No One Owns The Moon Says Scientist ! --- But Haven't We Already Claimed Rightful Possession?

dlbott
reply to post by JadeStar

 

YOU are getting really personal there my man.

Pssstt....


Look to the left....
I'm a girl.

And I am sorry but I fail to see where I got personal. I was having a give and take intellectual debate with you.

But, since you can't get a basic thing like my gender right it seems that discussing more complicated issues might be of little value.

JadeStar

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by JadeStar

 

(raises paw) Technical question..since you sound well researched on this topic?

Does the Space treaty on ownership work anything like the Antarctic treaties? I had thought the land beneath an occupied station or I guess it would be a colony on the moon, is considered national territory, but only as long as people are actively at the site?

The way the treaty works is that nations, may operate on celestial bodies but they have no right to claim exclusive ownership of them.

The habitat a nation (say the US, or China) builds on the moon would be their property however the ground underneath that habitat belongs to everyone on Earth. You, me, everyone.

How can it also belong to you me or us when we can't even own our own property here on Earth, which is supposed to be ours?
Firepiston

FirePiston

JadeStar

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by JadeStar

 

(raises paw) Technical question..since you sound well researched on this topic?

Does the Space treaty on ownership work anything like the Antarctic treaties? I had thought the land beneath an occupied station or I guess it would be a colony on the moon, is considered national territory, but only as long as people are actively at the site?

The way the treaty works is that nations, may operate on celestial bodies but they have no right to claim exclusive ownership of them.

The habitat a nation (say the US, or China) builds on the moon would be their property however the ground underneath that habitat belongs to everyone on Earth. You, me, everyone.

How can it also belong to you me or us when we can't even own our own property here on Earth, which is supposed to be ours?
Firepiston

I'm not sure what nation you live in but here in the US you can own your own property.

reply to post by ExoPatriotico


You are correct. US has legal claim to the moon however I imagine it will be won by war.
Just like when Russia and Canada placed their flags at locations on the north pole.

JadeStar

boncho
reply to post by JadeStar

 

Has any nation said, "screw you, we own this continent?" No. And that's not likely to happen despite its high scientific value because nations recognize it is a place for the benefit of all. It's big enough for everyone to do their science without interfering with another.

In all seriousness (for the first time in this thread). I must point out that while I applaud your take on current dealings with the Antarctica and the moon, and your appreciation of scientific value… I'm not sure how exactly things will unfold say, if, nuclear fusion becomes a reality and mining he3 from the moon, would the climate shift?

(For arguments sakes let's presume this is all possible)

Treaties and agreements are all dust in the wind when money is involved. How many times did people explore only for the fruits of their exploration turn into exploitation?

Whether or not a fusion industry could be developed and of course transport/mining and EROI of something like this is up for debate, but if the moon became the most profitable mining source on and off the world I sense science taking a back seat.

Thoughts?

edit on 11-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

There's likely oil underneath the ground in the Antarctic:

If predictions about Antarctica's 200 billion barrel oil capacity prove correct, the continent's reserves would be third largest in the world, according to the Lowy Institute.

www.theguardian.com...
Yet, everyone seems content to get on with their own scientific work and no one is claiming the Antarctic because of the Antarctic Treaty they signed on.
The world's current appetite for oil is more vociferous than any appetite for Helium-3 anytime in even the distant future, yet we have not had a war over the Antarctic, have we?

edit on 11-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

I see that and raise you with:

In 1960, one year before the Antarctic Treaty came into force, a geologist declared before the US science academy that he "would not give a nickel for all the resources of Antarctica". Today, in a world of dwindling fossil fuels and soaring energy needs, countries are spending lavishly to explore the potential of the world's last unexploited continent.

When the treaty was signed, no one presumed anyone could get something from it.

Just like in Canada the tar sands were once completely dismissed by experts, and now there is a frenzy over the land and processing because it became feasible.

Technology and harsh conditions limited antarctica from being explored. It may be a reality that the long standing treaty goes wayside if oil and mineral explorations become feasible.

One thing you can always count on is human nature to exploit the land.

Article seven of Antarctica's Protocol on Environmental Protection stipulates that activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research, is prohibited. But this ruling, up for review in 2048, allows geological surveillance. "It is necessary for us to fully understand the resources on the continent," says Guo Peiqing, a professor of law and politics at the Ocean University of China. "China's exploration of the continent is like playing chess. It's important to have a position in the global game. We don't know when play will happen, but it's necessary to have a foothold."

2048 is a long way away, but still very soon considering within the lifetime of our children they may see policy change in that region.

That is if it every became viable, which doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon. Similar to the moon.

There are known reserves of oil and coal as well as mineral deposits in Antarctica, although detailed knowledge of these mineral deposits is sketchy. In the last 50 years of scientific research, no large deposits of mineralized rocks have been found. Mining in Antarctica would be very difficult, dangerous and expensive as the climate is so harsh, the ice is very thick and Antarctica is very remote from major centres of population. This would make the transportation of minerals and equipment in and out of Antarctica hazardous. Drilling would also be difficult because of the vast quantities of moving ice and glaciers as well as the huge depth (5km at its thickest) that would be required to drill to reach the minerals making it too expensive to be economically viable.

www.discoveringantarctica.org.uk...

I guess my point is that politicians and businessman make the laws of the land, and scientists go on their daily lives involved in the nobel work they do. Paying attention to their work rather than playing politics. Unfortunately, they don't make policy.

And while the current treaty is a nice show of face to the scientific community, it's not as if their concerns would make an iota of difference should something suddenly become profitable down there.

We see this on the daily.

“There is a systematic attack on science and democracy taking place in Canada, and the Harper government isn’t even trying to hide it,” said scientist Dr. David Suzuki. ”But scientists cannot and will not be silenced, not when we are facing an irreversible climate catastrophe like the tar sands.”

ecowatch.com...

We see it when large corporations do studies but hold back the unfavourable ones, only letting the favourable get published or disseminated to the public. We see it anytime government is given information from scientific bodies but their opinions are swayed by lobbyists. We see it with underfunding of the sciences in general.

The world isn't run by logic and reason.

boncho
The world isn't run by logic and reason.

edit on 12-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

Nope. But it probably should be.

First of all you need to obtain permission from the Moon's Residents...

reply to post by JadeStar


Classy Jadestar, classy.

Loved it!

As for the moon, the risk is that multinationals could simply go there and do what they want. No one has the capacity to send war ships to the moon so a very few homing missiles would defend it for quite a while.

The Multinationals have not signed a treaty or anything else to do with the moon. At this time and for the foreseeable future, the first ones on the moon with missiles would own it. It is that simple!

Besides, they will buy advertising space and sing their praises doing this and that for the benefit of all, tra la la ......

We won't know what they are actually doing because the Space Police have not been formed as yet and even if they were, well, just the usual, a few bribes here and there and all is well.

It will be multinationals and they could be there right now, dug in underground where you just can't see them.

P

reply to post by JadeStar


I have to correct people a LOT on that same issue

reply to post by ExoPatriotico


This is total BS.

If anyone owns the Moon, it is God (If he made it (assuming the Bible is correct) and he is still around).

How can anyone on Earth claim to own the Moon or any part of it? It's a Celestial body and therefore belongs to everyone.

TruthxIsxInxThexMist


How can anyone on Earth claim to own the Moon or any part of it? It's a Celestial body and therefore belongs to everyone.

Erm th same way we have claimed Celestial body we are sitting on now.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by JadeStar

 

(raises paw) Technical question..since you sound well researched on this topic?

Does the Space treaty on ownership work anything like the Antarctic treaties? I had thought the land beneath an occupied station or I guess it would be a colony on the moon, is considered national territory, but only as long as people are actively at the site?

We can lay claim to it all we damned well please...but, if we're not actively there...so sorry, not ours.

A flag is a silly piece of fabric with a design of colors on it.

And unfortunately, our flag, even when flown in our own country, means precious little more than what I've just described.

OP are you seriously #ing kidding me? Are you for real?

This has got to be the most #ed up thing I have ever heard. I don't give a # about wether you guys went to the moon or not.

We have got to stop thinking in terms of yours and mine. The US is becoming a greedy insane country with greedy insane people with zero disregard for the rest of the world whom you ENTIRELY depend on.

You are in a very rapid pace reaching a point as a nation where you are allowed not one single mis step, and we, the rest of the world will crush and burn you.

The mere idea of the US wanting to "own" the moon, is another testament to the insanity that runs the imperialistic ideas that is currently ruining the middle east.

You are out of order!

I sincerely hope that one day the "other part" of the western countries will wake the # up and denounce all support to the United States, because really…. you guys are the sole source of unrest and hardship in the parts of the world that suffer.

This slightly older 'Telegraph' story is more informative,

www.telegraph.co.uk...

It seems the space law legal eagles have been beavering away for some time, just in case something goes wrong on a Branson tour for instance. But there is more, since the US signed up to the space treaty that states no one owns a celestial body, amongst other stuff, they have no claim to the Moon, or anything on it. That's a problem for NASA since they want to mine a passing asteroid in 2018, but they are an arm of a nation state=government that is a signatory. I guess as it stands, privateers can go to the Moon though, and throw custard pies if they want. I guess also that applies to any nation state that did not sign up to the space treaty.

crazyewok

TruthxIsxInxThexMist


How can anyone on Earth claim to own the Moon or any part of it? It's a Celestial body and therefore belongs to everyone.

Erm th same way we have claimed Celestial body we are sitting on now.

LOL

Correct.

pheonix358
reply to post by JadeStar

 

Classy Jadestar, classy.

Loved it!

As for the moon, the risk is that multinationals could simply go there and do what they want. No one has the capacity to send war ships to the moon so a very few homing missiles would defend it for quite a while.

The Multinationals have not signed a treaty or anything else to do with the moon. At this time and for the foreseeable future, the first ones on the moon with missiles would own it. It is that simple!

Besides, they will buy advertising space and sing their praises doing this and that for the benefit of all, tra la la ......

We won't know what they are actually doing because the Space Police have not been formed as yet and even if they were, well, just the usual, a few bribes here and there and all is well.

It will be multinationals and they could be there right now, dug in underground where you just can't see them.

P

Thank you and you are correct, multinationals, corporations and private individuals going to the moon were not really anticipated in the original Outer Space treaty. However it is assumed that if a corporation, multinational or individual is made up of people from any of the nations which signed the treaty then they are bound by the treaty as well.

Like I said, there is plenty for everybody on the moon. It truly is vast. I just don't see there ever being a compelling reason for anyone to claim ownership.

At the rate things are going only multinational space programs will get anything big done as far as space infrastructure and only private companies and individuals will be poised for full exploitation.

vkey08
reply to post by JadeStar

 

I have to correct people a LOT on that same issue

I guess we all have to change our avatars to something really girly lol.

flice
OP are you seriously #ing kidding me? Are you for real?

This has got to be the most #ed up thing I have ever heard. I don't give a # about wether you guys went to the moon or not.

We have got to stop thinking in terms of yours and mine. The US is becoming a greedy insane country with greedy insane people with zero disregard for the rest of the world whom you ENTIRELY depend on.

You are in a very rapid pace reaching a point as a nation where you are allowed not one single mis step, and we, the rest of the world will crush and burn you.

The mere idea of the US wanting to "own" the moon, is another testament to the insanity that runs the imperialistic ideas that is currently ruining the middle east.

You are out of order!

I sincerely hope that one day the "other part" of the western countries will wake the # up and denounce all support to the United States, because really…. you guys are the sole source of unrest and hardship in the parts of the world that suffer.

Anti-American political rant aside (don't get me wrong, I agree with some of what you say and I was born in the USA but its well off topic).

You neglected to read the responses (specifically mine) to the OP.

The truth is the US has never claimed ownership of the moon nor does it want ownership of the moon. That's why it helped write the language of the UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967 which states no one can own the moon, two years before we landed the first Apollo mission there.

In the coming years, companies like this will be helping many nations go to the moon, guess where they are based? The USA...

JadeStar

Thank you and you are correct, multinationals, corporations and private individuals going to the moon were not really anticipated in the original Outer Space treaty. However it is assumed that if a corporation, multinational or individual is made up of people from any of the nations which signed the treaty then they are bound by the treaty as well.

I'm not so sure about the reality of that though, there is an article in the space treaty that deals with just that, but only in respect to governmental responsibility over the individuals. The individuals are not bound by anything other than their government/s oversight, and ultimately it is the governments responsibility and oversight. That's a big difference, it's goes a way in what Wrabbit was asking about the Arctic or Antarctica, there is a legal case over territory and totally different, since we are only still exploring our world.
The whole ethos of the space treaty is that is non-territorial, that it is heritage belonging to all mankind, hence Neil Armstrongs words on the Apollo landing.
That's one reason why I mentioned aliens earlier, every legal word, every single philsophy of heritage is turned upside down if there were aliens on the Moon, or anywhere else for that matter. Yet what do we have now? most scientists going with the idea that life should/does exists elsewhere. That's how bloody complicated it is.