Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Welcome to Lunar National Park

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2013 12:34:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Apparently some Democrats want to make the lunar landing sites on the moon into a national park.

YES PLEASE!

Basically, in lieu of probable future space flight, this will make the sites untouchable to commercial visitors thus preserving them. I think it's a neat idea.

The bill proposed also says that there will be a national park office for the sites a "reasonable" distance from the moon... whatever that means.

But kind of a cool idea.

http://foxnewsinsider.com...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2013 1:28:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/11/2013 12:34:01 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Apparently some Democrats want to make the lunar landing sites on the moon into a national park.

YES PLEASE!

Basically, in lieu of probable future space flight, this will make the sites untouchable to commercial visitors thus preserving them. I think it's a neat idea.

The bill proposed also says that there will be a national park office for the sites a "reasonable" distance from the moon... whatever that means.

But kind of a cool idea.

http://foxnewsinsider.com...

I'd assume that 'reasonable distance' means that they will put an orbital station around the moon. This probably won't mean much unless we increase NASA's budget - I'd suggest making it 1.5 cents of every tax dollar, since they have always opened up plenty of new ways for businesses to make money with their inventions. It pays for itself.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 12:22:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually, something just struck me.

This is a brilliant way to introduce property rights to the moon.

By making it a national park, by definition it is under American sovereignty. Entering a national park means entering United States government property.

Before this, individuals could say "that's mine land" or "that's mine" but this would be the first case I know of where stepping somewhere on the moon results in a violation of national sovereignty.

If a national park can exist on the moon, why cant the surrounding land be stationed with military assets to protect US "soil?" The crews for the assets will need land of their own since commuting isn't much of an option.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 1:16:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 12:22:49 AM, Wnope wrote:
Actually, something just struck me.

This is a brilliant way to introduce property rights to the moon.

By making it a national park, by definition it is under American sovereignty. Entering a national park means entering United States government property.

Before this, individuals could say "that's mine land" or "that's mine" but this would be the first case I know of where stepping somewhere on the moon results in a violation of national sovereignty.

If a national park can exist on the moon, why cant the surrounding land be stationed with military assets to protect US "soil?" The crews for the assets will need land of their own since commuting isn't much of an option.

I've been waiting for us to "claim" the moon for years. I mean we have our flag planted on it. But yeah, that's an interesting idea. US soil on the moon. Oh the possibilities.

If only we had a functioning space program...
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 11:47:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 1:16:24 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/12/2013 12:22:49 AM, Wnope wrote:
Actually, something just struck me.

This is a brilliant way to introduce property rights to the moon.

By making it a national park, by definition it is under American sovereignty. Entering a national park means entering United States government property.

Before this, individuals could say "that's mine land" or "that's mine" but this would be the first case I know of where stepping somewhere on the moon results in a violation of national sovereignty.

If a national park can exist on the moon, why cant the surrounding land be stationed with military assets to protect US "soil?" The crews for the assets will need land of their own since commuting isn't much of an option.

I've been waiting for us to "claim" the moon for years. I mean we have our flag planted on it. But yeah, that's an interesting idea. US soil on the moon. Oh the possibilities.

If only we had a functioning space program...

yeah CP. and what you said leads to something else. technically you can't claim something without having a continuously defended position.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 9:58:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 11:47:11 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 7/12/2013 1:16:24 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/12/2013 12:22:49 AM, Wnope wrote:
Actually, something just struck me.

This is a brilliant way to introduce property rights to the moon.

By making it a national park, by definition it is under American sovereignty. Entering a national park means entering United States government property.

Before this, individuals could say "that's mine land" or "that's mine" but this would be the first case I know of where stepping somewhere on the moon results in a violation of national sovereignty.

If a national park can exist on the moon, why cant the surrounding land be stationed with military assets to protect US "soil?" The crews for the assets will need land of their own since commuting isn't much of an option.

I've been waiting for us to "claim" the moon for years. I mean we have our flag planted on it. But yeah, that's an interesting idea. US soil on the moon. Oh the possibilities.

If only we had a functioning space program...

yeah CP. and what you said leads to something else. technically you can't claim something without having a continuously defended position.

MILITARIZE SPACE!
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 10:02:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
*coughcoughOuterSpaceTreatycoughcough*

Seriously though, the US could not claim the Moon in any capacity legally. The OST forbids it, claiming the Moon is the common heritage of all mankind.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 2:23:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 10:02:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
*coughcoughOuterSpaceTreatycoughcough*

Seriously though, the US could not claim the Moon in any capacity legally. The OST forbids it, claiming the Moon is the common heritage of all mankind.

Bullsh!t. The moon is no more common heritage than any land on Earth.

And screw the Outer Space Treaty.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 3:15:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 10:02:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
*coughcoughOuterSpaceTreatycoughcough*

Seriously though, the US could not claim the Moon in any capacity legally. The OST forbids it, claiming the Moon is the common heritage of all mankind.

We'd be permitted to build structures as long as we don't claim it as our own and don't interfere with peaceful activities by other signing nations. It'd essentially be ours, since what other nation would really want our space landing site (which is technically still ours under the treaty)?

I would say it should be made an International Park (which I'm pretty sure isn't a thing yet). But yes, more funding for NASA would be nice.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:29:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And people laughed when Newt suggested the Moon could become a state if it had a large enough base. Not sure how you build a park (y'know, with plants and stuff) when plants can't grow on the moon, but whatever.

On the other hand, keep in mind this comes from the same caucus that had a member that was concerned that Guam could tip over if too many people were put on it.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:36:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 2:23:58 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/12/2013 10:02:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
*coughcoughOuterSpaceTreatycoughcough*

Seriously though, the US could not claim the Moon in any capacity legally. The OST forbids it, claiming the Moon is the common heritage of all mankind.

Bullsh!t. The moon is no more common heritage than any land on Earth.

And screw the Outer Space Treaty.

Yeah, screw the fact that we made an agreement with many other countries! Let's just tear it all up and do what we want, because God bless the US of A!

*sigh*
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:38:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 10:02:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
*coughcoughOuterSpaceTreatycoughcough*

Seriously though, the US could not claim the Moon in any capacity legally. The OST forbids it, claiming the Moon is the common heritage of all mankind.

Fun fact:the OST doesn't apply to celestial bodies. That's for the... and I can't believe I'm going to use these words... Moon Treaty of 1979. It has never been ratified by a country capable of flight to the moon (including the US).

Even if they did sign it, it'd be a pact with the SOVIET UNION. Not Russia + satellites. Pretty sure that nullifies it.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:39:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 9:38:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/12/2013 10:02:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
*coughcoughOuterSpaceTreatycoughcough*

Seriously though, the US could not claim the Moon in any capacity legally. The OST forbids it, claiming the Moon is the common heritage of all mankind.

Fun fact:the OST doesn't apply to celestial bodies. That's for the... and I can't believe I'm going to use these words... Moon Treaty of 1979. It has never been ratified by a country capable of flight to the moon (including the US).

Even if they did sign it, it'd be a pact with the SOVIET UNION. Not Russia + satellites. Pretty sure that nullifies it.

I can't get over the fact something called the "Moon Treaty of '79" actually exists.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 10:40:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 9:38:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/12/2013 10:02:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
*coughcoughOuterSpaceTreatycoughcough*

Seriously though, the US could not claim the Moon in any capacity legally. The OST forbids it, claiming the Moon is the common heritage of all mankind.

Fun fact:the OST doesn't apply to celestial bodies. That's for the... and I can't believe I'm going to use these words... Moon Treaty of 1979. It has never been ratified by a country capable of flight to the moon (including the US).

Even if they did sign it, it'd be a pact with the SOVIET UNION. Not Russia + satellites. Pretty sure that nullifies it.

It specifically states the Moon and other celestial bodies can't be claimed:

"Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 7:56:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 9:36:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/13/2013 2:23:58 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/12/2013 10:02:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
*coughcoughOuterSpaceTreatycoughcough*

Seriously though, the US could not claim the Moon in any capacity legally. The OST forbids it, claiming the Moon is the common heritage of all mankind.

Bullsh!t. The moon is no more common heritage than any land on Earth.

And screw the Outer Space Treaty.

Yeah, screw the fact that we made an agreement with many other countries! Let's just tear it all up and do what we want, because God bless the US of A!

*sigh*

Well I just think it's silly that we're in agreement with a bunch of countries that have no legitimate way to even claim the moon or militarize space. It's like me signing a treaty saying no one can build a house in Timbuktu with a mogul in Timbuktu.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 8:06:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So if commercial space companies start violating this there will be FBI agents waiting on the runway to arrest the trespassers? Haha
Nasa going to devote resources to monitoring these 'parks' to be sure no one violates?
I think it's ridiculous, if private companies are doing what our government is incapable or unwilling to do they should be more than able to exploit previous moon landing sites.
This of course is all forgetting that congress doesn't need to be wasting time on this non issue. worry about it 30 years out when the situation is plausible.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 11:18:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/14/2013 8:06:41 AM, lewis20 wrote:
So if commercial space companies start violating this there will be FBI agents waiting on the runway to arrest the trespassers? Haha
Nasa going to devote resources to monitoring these 'parks' to be sure no one violates?
I think it's ridiculous, if private companies are doing what our government is incapable or unwilling to do they should be more than able to exploit previous moon landing sites.
This of course is all forgetting that congress doesn't need to be wasting time on this non issue. worry about it 30 years out when the situation is plausible.

Actually, it is quite possible that we can make space launches cheap enough to make it plausible sooner:
http://www.nasa.gov...
http://www.popsci.com...
(the Popular Science article provides a more detailed explanation)
Give them 2 miles of railroad track and an airplane that can fly at Mach 10 and you've got yourself a really cheap space launching system. We've already had NASA's jets hit Mach 10 before, and we have all of the other technologies needed for it.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 1:11:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/14/2013 11:18:15 AM, drhead wrote:
At 7/14/2013 8:06:41 AM, lewis20 wrote:
So if commercial space companies start violating this there will be FBI agents waiting on the runway to arrest the trespassers? Haha
Nasa going to devote resources to monitoring these 'parks' to be sure no one violates?
I think it's ridiculous, if private companies are doing what our government is incapable or unwilling to do they should be more than able to exploit previous moon landing sites.
This of course is all forgetting that congress doesn't need to be wasting time on this non issue. worry about it 30 years out when the situation is plausible.

Actually, it is quite possible that we can make space launches cheap enough to make it plausible sooner:
http://www.nasa.gov...
http://www.popsci.com...
(the Popular Science article provides a more detailed explanation)
Give them 2 miles of railroad track and an airplaat can fly at Mach 10 and you've got yourself a really cheap space launching system. We've already had NASA's jets hit Mach 10 before, and we have all of the other technologies needed for it.

Making it to orbit is far, far less a task than making it to the moon and back for commercial purposes.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 4:30:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/14/2013 1:11:27 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 7/14/2013 11:18:15 AM, drhead wrote:
At 7/14/2013 8:06:41 AM, lewis20 wrote:
So if commercial space companies start violating this there will be FBI agents waiting on the runway to arrest the trespassers? Haha
Nasa going to devote resources to monitoring these 'parks' to be sure no one violates?
I think it's ridiculous, if private companies are doing what our government is incapable or unwilling to do they should be more than able to exploit previous moon landing sites.
This of course is all forgetting that congress doesn't need to be wasting time on this non issue. worry about it 30 years out when the situation is plausible.

Actually, it is quite possible that we can make space launches cheap enough to make it plausible sooner:
http://www.nasa.gov...
http://www.popsci.com...
(the Popular Science article provides a more detailed explanation)
Give them 2 miles of railroad track and an airplaat can fly at Mach 10 and you've got yourself a really cheap space launching system. We've already had NASA's jets hit Mach 10 before, and we have all of the other technologies needed for it.

Making it to orbit is far, far less a task than making it to the moon and back for commercial purposes.

Once again, this problem could be solved using today's technology:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian