop.

qwery•6mo ago
Paperclip sweatshop? I thought all three of us would end up in a paperclip.
throw8449485•6mo ago
Ok, just some facts:

- moon dust has very fine particles. It is very irritating for skin, and there was a very good chance it could damage lungs like azbestos.

- Electronics and dust do not mix well

- electrostatic properties were not known, it could stick to every surface and coat it, perhaps prevent vacuum seals etc... Look at images from inside capsule, before and after landing! And that was just dust, brought on suits, not full samples!

- it had horrible smell

xtiansimon•6mo ago
> “… moon dust has very fine particles…”

What’s more: “Unlike dust particles on Earth, dust on the Moon’s surface is sharp and abrasive – like tiny shards of glass – because it hasn’t been exposed to weathering and elements like water and oxygen.”

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/kennedy/nasa-tec...

Pigo•6mo ago
I never thought about the smell.

Does it smell strong because of it's composition or because the vacuum of space has a strange effect on it? Like the particulates not dispersing enough?

pyuser583•6mo ago
>It is very irritating for skin, and there was a very good chance it could damage lungs like azbestos.

and

> it had horrible smell

We shouldn't know what it smells like. That's forbidden knowledge, just like the taste of uranium.

jcynix•6mo ago
Hmm, did they check whether their shoes where clean? Mine always have dirt underneath when I return from outside ;-0
garyrob•6mo ago
I don't know. What if there happened to me some unimaginable pathogen that Earth animal life had no way of resisting, and that multiplied rapidly in the presence of our kind of life?

Extremely improbable. Astronomically improbable. Virtually impossible. All that is absolutely, 100% true.

But given the stakes, similarly astronomically high, I'm not sure it didn't actually make sense to do a quarantine for a few weeks. Yes, I know the indium seals didn't work. But the fact that we failed to create a quarantine doesn't mean it was worthless to at least make an attempt. It cost us virtually nothing in comparison to the stakes.

That's my personal response, anyway, and reflects the opinion I would have expressed at the time if I happened to have been involved in the project.

DataDaemon•6mo ago
I wonder if they checked their social profiles?
ahmeneeroe-v2•6mo ago
Yes 100% these astronauts were extensively vetted to ensure compatibility with the ruling power of their day.
smnrchrds•6mo ago
Semi-related:

"Passports please! British paratroopers met by French customs after D-Day airdrop

British paratroopers recreating an airdrop behind German defences to mark the 80th anniversary of D-Day were met by French customs officials at a makeshift border checkpost.

Moments after the paratroopers had hit the ground and gathered up their chutes, they formed an orderly queue and handed over their passports for inspection by waiting French customs officials in a Normandy field."

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/passports-please-britis...

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ZY4rlAQus

ceejayoz•6mo ago
Reminds me a bit of when the UK accidentally invaded Spain on a training exercise. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-invade-spa...

> Lord West said: "It wasn't one of the best days in my time. I had a phone call from the military commander saying, 'Sir, I'm afraid something awful's happened.' I thought, 'Goodness me, what?' And he said, 'I'm afraid we've invaded Spain, but we don't think they've noticed.'

> "They charged up the beach in the normal way, being Royal Marines—they're frightfully good soldiers of course, and jolly good at this sort of thing—and confronted a Spanish fisherman who sort of pointed out, 'I think you're on the wrong beach.'

medstrom•6mo ago
"First Sea Lord" is such a great rank.
pyuser583•6mo ago
One of my favorite.
skeezyboy•6mo ago
the british armed forces are atrocious. i simply cannot fathom how britain controlled so much of the planet at one point
oaththrowaway•6mo ago
Because the food was so bad and the women were so ugly that they had no choice to but leave
bigyabai•6mo ago
> i simply cannot fathom how britain controlled so much of the planet at one point

Boats, optionally guns.

When you reflect on how easily America became an imperialist crybaby, it can't have been hard for Britain either.

lenkite•6mo ago
Because they had a good officer corps producing some ridiculous military geniuses in their age of empire. As an example, the Duke of Wellington (Arthur Wellesley) was a monster who was unstoppable in the military conquest of India. Many other British commanders failed battling Indian states, but he seemed to win just about every battle, at times being both outnumbered and outarmed.

I would go on to say that it wasn't for that man, it is likely the British conquest of India would have been confined to only a limited territory. Indian states were modernizing and militarizing rapidly (relatively for that era), so any delays in conquest would have made India a hard nut to crack.

bee_rider•6mo ago
This was 2002. They are friendly countries, seems like everyone responded appropriately.
umanwizard•6mo ago
Swiss soldiers have accidentally crossed into Liechtenstein a few times. Similarly, nobody made a fuss.
ahi•6mo ago
"Juan Carlos Juarez, the town's mayor, said at the time: "They landed on our coast to confront a supposed enemy with typical commando tactics. But we managed to hold them on the beach.""

I would not have been able to get this out without giggling.

bitwize•6mo ago
These French customs officials seemed more on the ball than the one I encountered. (Checked my passport, but didn't stamp it, causing problems for me upon landing for my next leg in Helsinki.)
metabagel•6mo ago
I don’t think there is any requirement to stamp passports. Some people specifically ask for a stamp, because they want the memento.
ta1243•6mo ago
In the Schengen area, if you are a non-EU person, until recently you needed to ensure you are stamped in and out otherwise you'll run into issues with them thinking you may have overstayed.

After UK went all freedumb and left the EU this caused a lot of issues, I have a UK colleague that visited his wife's family in Poland over a Christmas, didn't get a stamp on the way back, then ran into problems a few months later as they argued he had been in Europe for months.

bitwize•6mo ago
The stamp is acknowledgement of your tourist visa. Maybe EU citizens don't need one, but as an American entering France I certainly did. If I didn't, I sure wish the visibly armed Finnish lady who led me back near one of those beat-you-up interrogation rooms had known, it could've saved us both some hassle and me a major scare.
peeters•6mo ago
> Passports please! British paratroopers met by French customs after D-Day airdrop

Err, D-Day anniversary airdrop. That headline has only one correct literal interpretation, and it's wrong (not ambiguous, wrong).

glimshe•6mo ago
I'm not a betting man, but I were, I'd bet on most readers having understood it correctly. I suspect it was meant to be click bait, though.
simonklitj•6mo ago
Made me do a double take for sure.
lucianbr•6mo ago
The headline definitely didn't make any sense to me (I was thinking maybe an Onion article?) before reading the rest.
arrowsmith•6mo ago
I don't know about the US, but in the UK you can definitely say "D-Day" to mean "an anniversary of the original D-Day", not strictly 6/6/1944. It's not wrong.

Just like you can say "Independence Day" to mean July 4th of any year, not only the specific historical date on which the US declared independence.

nemomarx•6mo ago
This would make sense if there's often D Day ceremonies. In the us I think that's all moved to memorial Day, so D-Day pings only as the original event here
arrowsmith•6mo ago
You could say e.g. "today is D-Day" to mean "today is June 6th".

But if you said "D-Day" without context people would assume you meant the event in WWII. So yeah, I guess the original headline is definitely misleading, if not strictly inaccurate.

peeters•6mo ago
Hmm I'll take your word for it that that's true, but I would say the examples are very different. Independence Day is a title/holiday retroactively created to commemorate the event (which apparently might not have even happened on July 4).

Whereas D-Day was something soldiers used to describe that specific day even before it happened. And you would hear things like "D-Day plus 23" to describe points in time, you wouldn't have to specify the year

So to me the Independence Day analogy is a little weak.

jeremyjh•6mo ago
That was the original usage but there is no reason to think usage hasn't changed in Britain, if a British person is saying it is now used this way.
wat10000•6mo ago
Strange article. Of course you have to go through passport control when you cross an international border.
magicalhippo•6mo ago
Reminded me of when I got to see one of the customs declaration for an off-shore oil platform built here in Norway.

It was a single-item declaration: one oil plaform.

However, the elecronic customs message format didn't have enough digits to fit the item value, over a billion NOK IIRC.

After some calls with customs, they had to send it with a fictitious item value and add the true value in a free-text field.

This worked fine since there were no duties or taxes on exporting oil platforms, so no cross-checks that would fail.

9dev•6mo ago
LOL. I’m on the receiving end of these customs declarations, and stories like this are the reason the copies are so notoriously hard to parse programmatically… lovely, thanks for sharing.
Scoundreller•6mo ago
What’s the “escape value” that triggers people to read the free text field? Or is it just zero?

And if zero, how often do they just get mistakenly processed as zero value?

bdamm•6mo ago
Whatever it is is likely to be part of the endless arms race between customs agencies and smugglers, so I doubt you'll get the privilege of finding out.
9dev•6mo ago
Zero; or an arbitrary number; or a number that was destined for another field, but the commanding officer misread and filled the form wrong; or null; or as many digits as fit in the field. Any of these.
magicalhippo•6mo ago
In a case like this, they usually call ahead to let customs know, and follow up with the declaration ID once it has been sent.

Apart from that, customs is very tight lipped about what triggers manual processing of a declararion.

Though for example a large discrepancy between weight and value typically would lead to it getting flagged for manual processing, as I understand it.

lucianbr•6mo ago
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.
ceejayoz•6mo ago
I'd be worried about that raising money laundering flags, like someone splitting transactions into a bunch of $9,999 chunks.
lucianbr•6mo ago
Since they were talking it over with customs, they would clear any flags as "we agreed on this solution because the item cost was too large to fit the message format".

It's not like Google, where there's automatic inhuman consequences. And even Google can make exceptions if they want to, just they usually don't care.

lsllc•6mo ago
I think Customs is on to that -- that was how Saddam Hussein got the precision parts of his "supergun" out of Europe into Iraq, the parts were all labeled as oil industry related.
johannes1234321•6mo ago
While that is to circumvent arms export control, which may be executed by customs officers, but is mostly a topic for special departments, often requiring government permission.
Lovesong•6mo ago
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.

magicalhippo•6mo ago
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.

Lovesong•6mo ago
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.

dotancohen•6mo ago

  > An oil platform getting towed into place is one piece, not an IKEA kit or similar.
They could call it the Integrated Key Energy Anchor.
yardie•6mo ago
I did a 1100m passage from Puerto Rico to Miami. Anchored in the Bahamas bank but didn't step on land. And when we arrived in the US we weren't required to clear in since our last port of departure was PR. Pretty sure they were tracking us by drone, blimp, AIS, and radar the entire way because they weren't suspicious enough compared to my previous experiences.

Curious why Apollo 11 would have to clear customs since the moon isn't a foreign country and they just did a there and back.

tempodox•6mo ago
They could have smuggled moonshine.
burnt-resistor•6mo ago
Freshly bottled from the edge of the dark side where it's sweetest.
jedberg•6mo ago
Due to international treaty the moon is considered international land, like Antarctica.
lucianbr•6mo ago
You think some other country would have objected to the US not requesting cusoms declarations from their own citizens, reasoning it breaks the treaty obligations?
jedberg•6mo ago
I think it was more about the US insisting the rules get followed no matter what. Sort of like how astronauts today going to ISS have to fill out international travel forms, even when they leave from the USA.
ethan_smith•6mo ago
Under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the moon is considered international territory ("province of all mankind"), so technically they were returning from outside US jurisdiction, triggering customs requirements.
soneil•6mo ago
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.

mytailorisrich•6mo ago
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.

9rx•6mo ago
> 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.

vntok•6mo ago
> "Land" is legally defined as pertaining to planet earth.

Interesting. Where have you read this? Intuitively, it seems very weird for a lawmaker to specify the planet the law would apply to.

mytailorisrich•6mo ago
I wrote in general and generic terms. Apollo 11 demonstrated that one can "set foot" on the Moon. So don't call it 'land' if that creates issues with existing laws and treaties on property rights but the point remains.
zaps•6mo ago
THE MOON BELONGS TO AMERICA
bdamm•6mo ago
This is all kind of too reductionist.

The US DHS agents in the US make a choice not to fuss over the airplanes or even cruise ships sailing from US ports to Hawaii and back. They could, but they don't. They probably validate the ship or plane's location via transponder, but it wouldn't even surprise me if they don't do that for regular commercial transport.

This kind of local and specific policy is great and it is enacted in lots of places within US jurisdiction.

umanwizard•6mo ago
The trip as described passed through foreign territorial waters and probably also international waters.
csomar•6mo ago
> Pretty sure they were tracking us by drone, blimp, AIS, and radar the entire way because they weren't suspicious enough compared to my previous experiences.

Probably none of that. The border check is a bureaucratic operation. Modern day border checks are 0% contraband, 1% terrorism and 99% just messing with the public.

ortusdux•6mo ago
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 their families, who could then sell them in the event of the astronauts' deaths.[1] The insurance covers began with Apollo 11 and ended with Apollo 16."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_insurance_covers

I-M-S•6mo ago
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.
thescriptkiddie•6mo ago
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
jki275•6mo ago
The US government does issue life insurance for all military personnel. It's a nominal cost (20 bucks a month IIRC) for something like 400k of coverage. It's been around since 1914[1].

As far as I know all of the astronauts were military at that time, so they probably would have been covered by this program. There could be any number of nuances I'm not aware of though.

[1]https://benefits.va.gov/benefits/infographics/pdfs/timeline_...

dotancohen•6mo ago
I don't know about any of the other Apollo astronauts, and I wasn't around at the time, but I do remember once reading that a big deal was made about Neil Armstrong being a civilian when he landed on the moon.
jki275•6mo ago
Wikipedia at least says you're right -- he was a Naval Aviator and test pilot, but must have left the service when he went to NASA.
CSMastermind•6mo ago
When I was in we had life insurance. Before every deployment they had lawyers come in and walk us through creating a will, explaining the benefit, etc.
xenadu02•6mo ago
It wasn't that they didn't have life insurance at all. It was that they couldn't increase their life insurance on the private market either due to their line of work or "Act of God"-style clauses. Or at least they thought that to be the case. This is similar to how some life insurance policies exclude death while acting as a pilot in general aviation.

AFAIK all of them were former military and obviously current government employees so their families would have been entitled to any military life insurance they purchased as well as any pension benefits due (military and federal civilian). I can't give you the exact amounts because it has changed over the years and also depends on how many years of military and/or civilian service you had.

But generally all government employees covered under the retirement plan have an annuity or monthly survivor benefit available that is some portion of their final salary at death or their average salary whichever was higher. Often there is a fixed adder as well (basic death benefit adder right now is $41,000 per year so your spouse would get 50% of your final salary plus $41k).

In addition the federal plan (and social security) pays monthly for surviving children until they reach age 18. The federal plan is a bit nicer in that it pays until 18 or 22 if you are a full time student. Both pay for life if the child is disabled (though the government definition of disabled is rather strict).

All of this is just survivor benefits. Once your surviving spouse retires they are entitled to the pension payments you would have received.

mathgradthrow•6mo ago
Of course they didn't. It's just funny.
nullbyte•6mo ago
“Are you bringing with you: plants, food, animals, soil, disease agents, cell cultures or snails? Declare all articles that you have acquired and are bringing into the United States.”

It's interesting that they specifically mention snails

whycome•6mo ago
Plants, animals, fungi, archae….
the__alchemist•6mo ago
At least as of a few years ago, the Qataris required foreign aircrew (e.g. fighter pilots) operating out of bases in their country to do this after every mission! What a pain.
woodpanel•6mo ago
Well, you can’t say this is a problem you’ll encounter with Trump
hiccuphippo•6mo ago
There's a funny story about how any new territory falls under the jurisdiction of the dioceses from which the expedition departed, so the bishop of Orlando is the bishop of the moon.
Ylpertnodi•6mo ago
My god's bigger than your god.
burnt-resistor•6mo ago
Mine does genocide better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Short_Account_of_the_Destruc...
rob74•6mo ago
Yes, the form really does ask if a person is bringing in snails.

Even more curiously, it asks for animals in general, and then specifically for snails. I wonder what it is about snails specifically that US Customs are/were so interested in?

caseyohara•6mo ago
Biosecurity/agrosecurity. Some snails are highly invasive and destructive to crops so they are banned or tightly regulated by the USDA.
jlarocco•6mo ago
I'm not sure what they were looking for, specifically, but snails can be bad news: https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/new-zealand-mudsnails
aspir•6mo ago
The story in the editor's note is charming enough that it's worth calling out:

>Thanks to UC alumnus Luama Mays, JD ’66, for sharing a copy of the declaration with UC Magazine. Mays was a pilot who befriended Armstrong while the former astronaut was teaching at UC and Mays was running an aviation company. Initially Armstrong called him, without even identifying himself, asking for a ride on Mays old "bubble-style" helicopter left over from the Korean War. It was exactly what Armstrong had trained on in preparation for operating the lunar module.

TZubiri•6mo ago
The US gets a lot of flak for still using forms instead of modernizing, but imagine the nightmare this would be with an inflexible system with dropdowns.

It seems so relaxing to just be able to write whatever you want or draw doodles on a form and expect the operator on the other side ot either grok it, coalesce it into whatever other system, or handle it in whatever way they see fit.

Never change America

nevster•6mo ago
Direct link to the actual image : https://magazine.uc.edu/content/dam/magazine/docs/Moon_rocks...
MathMonkeyMan•6mo ago
> Any other condition on board which may lead to the spread of disease:

> TO BE DETERMINED

naganotonicbuy•6mo ago
Sometimes I thought, even today's generation and technology are unable to land on the moon properly. And back to earth? wow. My school life was ruined.