The Lunar Soapbox...

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by moo

Possibly, but I'm not entirely sure that's the reason. Methinks there was basically no need for a presence on the moon until the possibility of other nations establishing one arose.

The *need* for a manned presence on the moon can probably be debated to death.

However, if you see it from a political perspective, it is exactly the pressure from outside forces that makes things happen. It gives NASA and the administration better arguments to present to the public when they ask for funding.

When GWB presented the "Bush Push", he was very clear about why America is going back to the Moon, and that this time they are going there to stay. It is a long-term investment, not a silly blow-more-money-than-the-others scheme.

Have a look at NASA's paeg for the Vision for Space Exploration:
NASA - NASA's Future: The Vision for Space Exploration

[Jay-qu]

That is my point. Is not self-preservation in a way selfish, Im not saying its a bad thing, I myself am a selfish person (sorry this is really for another thread).

Back to the moon (pun intended), we may find it worth our while once we get there, from resources and the such, but thats not justifying it now

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

Back to the moon (pun intended), we may find it worth our while once we get there, from resources and the such, but thats not justifying it now

This is the same kind of argument that is used against all kind of exploration. Why did humanity end up covering the planet? By exploring and traveling. Could they know what was lying over the horizon? No.

But now we can: We know quite a bit about the moon - even though it is the least explored part of our neighborhood in space (we've had more Mars probes than Lunar probes, for example). We know a lot about the resources there (metals, water, helium isotopes, for example). And most of all, if we want to explore space, the moon is a necessary stepping stone. It takes about 3 days to travel to the moon, whereas it takes at least 6 months to get to Mars (if you're lucky).

[moo]

So.... Who does the moon belong to?

There's an American flag flying there now (well, hanging actually), does that carry any weight? If so, how much?

Can the moon be shared peacefully by countries that don't always get along on planet Earth? Or will the technological challenges bring us closer together?

Seems like this could be an issue if/when colonization is successful.

moo

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

That is my point. Is not self-preservation in a way selfish, Im not saying its a bad thing, I myself am a selfish person ..... we may find it worth our while once we get there, from resources and the such, but thats not justifying it now.

Its putting money in my kid's college fund: it does no immediate good now, but my kid will thank me for doing it later. Isn't that uh, altruistic?

Originally Posted by moo

So.... Who does the moon belong to?

I think there's a treaty on this, that in a way says "no one can claim it: it is for all mankind" but as a practical matter, the first one to get the mining equipment up there will own it.

Possession is 90%,
Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Buffy

I think there's a treaty on this, that in a way says "no one can claim it: it is for all mankind" but as a practical matter, the first one to get the mining equipment up there will own it.

'Twould seem you can buy it on the cheap right now! It's a bit like the old West in terms of staking a claim:

Purchase Moon Land - Authorized Lunar Embassy Agent

Contrary to popular belief, ownership by individuals of extraterrestrial properties is not forbidden. The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty stipulates that no government can own extraterrestrial property, but it neglected to mention individuals or corporations. In 1984, the UN attempted to plug this loophole (which they where very aware of), by introducing the ill-fated Moon Treaty. That treaty forbids the exploitation of extraterrestrial resources (which includes ownership) for anyone, also individuals and corporations. The only problem is, that when it was up for vote, out of 185 UN Member Nations, only six supported it. The vast majority of Member States refused to sign it and did not sign it.

[TheBigDog]

My understanding is that the moon will be treated much like antartica. It will belong to no nation, and it will be the host to cooperative international research. This will last as long as the presence there remains unprofitable.

Bill

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

'Twould seem you can buy it on the cheap right now! It's a bit like the old West in terms of staking a claim:

The Lunar Embassy is a fraudulent company, selling something they don't own the right to in the first place. Even if they can use legalese to claim that the Outer Space Treaty - Outer Space Treaty - does not apply to individuals, they as an organization have to jump through a lot of burning hoops to explain why they have a right to sell land on a body they have never set foot on.

And anyway, how are they planning to enforce the land property claims?

[moo]

My understanding is that the moon will be treated much like antartica. It will belong to no nation, and it will be the host to cooperative international research. This will last as long as the presence there remains unprofitable.

Sadly, this is probably a very accurate prediction. The "good of mankind" is great motivation for cooperation until monetary gain becomes a possibility.

moo

[Turtle]

Like all good exploration, let's just get there & then decide what to do with it.

How long do you all think we have before a baby is born on the Moon?

Dou you all think a baby will be born in space first?