Starcloud can’t put a data centre in space at $8.2M in one Starship

International space law (starting with the Outer Space Treaty of 1967) says that nations are responsible for all spacecraft they launch, no matter whether the government or a non-governmental group launches them. So a server farm launched by a Danish company is governed by Danish law just the same as if they were on the ground- and exposed to the same ability to put someone into jail if they don't comply with a legal warrant etc.

This is true even if your company moves the actual launching to, say, a platform in international waters- you (either a corporation or an individual) are still regulated by your home country, and that country is responsible for your actions and has full enforcement rights over you. There is no area beyond legal control, space is not a magic "free from the government" area.

replies(3): >>44391797 #>>44392499 #>>44393683 #

1. reaperducer ◴[26 Jun 25 21:45 UTC] No.44391797[source]▶

>>44391658 #

nations are responsible for all spacecraft they launch, no matter whether the government or a non-governmental group launches them.

Nations come and go. In my lifetime, the world map has changed dozens of times. Incorporate in a country that doesn't look like it's going to be around very long. More than likely, the people running it will be happy to take your money.

replies(2): >>44391926 #>>44391931 #

2. christina97 ◴[26 Jun 25 22:02 UTC] No.44391926[source]▶

>>44391797 (TP) #

Generally though, countries don’t disappear: they have a predecessor and a successor.

replies(1): >>44392193 #

3. alephnerd ◴[26 Jun 25 22:03 UTC] No.44391931[source]▶

>>44391797 (TP) #

Those kinds of countries don't tend to be the kinds of countries with active space programs.

And more critically - they have successor states.

The Russian Federation is treated as the successor to the USSR in most cases (much to the chagrin of the rest of the CIS) and Serbia is treated as the successor to Yugoslavia (much to the chagrin of the rest)

4. reaperducer ◴[26 Jun 25 22:43 UTC] No.44392193[source]▶

>>44391926 #

A successor may take possession of the land, but that doesn't mean it will also take responsibility for the previous government's liabilities.

replies(2): >>44392405 #>>44392919 #

5. afiori ◴[26 Jun 25 23:20 UTC] No.44392405{3}[source]▶

>>44392193 #

That is why international treaties come with implicit or explicit enforcement options

6. mandevil ◴[27 Jun 25 00:55 UTC] No.44392919{3}[source]▶

>>44392193 #

That is not how international law works, you don't get to say "we are a new country and therefore not bound by treaties that earlier forms did."

This principle was established when Nazis were convicted for war crimes at Nuremburg for violating treaties that their predecessor state the Weimar Republic signed, even after the Nazi's repudiated those treaties and claimed they were signed by an illegitimate state, and that they were a new Reich, not like the Wiemar Republic.

Basically if territory changes hand to an existing state that state will obviously still have obligations, and if a new state is formed, then generally it is assumed to still carry the obligations of the previous state. There is no "one weird trick" to avoid international law. I assure you that the diplomats and lawyers 80 years ago thought of these possibilities. They saw what resulted from the Soviet and Nazi mutual POW slaughters, and set up international law so no one could ignore it.

↑