Slashdot Mirror


NASA To Future Lunar Explorers: Don't Mess With Our Moon Stuff

coondoggie writes "NASA today gently reminded any future Moon explorers that any relics of its Apollo missions or other U.S. lunar artifacts should be off limits and are considered historic sites. NASA issued the reminder in conjunction with the X Prize Foundation and its Google Lunar X Prize competition which will use NASA's Moon sites guidelines as it sifts through the 26 teams currently developing systems and spacecraft to land on the Moon."

54 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. Or what? by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Funny

    You gonna come up here and get us, NASA?

    Yeah, I didn't THINK so.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:Or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      If I'm on the moon and see a rover, it's getting solar panels installed.

    2. Re:Or what? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      We shall send you a very sternly worded letter, sir.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Or what? by SerpentMage · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I completely agree. When people settled North America, Africa, or South America did they say, "oh you know what those are scared lands we will not disturb them." I say tough titty! If you want them, go get them yourselves, otherwise its fair game!

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    4. Re:Or what? by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 2

      Of course not. You'll be fine! For as a long as you stay on the Moon...

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    5. Re:Or what? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You gonna come up here and get us, NASA?

      Yeah, I didn't THINK so.

      NASA: No, we'll just wait for you back down here.

      Short of establishing a self-sufficient moon base, that's all they'd have to do. Mess with NASA and become a spacer for life. And yes, self-sufficiency is a requirement since you don't know if NASA might infiltrate your Earth bases (you know, for hostages or to ship up compromised supplies...).

    6. Re:Or what? by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By a ROCKET! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_mail#United_States_Postal_Service Oh, and fully armed nuclear warheads would of course be merely a courtesy detail.

    7. Re:Or what? by Amouth · · Score: 3, Informative

      not true, Russia put stuff up there.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_2

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    8. Re:Or what? by cpu6502 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the early colonists signed treaties with the Indians, granting them some land for settling. They didn't just take it. The wars broke-out much later (mid-1700s) when the Indians allied with the French & started fighting back against the British colonists.

      And it wasn't until the 1800s that presidents started ignoring the Supreme Court's determination that Indians had a right to stay settled, per the aforementioned treaties, and started forced migrations of them to the west.

      And final thought: The number one killer of Indians in both continents was not the white man. It was a little tiny germ called smallpox. The Europeans developed a natural immunity after the Black Plague..... the isolated American Indians never did.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    9. Re:Or what? by dougmc · · Score: 5, Informative

      not true, Russia put stuff up there.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_2

      Looks like it's not just the USSR and the USA either --

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon

      Looks like there's stuff up there from the USSR, USA, Japan, China, India and the European Space Agency (18 nations combined.)

    10. Re:Or what? by heypete · · Score: 4, Funny

      What, like "US Citizen traveling overseas for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity with a spacecraft"?

      That's one hell of a kink...

    11. Re:Or what? by Amouth · · Score: 4, Informative

      For historic value the USSR's stuff was there first.

      That is a neat little list, i love the number of missions that where intentional crashes.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    12. Re:Or what? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      NASA: "That belongs to us!"

      Ok, Queen Isabella of Spain.

      Enjoy lording over your New Old World citizenry in 200 years.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    13. Re:Or what? by SolitaryMan · · Score: 2

      Wow, there was some hardcore war for the moon in sixties. I didn't know it was so intense.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    14. Re:Or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, there were hundreds of treaties, which did cover a vast majority of the native peoples living in the U.S.
      Many of these treaties are still in force.
      Despite the duplicity of Congress, the Supreme Court, and state governments, these treaties are out there.

      Want to read some of them? Hope your schedule is free this evening:
      http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Kappler/

    15. Re:Or what? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, don't forget the bodies of the two astronauts killed by those escaped Kryptonian criminals.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    16. Re:Or what? by timeOday · · Score: 2

      I think your point is moot in the overall plotline, which is this: Europoeans didn't come in and take all the land. Instead, they took it over incrementally (a couple hundred years), taking away land as they grew ready to exploit it. The "legalities" meant little or nothing over the long term. Whether the Europeans negotiated favorable terms and later reneged, or "negotiated" unfavorable terms after conflict, or simply took what they wanted without negotiations, it was all more or less the same in the end.

    17. Re:Or what? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So they should have made an agreement with all the nations when they were trading for land owned by one nation?

      Indians certainly had the concept of tribal land ownership. They fought for land, slaves and resources just as regularly as other stone age societys.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re:Or what? by Tanktalus · · Score: 2

      So true. I never fully understood the vitriol aimed at illegal immigrants for precisely this reason. Europeans illegally emigrated to the Americas. legality =/= morality Yes, European colonists treat the Americas like shit, but that should be debated within its own moral framework.

      Legality, like history, is defined by the victor.

    19. Re:Or what? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Europeans illegally emigrated to the Americas.

      I am assuming you are referring to early colonial times. However, if that is the case, what law, of what nation were they violating? I have often heard the claim made that the early European settlers were illegal immigrants, yet I have never heard anybody cite the law that they were supposedly violating.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    20. Re:Or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      What, you're not gonna add big exhaust pipes and maybe rice it out a little?

      Pussy.

    21. Re:Or what? by wiedzmin · · Score: 5, Funny

      To be fair, they're the only ones who've ever done it...

      Allegedly.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    22. Re:Or what? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      those are scared lands

      What frightened them?

    23. Re:Or what? by mrbester · · Score: 2

      The UK method is to put a low fence around it with a heritage noticeboard filled with uninteresting facts. Worked for Stonehenge.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    24. Re:Or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd love to see the look on the sergeant's face when Spacey Guthrie is there sitting on the Group W bench, recounting the story of the 8x10 glossy holographs and Alice's Orbital Restaurant Massacre, in full orchestration and four part harmony.

    25. Re:Or what? by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      That was IV, where he and nuke had the big battle on the moon. TFA does bring up an interesting question though, who has jurisdiction to what if there even is any jurisdiction to and when is it space junk and when is it some 'priceless historical monument'. Because if in the future countries like China and Russia build bases on the moon eventually this is gonna come up. What if the rovers were left on a site with plenty of H3 which future groups wish to mine? While this isn't something we needed to have worked out at the time as more and more stuff gets put up there there really needs to be some ground rules laid out, at least before the first base begins building.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    26. Re:Or what? by Politburo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Was done 35 years ago.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

      "the State that launches a space object retains jurisdiction and control over that object."

  2. Let the fun and games begin by ribuck · · Score: 3, Funny

    Heh, it would be quite a coup for a less-than-friendly space-faring nation to bring back to earth the Apollo 11 lunar lander (descent stage) as a "trophy"!

    1. Re:Let the fun and games begin by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      I suspect the eventual fate will be more like the Judge Dredd story I remember reading as a kid, where he's driving around a city on the Moon and passes the Apollo 11 lander covered in graffiti at the side of the road. Today's historic monument is tomorrow's 'what the heck is that heap of junk?'

    2. Re:Let the fun and games begin by david.given · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good luck getting an extra 22,000 lbs of metal off the moon and back to earth in one piece.

      SpaceX will never develop the technology to do that.

      Their vehicles only lift kilograms.

  3. Flag by Russ1642 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anybody up for an epic game of capture the flag?

  4. Just ONE word to nullify what they say by erroneus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    SALVAGE.

    They abandoned that stuff out there on a rock in space. They have no intention of doing anything further with it and have no authority over it. How is it not salvage to pick up some leftovers?

    1. Re:Just ONE word to nullify what they say by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They abandoned that stuff out there on a rock in space. They have no intention of doing anything further with it and have no authority over it. How is it not salvage to pick up some leftovers?

      Obviously there is little if anything they can do to prevent it. But the words "gently", "should be", "historic sites", and "guidelines - none of which are particularly enforceable" are there for a reason. As in "This is the first evidence on humans landing on another celestial body. Please don't fuck it up. If you do, A lot of the rest of humanity will think you are a dick."

  5. The moon Nazi pilfered it already by zerosomething · · Score: 4, Funny

    Didn't you know. http://www.ironsky.net/site/ Geeze

    --
    It all starts at 0
  6. Rules? They're more like guidelines... by JDG1980 · · Score: 4, Informative
    From the original article:

    The guidelines do not represent mandatory U.S. or international requirements. NASA provided them to help lunar mission planners preserve and protect historic lunar artifacts and potential science opportunities for future missions.

    So basically they're just asking nicely. It doesn't seem like they can actually do anything even if the new spacefarers are based in the United States, and they almost certainly can't do anything if they are based in another country.

  7. Cool moment in history by coldsalmon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anyone else think it's pretty cool that we've reached a point in history where we have to start seriously talking about property rights on the moon?

    1. Re:Cool moment in history by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Anyone else think it's pretty cool that we've reached a point in history...

      We haven't. This is merely a case of wishful thinking and pre-emptive ass-covering.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  8. This is Salvage 1 by BetaDays · · Score: 2

    This is Salvage 1 - the junkyard astronautics http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079847/

    --
    Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
  9. Jurisdiction. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a very legitimate question of jurisdiction. The U.S. has no legal authority over the moon, any more than they do venus or mars.

    In essence, it would be kind of a dickish thing to do to mess with historical sites on the moon, but the U.S. government has no legal authority over the moon. I'd say something which has been left unattended for 50+ years would qualify as "abandoned", so it's not like theft laws should apply.

    There is the issue that if the craft is a U.S.-based craft, then like ships in international waters, it might carry U.S. jurisdiction around with it wherever it goes, but if it's, I dunno, a Chinese or Russian spacecraft? What's NASA/USGovt gonna do?

    1. Re:Jurisdiction. . . by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US didn't have jurisdiction over Iraq either. Or over Pakistan, when they killed Osama.

      It didn't seem to matter.

      Since when does the US government respect any law, internal or international?

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    2. Re:Jurisdiction. . . by dougmc · · Score: 2

      but the U.S. government has no legal authority over the moon. I'd say something which has been left unattended for 50+ years would qualify as "abandoned", so it's not like theft laws should apply.

      There is the issue that if the craft is a U.S.-based craft, then like ships in international waters, it might carry U.S. jurisdiction around with it wherever it goes, but if it's, I dunno, a Chinese or Russian spacecraft? What's NASA/USGovt gonna do?

      There are international salvage laws -- they generally apply to things found in the ocean, but as written they might apply to things in orbit or on the moon too. I don't know.

      It also seems quite likely that if the salvage laws don't actually cover the moon yet that the laws will be extended before anybody is actually able to make it up there that isn't a major government -- the US may rely on a strongly worded letter today, now that it doesn't matter, but they will go for something a lot stronger once it begins to matter. And if technology progresses to the point that people can go to the moon on their own without major government assistance, the government will have long since done something to protect the site -- build walls, add guards, perhaps bring the lander back to Earth, etc.

      I'm pretty sure that quite a few governments would really like to be able to go back to the moon and stay there a while, if only to stake a claim to it. It's too expensive now, but at some point in the future that may change. I would expect major governments to respect things like the lunar landing site and not disturb it -- but they wouldn't let it stand in the way of them claiming ownership of the moon (or a large part of it) either. Random citizens, if they had a way to get up there, would try to bring it back here to sell on eBay if they could get away with it, or would paint graffiti on it, etc. -- but not major governments. Not officially, anyways.

    3. Re:Jurisdiction. . . by scot4875 · · Score: 2

      Pakistan. What do I win?

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
  10. But, but, but... by KlomDark · · Score: 2

    How can they stay away from something that so many people have told me aren't really there?

  11. If NASA wants to protect their stuff... by tekrat · · Score: 2

    Put a fence around it. Otherwise, it's fair game to whoever gets there next.

    Obviously, our time as a Superpower is over, so now we're trying to puff ourselves up to try and scare the next generation of Moon-travelers, which will most likely be the Chinese in 2030.

    Either that or Elon Musk will get it all to auction on eBay -- put you gotta use Paypal as your payment method.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:If NASA wants to protect their stuff... by sapgau · · Score: 2

      Question: What height does the fence surrounding a lunar lander has to be so a properly suited human doesn't go over it in one jump?

  12. Re:Oh come on... by Sparticus789 · · Score: 2

    Ask the Alliance. They didn't like Malcolm Reynolds all that much.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
  13. Hello? What about that Surveyer 1 camera? by saccade.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Geez, NASA doesn't even follow their own rules. You may recall, part of the Apollo 12 landing involved a hike over to the Surveyor 3 landing site. They hack-sawed the camera and several other pieces off the Surveyor probe and brought them home. Still waiting to see if any of it gets posted in eBay...

    (Kind of ironic that they took the camera; the Apollo 12 astronauts ineptly fried their camera by pointing it at the sun, and ruined the live TV coverage of the entire mission).

  14. Lots of misinfo in the comments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Having done a lot of research in space law, I'd like to dispel some of the misconceptions I see being put forth in both the summary and the comments:

    1. These are not rules but rather guidelines and are only directly binding on activities conducted by NASA itself.
    2. However, they are likely to become de facto conditions for any activities licensed, fully or in part, by the U.S. government or other friendly spacefaring nations. At the present, this covers basically all private space activity.
    3. Under the Outer Space Treaty, to which all spacefaring nations are parties, all man-made items on the surface of the moon and other celestial bodies, as well as in orbit, continue to belong to the nations that launched them (with the possible exception of a couple of Soviet landers allegedly sold to Lord British). This policy exists to ensure that launching entities may not absolve themselves of responsibility for damage cause by their objects, on earth or in space, after their use life is over.
    4. Space law does not contain notions of salvage as does maritime law. "lost" or otherwise inaccessible objects may not be removed without their owners' permission.
    5. It is the U.S. government's position that the lunar landing sites remain active research laboratories studying the long-term effects of the lunar environment on man-made objects. This provides them further protections from non-interference under various space law treaties.
    6. None of the other spacefaring nations, China included, are interested in disturbing these sites due to the huge negative backlash they would incur.
    7. No substantive laws forbidding people form messing with these sites exist. Many have advocated extending UNESCO World Heritage Site status to the lunar landing sites, but that regime is premised on territorial sovereignty, which cannot exist in space under the OST. Under the property principles outlined above, however, the owners of space objects (here the U.S. govt.) could sue any private party that succeeded in screwing with the landing sites into the ground.

    1. Re:Lots of misinfo in the comments... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Iran is a spacefaring nation, and North Korea is probably next.

      Iran is, indeed, a "spacefaring nation".

      It should be noted, though, that their largest booster is capable of lifting 1/11th as much as SpaceX's Falcon 1.

      Note that that was Falcon ONE, not Falcon 9.

      And North Korea may be next, but only because noone else is bothering to try.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  15. Native Americans might not agree by tekrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After all, it's not like the United States of America gave a shit about all the historical and sacred sites of the Red Man, "manifest destiny" apparently gave White Man the right to trample over, destroy, steal, rape and pillage, all in the name of "homesteading" so that all the money they paid France for that land didn't go to waste.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  16. Re:So the land grab has begun? by otuz · · Score: 2

    Well, there could literally be astrounaut shit there. They probably didn't bring all their excrement back to earth.

  17. There is private property on the Moon! by qwerty+shrdlu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Richard Garriott purchased the Lunokhod 2 rover from the Russians "as is where is."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_2

      So Russia at least does recognize these objects as property.

  18. Re:Oh, and here is a link to the... by Teancum · · Score: 2

    treaty that matters in friendly PDF.

    Damn, that is one of the funniest posts I've seen on Slashdot for a long time. I'm going to need to use it elsewhere at some point.

  19. wtf? by lkcl · · Score: 2

    wait... you mean the moon landings *weren't* faked, after all??