without such equipment the legitimate uses of the space environment could not take place. The conclusion can be drawn that the commonplace term "payload11 is intended to include the totality of the space object, including its component parts, and of necessity the property on board. Without equating the payload to the space object and component parts it has, nonetheless, been suggested "that not only damage caused by the object itself, but also that caused by the payload, by the functioning of scientific instruments on board, and by anything that has become detached from or thrown out of the space object, will be covered by the Convention." However, Foster has asserted that "persons and property on board a space object are not encompassed by the term 'space object.'" It appears to be his position that only if such property became detached from the space object would the 1972 Convention not govern liability caused by the detached property. Even that position is subject to a condition envisaged by him. He states: Of course, in some instances, the property on board a space object may be other space objects which are to be placed in orbit or deposited in outer space and are designed for movement in outer space. Where this occurs, damage caused by these latter objects, after they become detached from the original space object, would be covered by the Convention. It can be assumed that the broadcasting equipment used by a geostationary space object for transmitting microwaves to Earth would not be voluntarily Matte, op. cit., p. 157 (1977). U.N. Doc. A/AC.1O5/C.2/SR.94, 95, 97. Foster, op. cit., p. 158. Foster, op. cit., p. 159.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==