Need an FAA license to launch, the US is signatory to various space treaties, etc.

I look forward to Liberia moving into the spaceport business:

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

It is shipping, in a different dimension.

Obviously those booster rockets might get a bit tired after doing daily commuter flights for a decade or so, therefore there will also come a time when a third world country, e.g. Bangladesh becomes the place where old booster rockets go to be scrapped, so, next to the ships on the beach booster rockets crash down and small children working with no health and safety tear them to pieces.

None of which say anything about planetary contamination. GP is right that there is absolutely no laws enforcing “planetary protection” on commercial entities (thankfully).

Do they not?

UNOOSA, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Art. IX [1]:

"States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination..."

Note that State parties are responsible for the actions of their nationals later in the paragraph.

Is the above wrong? I admit to not being a space person.

Edit: [1] http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf

Wow that is selective quoting. The law is “harmful contamination of the Earth”. Nice use of “...” there. That text is only about bringing stuff back to earth.

No it isn't. The text refers to "the Moon and other celestial bodies." See for yourself: http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_21_2222E.pdf

Read your link again. That sentence, the only one which says harmful contamination, refers to the earth, And only the earth. It is very explicit about that. I don’t know what else to say.

Not to wade into your fight, but danaliv is right. Here is (most of) the sentence:

“States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter....”

The “their harmful contamination” part clearly refers to something plural (the moon and other celestial bodies). The second part would be redundant if those were sources, rather than recipients of contaimination.

The FAA license process includes an interagency consultation, which specifically allows NASA, DOD, State, etc. to weigh in.

Yeah but NASA doesn’t get to just say no out of spite or anything, which legaly speaking is what a planetary protection objection would be. There is no statute they can point to that says commercial entities can’t litter the solar system with microbes if they want.

Article IX of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies reads in part (emphasis added):

"State Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose."

Sure, they wrote that. But once you're out there, what treaties apply? Nobody exerts hegemony over the Moon. Its all hot air.

This conversation is about whether NASA would object to an FAA-issued launch license on the basis of potential contamination, not whether there are police on the moon.

Right; NASA would have to decide to observe some unenforceable treaty. They also have to decide whether to launch on national leprechaun day or not. I'm not sure why either is an issue NASA would step up to try and enforce.

There's a National Leprechaun Day? How comes I missed that memo?