House Democrats Propose National Park On the Moon

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

House Democrats Propose National Park On the Moon

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday July 9, 2013 @04:22PM from the taking-volunteers-for-space-rangers dept.

MarkWhittington writes "Two House Democrats, Reps. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), have proposed a bill called Apollo Lunar Landing Legacy Act, H.R. 2617 (PDF), that would establish the Apollo Lunar Landing Sites National Historical Park at all the Apollo lunar landing sites, according to a story in The Hill. 'The park would be comprised of all artifacts left on the surface of the moon from the Apollo 11 through 17 missions. The bill says these sites need to be protected because of the anticipated increase in commercial moon landings in the future.'"

255 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 16:26 · Score: 0, Flamebait

they go fuck themselves since the moon isn't America's
1. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 16:27 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  One of these days, AC. Bam! Pow! Straight to the moon.
2. Re:how about by mooingyak · 2013-07-09 16:29 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  they go fuck themselves since the moon isn't America's
  From TFA:
  
  “The government would also have to submit the Apollo 11 lunar landing site to the United Nations for designation as a World Heritage site.”
  I'd think they've got a legitimate case for that being accepted. Terminology gets a little interesting though, with "World" referring to the moon as well.
  
  --
  William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
3. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 16:32 · Score: 0
  
  We got there first. We claimed it. What more do you want?
4. Re: how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 16:36 · Score: 0
  
  We also stuck a flag on it. So finders keepers.
5. Re:how about by msauve · 2013-07-09 16:42 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  But the landing sites are really a sound stage at Area 51 in Nevada.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
6. Re:how about by Kell+Bengal · 2013-07-09 16:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Actually, the Russians got there first.
  
  --
  Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
  altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
7. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 17:04 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  they go fuck themselves since the moon isn't America's
  Oh but it is! Here, this terrifying truth was uncovered right here on slashdot, but since the Democrats have been trying to cover it up, many haven't heard. The current generation needs to read this, so I'll repost it now.
  The Moon - A Ridiculous Liberal Myth
  It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
  Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
  Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
  Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
8. Re:how about by hairyfeet · 2013-07-09 17:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But how is anything the UN says gonna affect private enterprise? And do all countries obey UN mandates? I have a feeling the value of those relics to private collectors means the UN can say WTF they want, sooner or later SOMEBODY is gonna grab 'em.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
9. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  When I was a kid, I got my Frisbee stuck on the roof. That doesn't mean that I got onto the roof. We, being a pronoun, refers to people. Your link, referring to an unmanned projectile fired at the moon, doesn't refute what was said.
10. Re:how about by Sir_Sri · 2013-07-09 17:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But how is anything the UN says gonna affect private enterprise?
  
  Countries are subject to national laws. Countries are all part of the UN, and even the ones that aren't can be more or less forced to go along with it by the ones that are.
  
  do all countries obey UN mandates
  
  Insofar as anyone obeys the laws they themselves have agreed to follow (which, I take your point, is not as often as one might hope).
  
  sooner or later SOMEBODY is gonna grab 'em.
  So... making an effort towards later rather than sooner is probably worthwhile.
  Certainly the UN is only as capable as its member states, who are only so capable, and eventually I'm sure law and order will break down enough for whatever reason that anyone who feels like it can go pillage historical artefacts from everyone else. But for the moment we try and avoid that.
  There isn't an infinite time horizon solution. We could simply say 'free for all, first come first serve' and let the artefacts get sold, but eventually notions of private property will break down long enough for someone to steal them from their owner of the day and if they have bigger weapons than the other guy, I guess that makes it legal. But for as long as there is lawful authority (insofar as such a thing exists at all) we can make laws to try and do the best possible for now, and when we're dead the next group of people can deal with whatever their problem of the day is. Lets face it, if they find the 25th century equivalent of oil under the apollo landing sights, they're getting moved to museums, and I wouldn't begrudge my greatx20 grand children whatever choice they think is best. For the moment 'don't touch' seems like the best bet.
11. Re:how about by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-07-09 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  When I was a kid, I got my Frisbee stuck on the roof. That doesn't mean that I got onto the roof.
  In my house it did.
  I remember climbing up on the roof by time I was 6 or 7, and probably sooner. After all, I was the youngest, therefor the smallest and lightest to lift up.
  By time I was 7 or 8, we actually had an upper porch that had direct access to the roof, so we were up there whenever we wanted.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
12. Re:how about by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-07-09 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  That one was actually humorous.
  No mention before 1950?? lol
  Good job.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
13. Re:how about by davester666 · 2013-07-09 17:40 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It only counts when somebody licks the surface with their bare tongue.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
14. Re:how about by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2013-07-09 17:41 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Well, the moon landings WERE faked, but they were filmed on the moon.
  We've had a base up there since 1958. It's just on the far side so you can't see it from Earth.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
15. Re:how about by EzInKy · 2013-07-09 17:57 · Score: 2
  
  You are right, UN mandates are only as strong as the guns that support them. And, since most of the world believes as you do that private ownership supersedes public, you can rest assured that those "grab them" claims to ownership will be defended. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just get along?
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
16. Re:how about by Internetuser1248 · 2013-07-09 18:23 · Score: 2
  
  We got there first. We claimed it. What more do you want?
  Speaking of which, the Nacotchtank want to know when they can move back into the whitehouse.
17. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 18:51 · Score: 0
  
  and by international treaty NO BODY in this solar system except what you own on earth can be yours....in other words by slight people and corporations are the only ones able to own pieces of planets and moons BUT to make legal you have to go there.
  guess hat that means with a private usa space program.....these evil bastards will own mars
18. Re:how about by stenvar · 2013-07-09 19:08 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If a private space entrepreneur does the job of flying to the moon, collecting the artifacts, and returning them before the US government gets its act together, perhaps ending up in his private collection is a fitting outcome.
19. Re:how about by wonkey_monkey · 2013-07-09 19:09 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking of which, the Nacotchtank want to know when they can move back into the whitehouse.
  Did they have a flag?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
20. Re:how about by wonkey_monkey · 2013-07-09 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  Mr T invented the moon in 1976.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
21. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 19:21 · Score: 0
  
  Nothing before 1950 he says?
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comical_History_of_the_States_and_Empires_of_the_Moon
  Written by Cyrano de Bergerac and published (posthumously) in 1657.
22. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  Never mind that all this was only possible in the first place thanks to public research and public implementation, and that the only reason NASA is such a royal fuck-up today is because it's been ground down into a shell by Reaganite obsession with public-private partnerships (which are nothing more than corporate welfare).
  You know what, I would have hoped that when it came to space exploration, humanity had finally moved on beyond a three year old's "mine mine mine!" mindset. Part of me wanted to believe that all those who were bright enough to make a project to go to the Moon would ultimately want to share their ability with others, not use their skill so they could buy a bigger yacht. But it turns out that 30 years of unfettered capitalism form as effective a repeated lie as those which plagued mid-C20, so that even your literal high flyers can be suckered in by the most base of goals.
  Remember We do these things because they are hard?
23. Re:how about by OptimalCynic · 2013-07-09 20:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'd rather they were left in place. They're effectively a time capsule, and context is very important for future study.
24. Re: how about by tsa · 2013-07-09 20:22 · Score: 2
  
  We Europeans did that all the time during the great exploring days. No matter if there were other people living there, if we found it it was usually ours.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
25. Re:how about by quantaman · 2013-07-09 20:42 · Score: 2
  
  they go fuck themselves since the moon isn't America's
  From TFA:
  
  “The government would also have to submit the Apollo 11 lunar landing site to the United Nations for designation as a World Heritage site.”
  I'd think they've got a legitimate case for that being accepted. Terminology gets a little interesting though, with "World" referring to the moon as well.
  I'm not sure the attempt to be designated as a World Heritage site is an acknowledgement of the fact that the Moon isn't American property, I'm willing to bet that most UN World Heritage sites exist in some country's territory.
  I'm looking at this with a very sympathetic eye, but at best this is a naive, but good hearted attempt to establish some precedence for protecting the Apollo landing sites before a serious commercial interest gets involved, an attempt that doesn't realize you can't declare a national park outside of your territory. At worst it's a cynical PR/ego move that doesn't care if it doesn't make sense because it's not supposed to do anything. It's just supposed to get their names in the papers and/or serve as a club with which to bat opposing legislators who oppose it.
  I actually wouldn't mind a bill that said nothing but 'lets submit it to the UN as a World Heritage site and come up with some plan for protecting this stuff for when commercial interests eventually find their way up there", but talking about a national park is the wrong way to do it.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
26. Re:how about by hairyfeet · 2013-07-09 20:43 · Score: 2
  
  Personally I'd love it if they stayed there but I'm also a realist, and 1.- those things won't last forever in the nasty conditions on the moon,solar winds and little meteors and the like will trash them, which IIRC scientists said the flags might last 300 years, and 2.- To a private collector those things will be worth a fortune and as we have seen time and time again if there is enough money on the table SOMEBODY will claim it.
  But just FYI I don't think private ownership should be the end all be all, I sadly have just seen too much when it comes to my fellow man to think everybody will play nice and leave stuff alone because we ask. Hell look at how gourmets are happy to pay crazy prices for endangered fish, rather than let stock build back up I wouldn't be surprised if they would be happy to be the one that ate the last of this or that fish, just as i'm sure some private collector would pay a ton of money to have one of those flags behind glass for his friends to ooohh and aahh over even if they had to have a historic site trashed to get it..
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
27. Re: how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have a flag? - classic!
28. Re:how about by idji · 2013-07-09 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  So was it the Liberals who also put the word "moon" into the Book of Genesis in the story of Joseph? or is that why Genesis 1 only mentions "a lesser light to govern the night"?
29. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 21:31 · Score: 0
  
  I suspect they're worth a hell of a lot more left exactly where they are.
30. Re:how about by scottrocket · 2013-07-09 21:55 · Score: 2
  
  innumerable photons from his many fires, some of which struck the moon means that Ogg got there first. Ooga booga.
31. Re:how about by Opportunist · 2013-07-09 22:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nope. But the Brits did. So pack your crap and move out, the redcoats wanna move in again. You can pack your third amendment too, while you're at it.
  Snide comments aside, when will humanity learn that "but I was here first" means exactly jack when it comes to land claims. How far back do you want to reach to determine who owns it? Should Europe belong to Austria, for they pretty much held a sizable portion of it in the 18th century? Or maybe the Germans, after all the Holy Roman Empire, which contained pretty much all of central Europe, was ruled by German Emperors for most of its existence? Maybe the French would be more fitting, after all Emperor Charlemagne ruled nearly all of Europe in 800. Or the Mongols? I mean, considering how much of it was conquered by Attila before? Or Italy, owning it to the Roman Empire? Maybe Greece would be fitting, considering they settled almost all over those parts of Europe that border the Mediterranean Sea. Or ... who is the legal successor of the Celts again?
  Forget "I was here first" as a claims to land. You might find out that someone can say that to you, too.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
32. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 22:29 · Score: 0
  
  well in the Uk the beaker folk were here before the celts , so I guess it belongs to them shame they are all dead. Same tatic you yanks tried to use on your natives in you ham fisted half hearted way.
33. Re:how about by dkleinsc · 2013-07-09 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure, but this might actually be a contradiction of Poe's Law.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
34. Re:how about by multimediavt · 2013-07-09 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  Small problem with that theory is that the items are still U.S. government property by international law/agreement. Taking them without permission would constitute grand theft and the U.S. would most likely be willing to go to war to get them back, given their significance.
35. Re:how about by Rakarra · 2013-07-09 23:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Remember We do these things because they are hard?
  Not particularly, and that was never the case anyway. It was always a space race, an attempt to beat Cold War enemies. With that rationale gone, NASA lost much of its support.
36. Re:how about by Cenan · 2013-07-09 23:23 · Score: 2
  
  The lesser light reference was introduced in 1953, six years after the Roswell aliens gave the Democrats time travel technology and fertilizer. All editions of the Bible were retrofitted to make this new satellite agreeable to proper God fearing Republicans.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
37. Re:how about by Rakarra · 2013-07-09 23:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Snide comments aside, when will humanity learn that "but I was here first" means exactly jack when it comes to land claims.
  Fun quote from The Lion in Winter:
  Henry II: The Vexin's mine.
  Philip II: By what authority?
  Henry II: It's got my troops all over it; that makes it mine.
38. Re:how about by GrumpySteen · 2013-07-10 00:08 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Nonsense. That's where the Nazis are hiding out. Didn't you see the documentary about it?
39. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 00:15 · Score: 0
  
  Attila was not Mongolian. You are thinking of Genghis Khan. Who didn't get to Western Europe
40. Re: how about by RaceProUK · 2013-07-10 00:18 · Score: 2
  
  We also stuck a flag on it. So finders keepers.
  The UK stuck its flag on what is now the USA, and look how that turned out.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
41. Re:how about by lxs · 2013-07-10 00:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Never mind that all this was only possible in the first place thanks to public research and public implementation...
  And thanks to the German V2 program that was lifted lock stock and barrel in Operation Paperclip. (or at least the parts that weren't taken by the Soviets)
42. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  Who else planted a fucking flag on it?
43. Re:how about by h4rr4r · 2013-07-10 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  The same way all international agreements are held, with threat of sanction and war.
  Theft of those relics would be prosecuted just like any other crime.
44. Re:how about by h4rr4r · 2013-07-10 01:12 · Score: 2
  
  You can declare a national park any place you want. Preventing access to others is another thing.
  In this case if a private company tries to steal this stuff you can either prosecute or declare the Apollo 11 Site has become the Lunar Atomic Range. I doubt anyone would risk a swift nuking to steal some artifacts.
45. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  If a private space entrepreneur does the job of flying to the moon, collecting the artifacts, and returning them before the US government gets its act together, perhaps ending up in his private collection is a fitting outcome.
  It's against the law for US citizens to own moon rocks/ dust. Read Sex on the Moon, hilarious and interesting.
46. Re:how about by taiwanjohn · 2013-07-10 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  It would be cool to do a sort of "street view" simulation based on high resolution scanning and photography. For example, you could have a small vehicle that would "hop" over the site at low altitude, making multiple passes from various angles, downloading the data to earth between hops. You would want to repeat the whole process a few times to catch the scene from different lighting angles, etc., but eventually you'd have enough data to reconstruct the whole area in fine detail. It would be a lot of fun to just wander around in there with a VR helmet.
  You could even go so far as to rig up a big helium balloon with a harness, to simulate the 1/6th gravity. I would pay some serious coin for an hour in that kind of setup.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
47. Re:how about by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-07-10 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  they go fuck themselves since the moon isn't America's
  From TFA:
  
  “The government would also have to submit the Apollo 11 lunar landing site to the United Nations for designation as a World Heritage site.”
  I'd think they've got a legitimate case for that being accepted. Terminology gets a little interesting though, with "World" referring to the moon as well.
  How about the UN go fuck itself because the moon isn't theirs, either.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
48. Re:how about by IndustrialComplex · 2013-07-10 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  Not particularly, and that was never the case anyway. It was always a space race, an attempt to beat Cold War enemies
  Yes, and that goal was set because it was achievable, but a difficult (ie hard) goal to achieve.
  The motivating force might have been to ultimate-one-up the Soviets, but for it to be a true 'win' that goal had to be hard. Otherwise, it wouldn't be as significant as it was.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
49. Re:how about by mooingyak · 2013-07-10 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  they go fuck themselves since the moon isn't America's
  From TFA:
  
  “The government would also have to submit the Apollo 11 lunar landing site to the United Nations for designation as a World Heritage site.”
  I'd think they've got a legitimate case for that being accepted. Terminology gets a little interesting though, with "World" referring to the moon as well.
  How about the UN go fuck itself because the moon isn't theirs, either.
  In your view, does anyone have legal authority to dictate what happens on the moon? Is there a proper legal authority for this at all?
  
  --
  William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
50. Re:how about by tgd · 2013-07-10 02:08 · Score: 2
  
  Remember We do these things because they are hard?
  Not particularly, and that was never the case anyway. It was always a space race, an attempt to beat Cold War enemies. With that rationale gone, NASA lost much of its support.
  This is an important detail that seems to be glossed over. NASA's development prior to the 80's was a way of developing technology the military needed that was too "big" to be kept classified. Big rockets were needed for big nukes. Putting spacecraft into orbit and being able to control those orbits was necessary for spy satellites. Skylab was about countering concerns of manned space spy stations from the Soviets. The moon shot was half cold-war PR and half critical military technology development.
  Post-Apollo, NASA's manned program has been 100% about corporate welfare for defense contractors. The joke was always "why does the space shuttle exist? to build the space station! Why does the space station exist? To give the shuttle somewhere to go!". And it wasn't far of the truth. Continuing the Apollo-era style rockets and targeting Mars (which was the program NASA declined in favor of the Shuttle -- the intent was to be on Mars in the early 80's!) didn't strategically align with the technology development investments needed to pump money into the defense contractors. And when the cold war ended, it became all the more critical to crank up the construction of the ISS to ensure the key expertise was maintained at the set of contractors deemed strategic to national security.
  Why do you think the ridiculous work is still going on with Orion? To keep important NASA and defense contractor skills working on new technology.
51. Re:how about by tchuladdiass · 2013-07-10 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Does that only apply to samples returned by an Apollo mission? If an asteroid impacts the moon, sends pieces of it into space and they fall to earth in my back yard, can I keep it legally?
52. Re:how about by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2013-07-10 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  I OWN ARCTURUS! and Antares, Aldebaran, Alpha-Centauri and Altair and Algol.
  Now, for the parking....
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
53. Re:how about by interkin3tic · 2013-07-10 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Fitting, but not one that I think any of us would want to happen. I'd rather tax dollars be spent more higher pursuits than racing to preserve a historic relic from some rich asshole. Just tell him he CAN'T steal it, arrest him if and when he does, and spend them money you saved on research into cancer, a space elevator, or something worthwhile.
54. Re:how about by omnichad · 2013-07-10 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Well - clearly we must be annexing part of the moon. That's why we put our flag there. It's the same as what happened in the New World except without natives messing up our manifest destiny.
55. Re: how about by omnichad · 2013-07-10 03:23 · Score: 2
  
  I think it will be a while before our moon territory revolts. One of the main things missing for this to happen is a population.
56. Re:how about by thrich81 · 2013-07-10 03:47 · Score: 2
  
  "Big rockets were needed for big nukes." -- at least this was factually incorrect by the time NASA came around in 1958. The military originally developed the Saturn I, predecessor to Apollo's Saturn IB and Saturn V in the late 50's/early 60's but gave it up to NASA when they determined that they had no military use for a rocket that big -- the nukes were coming down nicely in size. When the military later needed boosters bigger than their biggest ICBM (Titan II) they independently developed the Titan III and its successors which were cheaper than the Saturns. I've also heard the "Skylab Spy Station" theory before but don't buy it because the Air Force had their own spy station in the works (Manned Orbiting Laboratory) pretty far along in the 60's with astronauts and everything then gave it up because their unmanned spy satellites were doing the job.
57. Re:how about by gtall · 2013-07-10 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Jackie, you've come back from the dead!! How's Art doing?
58. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  To finally ascertain the fact that the moon is made of Dutch cheese.
59. Re:how about by dcw3 · 2013-07-10 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Neil Armstrong didn't lay claim to the moon when he planted that flag, and it was: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind", not for America.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
60. Re:how about by stenvar · 2013-07-10 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's an outrage that, given all the money we have spent on NASA since the 1970's, NASA has been incapable of going back to the moon, let alone launch interplanetary flights. I think it would be poetic justice if entrepreneurs or other nations snatch the relics of the glory days of the US space program.
61. Re:how about by stenvar · 2013-07-10 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't make a comment about legality, I made a comment about poetic justice for the the failures of the US space program over the last half century. Their significance at this point is not so much demonstrating America's technological prowess, it's that they are reminder of missed opportunities and technological stagnation of the space program.
62. Re: how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  A civil war where half the population and more than half of the GDP split away from "Mother Britain". By the way, when are the Brits going to depose the monarchy and recognize "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ?
63. Re: how about by RaceProUK · 2013-07-10 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  As soon as the US authorities stop violating basic rights.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
64. Re:how about by interkin3tic · 2013-07-10 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure why it's an outrage. We got at lot of technological advances out of going to the moon. Nothing on the moon was going to directly pay back the investment, we knew that beforehand, but I think we got plenty of value out of it. Going back would be in many ways a waste compared to investing the money in the other things I mentioned, at least in my opinion.
  
  And "poetic justice" is not a good reason to spend tax dollars or let private entities appropriate historical relics.
65. Re:how about by CByrd17 · 2013-07-10 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're missing the point. The humorous article says: "there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950"
  Clearly, there are lots of references, because the moon actually exists. You don't have to refute a humor piece.
66. Re:how about by ethanms · 2013-07-10 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Even as an American, the AC's sentiment was the exact one I had... Who the fuck is US House of Representatives to have any say over some junk they left on the moon?
  Unless the UN recognizes it, it's completely meaningless... and even in then it's still only slightly less meaningless.
  Land is owned by whoever has the power to conquer/discover it and then defend/control it. The United States of all places should know that since it was originally created by displacing many native peoples.
  Even today all claims over land are only based on the ability to defend those claims, ultimately with force.
67. Re:how about by stenvar · 2013-07-10 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  The outrage is the decades we wasted on the shuttle program and the lack of progress in nuclear propulsion.
68. Re:how about by ethanms · 2013-07-10 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Do we really know enough about the moon to positively say there is very little value in returning? That is based on established knowledge and (relatively) superficial observation. It's like saying there is little value in exploring the deeper recesses of the ocean's on Earth because there's nothing left unknown. The truth is that we don't necessarily have ALL the knowledge there is know about these places--and so in that case return trips to the moon, for research and study, could potentially yield some yet-unknown caches of valuable information.
  Observing the Earth from orbit you'd have no idea about the details and histories that can be discovered by literally scratching away the surface. I understand it's unlikely the moon holds the same types of secrets, but until we start to check, how can we truly know?
  The moon is also a fantastic way to start our efforts for settlement and permanent research on other planets... it's extremely close by (in astronomical standards), and it represents a very harsh environment (in human life standards) ... so why not use it as a test bed? That alone makes it a worthwhile effort to return.
69. Re:how about by ethanms · 2013-07-10 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Umm... I think his point is that as a 5 year old you, if you tossed a frisbee on the roof that didn't me that YOU were on the roof. It means you threw something on the roof.
  YOU were on to the roof until you were "6 or 7" and expended your time and resources to physically move your body up to that place.
  So going back to the original post... the 5-year old you is like the Russian's--Not on the moon, just tossing stuff up there... The "6 or 7" year old you is like the US American's--Actually on the moon in person.
70. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  The motivating force might have been to ultimate-one-up the Soviets, but for it to be a true 'win' that goal had to be hard. Otherwise, it wouldn't be as significant as it was.
  Oh man -- apparently you didn't hear about the cold war Space Invaders high-score race between the US and Soviets. Or the world's-strongest-toothpick-bridge race. Or the race to see how many car tires they could stack.
  Let me tell you; I remember the celebration in the streets when the US finally managed to blow a larger Bazooka Joe bubble than those filthy commies.
71. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. The primary goal we should have in life is to create suitable sites for future archeological study. That way future generations can look back and imagine what it is like to actually do something.
72. Re: how about by jwilso91 · 2013-07-11 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  I think it will be a while before our moon territory revolts. One of the main things missing for this to happen is a population.
  And gaseous oxygen, and liquid water. For long term independence, there's also the near total absence of nitrogen and carbon on the moon to consider. No, they're going to be dependent on Earth for quite a while.
A spacey idea... by mendax · 2013-07-09 16:27 · Score: 5, Funny

This idea is absolutely nuts. But if they're hiring park rangers I'll be in line!

--
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
1. Re:A spacey idea... by Darinbob · 2013-07-09 17:08 · Score: 2
  
  I just want a season pass.
2. Re:A spacey idea... by dgatwood · 2013-07-09 17:16 · Score: 2
  
  I think the Congresspeople who proposed it should have to be the first to staff it.
  (What do you mean there's no oxygen?)
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
3. Re:A spacey idea... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-07-09 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  But if they're hiring park rangers I'll be in line!
  Oh, I know what you are really after: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_on_the_moon
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
4. Re:A spacey idea... by Seumas · 2013-07-09 18:41 · Score: 0
  
  The government is spying on us. It's spying on itself. It's spying on other nations citizens. Cops are going fucking nuts. Spending is fucking ridiculous. But let's spend our fucking House work/time talking about a park on the fucking moon. Fuck this place.
5. Re:A spacey idea... by OptimalCynic · 2013-07-09 20:12 · Score: 2
  
  Look at it this way, it took up a slot that could have been used for another spending bill.
6. Re:A spacey idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 20:34 · Score: 0
  
  Shit son... haven't you seen Moon yet?
  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/
7. Re:A spacey idea... by mjwx · 2013-07-09 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think the Congresspeople who proposed it should have to be the first to staff it.
  (What do you mean there's no oxygen?)
  We tried this in the 80's. We thought we were gods.
  
  As it turns out when the second rocket was sent back to collect the corpses^H^H^H^H^H^H^H erm... important experimental apparatus, they were still alive. Our leading theory is that they had produced enough gas to allow them to survive an extended period in vacuum. What we cant explain is how the didn't rupture with the pressure differential.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
8. Re:A spacey idea... by JTsyo · 2013-07-10 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry but the space rangers of the moon are going to look more like the rovers on Mars.
9. Re:A spacey idea... by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-07-10 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't it, y'know, illegal to build National Parks outside your own territory? It's not like own the Moon or anything....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
10. Re:A spacey idea... by gravis777 · 2013-07-10 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  I just wonder if TMA-1 is going to be included in the park
11. Re:A spacey idea... by mr_shifty · 2013-07-10 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  All they have to do is pass a law stating that there is oxygen there, and there will be. Easy as that.
  What.
  
  --
  And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
12. Re:A spacey idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  Watch out for that coffin-like travel pod at the end of your sift! Perhaps a smiley face sounding like Spacey could help you with the effort.
No one has territory on the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 16:28 · Score: 1

And even if they did, how would they enforce their claim? The best NASA could do was politely suggest the Chinese avoid the Apollo landing sites.
1. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Capsaicin · 2013-07-09 16:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Maybe the folks proposing this didn't think too hard about how the word 'national' will be read outside the US.
  
  --
  Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
2. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Brett+Buck · 2013-07-09 16:33 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe they didn't care how that would be read outside the US. I know I don't.
3. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Capsaicin · 2013-07-09 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they didn't care how that would be read outside the US.
  That's kinda encompassed in not thinking to hard about it, yeah.
  I know I don't.
  Perhaps there's a future for you as a House Democrat then.
  
  --
  Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
4. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Brett+Buck · 2013-07-09 16:48 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Sorry, I am not a
  pervert,
  alcohol or drug abuser,
  high officer in the KKK,
  tax cheat,
  so I don't qualify
5. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 17:05 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, I am not a pervert, alcohol or drug abuser, high officer in the KKK, tax cheat,
  so I don't qualify
  You are thinking too hard already: don't over-exert yourself.
6. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Fluffeh · 2013-07-09 17:22 · Score: 2
  
  Actually the US has some rather "straightforward" laws about National Parks - which are also places like the Lincoln Memorial (I think they file those under National Heritage) and places that are important to the military.
  And while I totally agree that they can't really enforce it outside the US, it does actually go a long way to defining what can and can't be done there by US companies. So, actually, I think that this is a great idea. It probably takes next to no time to propose in parliament, will likely get a pass and stops US based companies using the original landing sites as a mine.
  If space travel were to get super cheap tomorrow, I would dearly love and enjoy taking a tour of the original landing sites and not look at billboards, advertising or simply find out that they got ran over by a mining rig...
  
  --
  Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
7. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Capsaicin · 2013-07-09 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  Gotcha.
  
  --
  Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
8. Re:No one has territory on the moon by mooingyak · 2013-07-09 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they didn't care how that would be read outside the US.
  That's kinda encompassed in not thinking to hard about it, yeah.
  Not necessarily. It could be more like the difference between negligence and willful negligence.
  
  --
  William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
9. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 17:36 · Score: 0
  
  Not necessarily. It could be more like the difference between negligence and willful negligence.
  You are arguing that "willful negligence" is not negligence at all.
  Not thinking too hard about something necessarily encompasses not caring about it enough to think about it. Which is not to say that not thinking about it equates with not caring about it. If you are going to split hairs for no good reason at least try to be correct.
10. Re:No one has territory on the moon by davester666 · 2013-07-09 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  ...to be a politician...
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
11. Re:No one has territory on the moon by EzInKy · 2013-07-09 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  So you are okay with China and all other non-US companies doing whatever they will while limiting US companies ability to compete universally?
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
12. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Fluffeh · 2013-07-09 18:20 · Score: 2
  
  If the US has it as a national park, the others will likely be polite enough to avoid trashing it. That's the point.
  
  --
  Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
13. Re:No one has territory on the moon by EzInKy · 2013-07-09 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  Can you cite references that support your assertion that others will not trash a US national park simply because it is a US national park? What benefit do they receive from preserving it?
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
14. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 19:32 · Score: 0
  
  The American attitude summed up in one post, gentlemen.
15. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Rockoon · 2013-07-09 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  If the US has it as a national park, the others will likely be polite enough to avoid trashing it.
  
  How naive...
  
  This is how America falls... via people so disconnected from reality..
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
16. Re:No one has territory on the moon by skovnymfe · 2013-07-09 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  If it's a US national park, won't it just end up full of murderers and junkies, preventing any civilized folk from going there at night?
17. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Opportunist · 2013-07-09 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  You might be allowed to keep your oil. Or at least sell it instead of having it taken from you.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
18. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Opportunist · 2013-07-09 22:29 · Score: 2
  
  You say that like shooting murderers and junkies on the moon is a bad thing.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
19. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 23:06 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, because the USA stands a chance against China.
20. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 00:03 · Score: 0
  
  /We know./
  Americans never give a fuck about "the rest of the world".
  But what you don't realize, is that this is a really *bad* thing for you right now.
  You don't realize that, for the first time, you start to get into a really shitty life situation as a nation, where you really could use the help of your fellow countries. But that with your current and past behavior, you will be /all alone/ as soon as you're down.
  Your asshole behavior is exactly why everybody would stab the US in the back at the first chance they can get. Behavior that apparently is "normal" in your dog-eat-dog society.
  It's exactly why already everybody tells America to GTFO and take its cancer of a society with it right now.
  So keep going. I'll be watching. After all you did, and how much of a douche you have been, it will be quite enjoyable to see you have a long and painful Darwin Award death.
21. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 00:06 · Score: 0
  
  They Democrats, nuff said!
22. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 00:21 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps there's a future for you as a House Republican then.
23. Re:No one has territory on the moon by mooingyak · 2013-07-10 00:54 · Score: 2
  
  Not necessarily. It could be more like the difference between negligence and willful negligence.
  You are arguing that "willful negligence" is not negligence at all.
  Not thinking too hard about something necessarily encompasses not caring about it enough to think about it. Which is not to say that not thinking about it equates with not caring about it. If you are going to split hairs for no good reason at least try to be correct.
  You've misidentified the hairs I've split.
  Let's look at it from the POV of a political candidate for office. I have two different speeches in front of me. One has broad appeal, but really won't motivate my base, and I'm fairly confident that even though I'm saying the right things I won't persuade many registered X voters to vote for me because I'm the Y party candidate.
  The other speech is a little irritating to the other side, but will get my base out of their houses and into the voting booths. Ultimately I've decided I don't care what effect I have on the 'other' guys, they're not voting for me anyway. So I don't care, but I still thought about it.
  
  --
  William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
24. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 01:06 · Score: 0
  
  No, we know you are hopeless at geography ;)
25. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  The first international or world park... that has a nice ring to it. Sounds like progress!
26. Re:No one has territory on the moon by PPH · 2013-07-10 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  the others will likely be polite enough to avoid trashing it.
  Just like they do with US embassies. Yeah, right.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
27. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Joiseybill · 2013-07-10 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  If the US has it as a national park, the others will likely be polite enough to avoid trashing it.
  How naive... This is how America falls... via people so disconnected from reality..
  Parent+1 : So true. Look at how wonderfully American interests are preserving land in the sq. mile around Niagara Falls National Park
  http://www.nps.gov/nifa/index.htm.
  The visuals of the local neighborhoods are stunning - especially just behind the treeline as you follow the river into America (not!)
  (map) http://goo.gl/4B5Rc
  Or, New Jersey's new " Great Falls National Park" - recently named ( even with sequestration, and no budget to fund any facility there).. it seems beautiful, just don't stray too far north along the river into the decaying structures.. or into the nearby neighborhoods.
  (map) http://goo.gl/D5QlW
  From USA Today :
  
  It will take several years and millions of dollars before Great Falls looks like a national park; there won't even be ranger programs until next year. Since the designation, though, the site has received many more visitors. Robert Marshall, a retired public works director from a nearby suburb, had often driven past the falls, but until last month he'd never seen it up close. "I didn't know you could park and walk around here," he says, standing on the footbridge across from the falls. Then Marshall professed confusion over the national park designation: "The park service seems to be talking about laying people off, and they're adding a park here."
  As if to illustrate the debate, along came Hamid Amer, his wife and three kids. All seemed mesmerized by the falls. None had ever set foot in a national park. Amer, a Palestinian barber who moved his family to the USA five years ago from the West Bank, voiced concern over the amount of trash on the ground and in the water and said he thought the Park Service could clean it up."
  
  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2009-08-19-greatfalls_N.htm
  http://www.nps.gov/pagr/planyourvisit/hours.htm
  If anybody has any sense.. they won't let our elected leaders pollute and commodify one of the last places we haven't destroyed yet. Should visiting the moon become an attainable vacation destination - let's try and put some real environmental laws in place; with sufficient funding and real enforcement. ( I think that should sufficiently exclude the Koch bros. from even entering lunar orbit.)
28. Re:No one has territory on the moon by Joiseybill · 2013-07-10 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Incidentally - I have been to both sides.. the Canadian side is commercial, but not polluted. Compared to the Buffalo side, it is like paradise. I am surprised that the Canadians haven't had to put up a Texas-style fence to keep the impoverished locals from crossing the border to flee and find work. Lots of agriculture and food service jobs right on the other side of the river, and many safer places to cross than right at the falls.
29. Re:No one has territory on the moon by toddestan · 2013-07-10 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  While not a National Park, look at what happened to those that decided to trash the World Trade Center. Or Pearl Harbor.
30. Re:No one has territory on the moon by skovnymfe · 2013-07-11 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm... Running Man on the moon. By Scott, you're on to something here.
One problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 16:29 · Score: 2, Funny

We don't own it so they don't have the jurisdiction to pass laws on the moon. How about a zoo for these moon bats?
1. Re:One problem... by techno-vampire · 2013-07-09 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  Even better: a wildlife preserve to protect all of those metal-munching mice.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
2. Re:One problem... by Ogive17 · 2013-07-09 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why the bill indicates that the protected area only includes what NASA left behind and not the surface of the moon itself because no one will own the moon.
  
  They are assuming space tourism will eventually lead to moon excursions and they don't want people removing the items.
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
3. Re:One problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  That is the stated reasoning...which is still bat-shit crazy to propose at the present time. I suspect there is an ulterior motive for this proposal that DOES have something to do with 'owning' portions of the moon or making sure the US has a claim once everyone else has landed there and starts making claims.
'National' Historic park by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 16:30 · Score: 0

So presumably most of humanity, e.g. those not part of that single nation, would be expected to ignore them.
Funding details? by Lodlaiden · 2013-07-09 16:31 · Score: 2

Will there be funding to "recreate" all the artifacts that were supposedly left behind, but stolen by the aliens?

(I need to believe that the government didn't have the ability to lie to us about that (at least not that long ago)).

--
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
1. Re:Funding details? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 16:46 · Score: 0
  
  what?
They can say whatever they want... by cpotoso · 2013-07-09 16:33 · Score: 0

But I already got all the artifacts in my last two trips there.
Of all the stupid... by Okian+Warrior · 2013-07-09 16:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Of all the stupid, hare-brained ideas we've seen, this one has to be the stupidest so far.
We're close to exponential runaway on government spending (borrowing more, and more often). The economy is barely moving despite drenching it in money, jobs are part-time with no benefits, we jail more people than China, the government plainly tramples over all our civil rights, oil is running out, tax law is a joke, IP law is a joke, immigration law is a joke, H1B visas are a joke...
...so of course let's put a park on the moon!
I'm half inclined to start a new political movement: the "Boot" party.
Let's give these people "the boot" - vote the incumbents out! Keep turnover high until we get good people who can accomplish something worthwhile.
1. Re:Of all the stupid... by Brett+Buck · 2013-07-09 17:12 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The economy is barely moving despite drenching it in money
  This is equivalent to "no matter how much gasoline I pour on it, this fire just won't go out"
2. Re:Of all the stupid... by artor3 · 2013-07-09 17:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Congress can't do anything else, on account of the gridlock, so why not spend a few minutes voting on this?
  And by the way, if you just indiscriminately vote out incumbents every cycle, you'll never get anyone good in office. You'll just get wave after wave of naive freshmen, easily exploited by lobbyists.
3. Re:Of all the stupid... by Cenan · 2013-07-09 19:41 · Score: 2
  
  So, how about revising the Boot a bit? We don't need to keep recycling people in and out of office to have a workable system, in that respect you're absolutely right.
  How about outlawing lobbying altogether, and demand that incumbents be left alone to do their job? That sounds like a good idea. Oh, even better, how about, when you hold a public office, you're expected to do that job, and it is expected to be a full time job - so we could mandate that while in office, you may not have any other for-profit activities. Yes, that could work, incumbents doing their job and not doing another job on top of it, after all, they're all public servants, not the other way around.
  Hmm, what else? Well, we could demand complete 100% transparency with regard to a representative's economy (both time and money) while in office, seeing as they already know everything about us, maybe we should demand to know all that they do, they are acting on our behalf right, now we'd have a tool to verify that.
  Oh, and we could borrow from the Athenians a few thousand years ago, and immediately put elected officials on trial after their stint in office ends (even if they are elected for another term). We could scrutinize their doings and pass judgement on them, according to the laws we all agreed to follow, that should keep them on their toes.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
4. Re:Of all the stupid... by Opportunist · 2013-07-09 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget to add that politicians should be monitored whether the laws they create "accidentally" aid companies where they go after they leave office to get comfy jobs where they don't do jack for a few millions a year.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
5. Re:Of all the stupid... by Sockatume · 2013-07-09 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  You don't *put* a national park *anywhere*. You *declare* an area a national park, because it has some particular quality or value that needs to be protected. Sometimes, as a result of this, you set up information stations and things to assist tourists, but that's entirely secondary.
  You think that when they created the Northeast Greenland National Park they went around putting up a fence and souvenir stands?
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
6. Re:Of all the stupid... by Cenan · 2013-07-09 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, we can arbitrarily tighten the noose until they comply or stop running for office, whichever is fine with me - the end result just has to be that unbiased-good-for-all-of-us decision has to become the norm.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
7. Re:Of all the stupid... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 23:22 · Score: 0
  
  I think you've missed the point here - there won't be a park "put" on the moon, but rather the remnants of the past Apollo missions will be protected. It's basically saying "This stuff has historical significance, don't touch it" to anyone who would go to the moon. And I think that's important.
8. Re:Of all the stupid... by Charliemopps · 2013-07-09 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget that whole part about the moon not being part of the united states...
  and that bit about jailing more people than China.... actually we jail a larger percentage of our population than any government in the history of the world.
9. Re:Of all the stupid... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 23:41 · Score: 0
  
  I'll join the boot party.
  But this is a great park idea...it won't be overrun by hungry black bears. And visitors will be on their honor to leave the visitor pass fee in a box to be sent up and collected once every fifty years or so. Or perhaps we'll outsource to some corporation for a few million dollars the task of taking home the few dollar bills each few decades. Maybe we can put up a webcam that will snap a picture of visitors and offer to sell the pix to them for a small fee. Of course the park ranger outfits will have to be completely redesigned.
10. Re:Of all the stupid... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 23:50 · Score: 0
  
  We're close to exponential runaway on government spending
  Yeah, right. You should know that's impossible, so stop calling other people stupid.
11. Re:Of all the stupid... by seven+of+five · 2013-07-10 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  We're close to exponential runaway on government spending (borrowing more, and more often). The economy is barely moving despite drenching it in money, jobs are part-time with no benefits, we jail more people than China, the government plainly tramples over all our civil rights, oil is running out, tax law is a joke, IP law is a joke, immigration law is a joke, H1B visas are a joke...
  
  The economy is barely moving because we're clawing our way back from the worst recession in generations, and the government thinks its job is to munch popcorn while the private sector struggles. Far too little has been spent in stimulus thanks to the shrieks of the far right. Look at Europe and see how "well" austerity's working.
12. Re:Of all the stupid... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 00:54 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know where you're getting that complaint from. Let's take a recent example. Dick Cheney's wife worked part-time at Enron doing pretty much jack and only got 90,000 a year. I guess she did get VP Cheney to help pass the Enron loophole, but so what?
  And that brings up a bigger point. The OP stated part-time jobs are a problem because they have no benefits. Who needs benefits when you make 90,000 a year part time? Everyone just likes to complain I guess.
  To be fair, I am assuming there was no cronyism or kickbacks for Cheney here. Republicans tell me they hate that. That's why they put Governor Palin on the ballet who was completely against cronyism.
13. Re:Of all the stupid... by IndustrialComplex · 2013-07-10 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  and that bit about jailing more people than China.... actually we jail a larger percentage of our population than any government in the history of the world.
  Also don't forget that we don't get enough exercise either!
  (Unless they were proposing a national prison on the moon, your point isn't exactly relevant to this discussion)
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
14. Re:Of all the stupid... by eth1 · 2013-07-10 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  And by the way, if you just indiscriminately vote out incumbents every cycle, you'll never get anyone good in office. You'll just get wave after wave of naive freshmen, easily exploited by lobbyists.
  Then I'll start the Boot & Shoot party. Boot the incumbents and shoot the lobbyists.
15. Re:Of all the stupid... by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-07-10 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  and that bit about jailing more people than China....
  
  To be fair, the US tends to hold on to their convicts a little longer while China tends to execute them quickly. Number of executions in 2012: US 43, China 2000+ (according to Amnesty International).
  So you think the US should step up their executions? Of course not, but you didn't look at the whole picture when you made that comparison.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
16. Re:Of all the stupid... by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-07-10 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and we could borrow from the Athenians a few thousand years ago, and immediately put elected officials on trial after their stint in office ends (even if they are elected for another term). We could scrutinize their doings and pass judgement on them, according to the laws we all agreed to follow, that should keep them on their toes.
  "The Court of Political Justice is now in session. The defendant is herein charged with Political Irresponsibility and Excessive Atrocity in Exercising his Constitutional Right of Criticism of a Practicing Politician."
  It's silly, but I've always wanted to see that idea tried SOMEWHERE!
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
17. Re:Of all the stupid... by AmiMoJo · 2013-07-10 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  The economy is barely moving despite drenching it in money
  We didn't drench ours in money and it went backwards. Barely moving is infinitely preferable to what we got.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
18. Re:Of all the stupid... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-07-10 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  A sure sign that you really should be using more gasoline. Maybe try a few orders of magnitude more, it will eventually displace all the oxygen surrounding the fire.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
19. Re:Of all the stupid... by Type44Q · 2013-07-10 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  oil is running out
  No. The water needed to frak the oil is running out.
  FTFY :p
20. Re:Of all the stupid... by Jeremi · 2013-07-10 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  ...so of course let's put a park on the moon!
  Why not? It will be the cheapest park we've ever established, since until we have regular moon travel there is literally nothing (outside the passing of the legislation) to be done.
  And possibly it will set up a legal framework so that when moon travel does become common, historic artifacts on the moon will be better protected.
  As for the "why are we doing this when X other issues aren't solved yet" -- I'm amazed how often that canard comes up. Slashdot geeks who have no problem understanding parallel execution in a CPU can't seem to understand that parallel execution is possible in other contexts as well -- life is not a zero sum game.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
21. Re:Of all the stupid... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, you should update your /etc/facts. The debt has more or less stabilized as a fraction of GDP.
22. Re:Of all the stupid... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  And based on their calculations it will be a gold-mine once the park is approved to open multiple golf courses since holes are a natural moon resource, no dig costs.
23. Re:Of all the stupid... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty sure a national park needs to be contained within your nation at a minimum.
24. Re:Of all the stupid... by stymy · 2013-07-10 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Pithy comment, but just not true. If you followed the markets, you'd have seen that whenever there's even a slight hint of the Fed (or other central banks) raising interest rates by even a little bit, the market falls fast. Besides, right now a global trade war is underway, and so countries are working hard to devalue their currency. Printing money can definitely help with that, driving up exports and thus the economy. Of course, money is neutral in the long run, and so the gains won't last, but helping economies through rough patches is one of the roles of the government and central banks.
25. Re:Of all the stupid... by dcw3 · 2013-07-10 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Except that there hasn't been any "austerity" in the U.S. Have you seen any budget reduction?...NO.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
26. Re:Of all the stupid... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-11 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  These are the same idiots who keep blaming Bush for the country's financial problems... Liberalism truly is a mental disease.
Bill passes and .... by codepigeon · 2013-07-09 16:40 · Score: 4, Funny

The Bill passes and...the park is immediately closed due to budget cuts.

Tell you what though; I will be first in line to apply for the position of park ranger for this one.
1. Re:Bill passes and .... by EzInKy · 2013-07-09 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  Only privatization can fix that problem.
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
2. Re:Bill passes and .... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 20:08 · Score: 0
  
  No you won't, mendax already but you to it. :(
Jurisdiction? by jcr · 2013-07-09 16:50 · Score: 2

None? Nothing to see here. More idiot legislators trying to get attention.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
1. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, this is the real problem - national governments are prohibited from claiming jurisdiction over any part of the moon.
  Even in the name of "protection", this is unenforceable.
Luna Park by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 16:50 · Score: 0

That's one small step for a man, and Just Do It. Nike. http://i.imgur.com/Nqw1FbP.jpg
I certainly hope by fustakrakich · 2013-07-09 16:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

That they come up with an original name...

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Cart Before Horse by Anonymatt · 2013-07-09 16:56 · Score: 1

Or I guess putting the rocket before the capsule.
Fantastic by pesho · 2013-07-09 16:57 · Score: 2

No that they have taken care of the celestial matters, perhaps they will find some time for actually running the country. Banal earthly matters such as the farm bill apparently requires some attention.
1. Re:Fantastic by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 23:55 · Score: 0
  
  Banal earthly matters such as the farm ville apparently requires some attention.
  FTFY
2. Re:Fantastic by cdrudge · 2013-07-10 00:27 · Score: 2
  
  There's 435 voting representatives and 100 senators. Despite Congress's ability to get any real meaningful work done in Washington as a whole due to partisan politics, it's still entirely possible for individual members to multitask and work on multiple works of legislation at the same time.
  Somehow the effort required to setup a lunar national park that most likely would have minimal if any opposition to as well as likely unenforceable (at least outside the US and maybe inside as well) is significantly easier then say coming up with solutions for the economy, health care, immigration, national deficit, etc...
3. Re:Fantastic by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  Republicans still haven't taken care of maternal matters. They've introduced a couple hundred abortion bills. No jobs bills, though. Until Republicans get there way on abortion we won't get any laws passed.
  But considering the folks on the other side of the aisle maybe that's good.
  But maybe if they worked together?
  Eh, then we'd just have anti-abortion laws on the moon.
  Congress sucks. If they pass this they should all have a signing party on the moon.
4. Re:Fantastic by chihowa · 2013-07-10 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Despite Congress's ability to get any real meaningful work done in Washington as a whole due to partisan politics, it's still entirely possible for individual members to multitask and work on multiple works of legislation at the same time.
  That doesn't really follow. If you don't have time to do the big important tasks that your job requires, then you shouldn't be wasting time on the little unimportant aspects of it. If allocating yourself more time isn't what it takes to complete your duties, then you are not qualified for your job.
  Their job is to take care of the important issues that are being neglected. If they can't complete their job in a finite amount of time, they need to all be removed until we find a set of people who can complete it. The fact that their bickering is keeping them from doing their job only further underlines their incompetence.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Everyone is entitled to hallucinate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 17:00 · Score: 0

I am half drunk and watching Despicable me to get ideas how to steal the moon before the lunatics make it a parking lot.
1. Re:Everyone is entitled to hallucinate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 17:14 · Score: 0
  
  I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.
  "I can't think of anything to say except...
  I think it's marvellous! HaHaHa!"
Where the lander is now... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 17:02 · Score: 0

Everyone knows the landers aren't there any more. The Nazis stole them.
Is the Moon made of crack? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 17:09 · Score: 1

It sounds like Congress got ahold of some samples and smoked 'em. First, it's not even US territory. There are treaties against that kind of thing. Since a prerequisite for a national park is that it be... umm... NATIONAL, that's a non-starter right there, right? Next, even if it were our sovereign territory, it's not like there's a real problem with guys going up there and leaving beer cans and cigarette butts. Finally, how about doing something about the situation in are actual national parks where Mexican cartels are stealing water for illegal pot grows? Of course we could just legalize pot and fix that; but if you're not going to do that, at least have the common sense to protect the territory you already control. I think some returning Iraq and Afghan vets would jump at the chance to protect that territory in exchange for a land-lease where they could park a trailer or something.
1. Re:Is the Moon made of crack? by segin · 2013-07-09 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  Simpsons reference, anyone?
Really by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 17:09 · Score: 0

Really they have nothing better to fight and work out..... This is on the list or important things they need to worry about?
No, that's not what happened. by NotSoHeavyD3 · 2013-07-09 17:10 · Score: 0

Here's the real headline "Dems find Ted Kennedy's legendary secret stash of booze, get totally plastered."

--
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
1. Re:No, that's not what happened. by NotSoHeavyD3 · 2013-07-10 00:34 · Score: 0
  
  Modded me down? What? Too soon or too Democrat?
  
  --
  Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
US leaves junk scattered about the solar system by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 17:13 · Score: 0

If it were anybody else leaving their trash scattered about it would be littering, but if the US can't be arsed to clean up after themselves they declare the dumping grounds -- even outside their country -- "national" heritage parks. Screw that. You dump your junk on my lawn, I don't care where you're from, you'd damn well better clean it up, Senator Dumbass.
Better than Republicans attacking womens privates. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 17:15 · Score: 0

Really. It is.
So... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 17:31 · Score: 0, Funny

Will there be whalers on the moon? And will they be carrying harpoons?
Becaue all other problems have been solved by blindseer · 2013-07-09 17:48 · Score: 1

Yes, let's spend time in the House of Representatives debating a bill establishing an international landmark on the moon because we got nothing better to do.
We have not seen a federal budget passed in how long? Ten years I recall. We got federal agents selling guns to drug dealers. These drug dealers then shoot federal agents. The economy is crap. We've seen an ambassador and his security detail get murdered. Government employees are openly lying to Congress and keep their jobs instead of ending up in jail. The Department of Education is spending money on shotguns instead of educating children. These same children end up dead because murders walked into the invisible force field of a "gun free zone" that Congress erected. (Hey Congress! How about you give some of those shotguns to some school security volunteers!) Cities get flooded and bridges fall into rivers because Congress can't seem to find the time to maintain basic infrastructure. We got entire cities getting burned up from forest fires. I could go on and on.
Don't think I'm just giving Democrats a hard time, Republicans share the blame. With all the crap going on right now why would anyone even think of bringing up declaring a national park on the fucking moon?
Wait... I just answered my own question. They bring this up to try to distract from all the shit happening right now. Much of this is from their own action or inaction, the rest of the shit they just make worse.
I'm reminded of a stupid joke...
If pro is the opposite of con then what is the opposite of progress? Congress.

--
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
1. Re:Becaue all other problems have been solved by EzInKy · 2013-07-09 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  It will take at least a generation for the "old guard" to die off. After you and your friends have all died off Congress will come together and be able to act in unison.
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
2. Re:Becaue all other problems have been solved by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 23:43 · Score: 0
  
  We pass a federal budget every year. Maybe not on time, and maybe stupid ones, but they pass every year.
3. Re:Becaue all other problems have been solved by 45mm · 2013-07-10 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's a broad assumption given many future congresscritters are staffing the current congresscritters' offices - and likely learning bad behaviors.
4. Re:Becaue all other problems have been solved by Rakarra · 2013-07-10 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  It will take at least a generation for the "old guard" to die off. After you and your friends have all died off Congress will come together and be able to act in unison.
  I'm not sure what you're talking about here -- the "old guard" representatives are the ones who can get together, discuss reasonably, and hammer out compromises. The new crowd is the one elected under the "don't give in, don't give them an inch, we're going to take it to the people in Washington and clean up the place, etcetc" rhetoric that basically means they won't give an inch on their leftist/rightist agenda. The new group is unable to work with the other side -- they were elected with the promises that they wouldn't.
From the lookout-for-the-landmines dept by gumpish · 2013-07-09 18:22 · Score: 2

The park would be comprised of all artifacts left on the surface of the moon from the Apollo 11 through 17 missions.
Including bags of astronaut shit? Yeah, it just wouldn't be the same if someone cleaned those up...
1. Re:From the lookout-for-the-landmines dept by mjwx · 2013-07-09 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  The park would be comprised of all artifacts left on the surface of the moon from the Apollo 11 through 17 missions.
  Including bags of astronaut shit? Yeah, it just wouldn't be the same if someone cleaned those up...
  At least they bagged it, I'm sick of having to avoid naked dog turds on the footpath.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
2. Re:From the lookout-for-the-landmines dept by Sockatume · 2013-07-10 01:18 · Score: 2
  
  If we return those, we could bring back the original Astronauts with advanced cloning techniques, and let them roam free in the park. Apollo Park.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
3. Re:From the lookout-for-the-landmines dept by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  At least they bagged it, I'm sick of having to avoid naked dog turds on the footpath.
  I hope you're being sarcastic, because that's one of those things that annoys me to no end. Why do people bag their dog poop, then leave the bag behind to litter the sides of the trail? Now instead of leaving dog poop, which is mildly annoying but will eventually decompose, you leave a stinky plastic bag that will not decompose and will only serve to cook the poop in its own little oven!
  Do they just expect the trail maids to come and clean up after them? Is it legal to beat them to death with the bags of poop?
4. Re:From the lookout-for-the-landmines dept by mjwx · 2013-07-10 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  I hope you're being sarcastic,
  Now why would _I_ be sarcastic?
  
  Where I live, it's not a requirement for people to bag their dog poo at all. So bagging it and leaving it there would be a vast improvement to just ignoring that your dog shits on the footpath.
  
  Although the theory goes that dog owners need to bag and dispose of the dog poo... but what happens in theory doesn't always happen in reality.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
The real reason... by Starteck81 · 2013-07-09 18:33 · Score: 1, Troll

The real reason they want to make a park on the moon is so they can setup a gun free zone that actually has zero crime.

--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
Not a National park, but International by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 18:34 · Score: 0

They should be declared International Parks ... especially Tranquility Base. "One step for (a) man, one giant leap for all mankind". Yes, we planted the American flag at Tranquility Base, but it's a victory for all mankind.
Passport Stamp by turtle+graphics · 2013-07-09 18:45 · Score: 2

Travel geeks would kill for that NPS passport book stamp!
ya snooze ya lose by drknowster · 2013-07-09 18:46 · Score: 1

didn't you guys plant a flag there?
It should be an International Park, not National by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 18:47 · Score: 0

They should be declared International Parks ... especially Tranquility Base. "One small step for (a) man, one giant leap for all mankind". Yes, we planted the American flag at Tranquility Base, but it's a victory for all mankind.
Par for the course by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 18:51 · Score: 0, Troll

In the 1960's the Democrats fell all over themselves to sign an international treaty that says, essentially "nobody can own anything in space" at a time when the US is the only nation with the demonstrated ability to go to any place in space that has the potential to be owned (because they insist that the whole world will like us better if we do this). They're like terrible Sally Fields impersonators... "you like me... you really like me..." always insisting the US must do things to make everybody like us no matter whether the actions will have long term negative effects (like in this case making most commercial activity that might otherwise happen in space either illegal or legally dubious)
Then, years later, they propose doing things in direct contradiction to their earlier political/P.R. stunt.... as a new stunt
News flash: Since nobody can own anything on the moon (thanks to that stupid Democrat treaty) we do not own the lunar landing sites on the moon and cannot make them "national parks"... and since nobody owns the moon, nobody can give the UN control over it either (you can only give somebody something if you own it in the first place...), so it cannot become a "world heritage site", which is a stupid idea anyway given that it is decidedly off-world. Furthermore, since Obama has declared that we will not return to the moon and doing so would be dumb, we are in no position to [a] place anything there to mark a "park", [b] detect anybody violating the "park", or [3] enforce anything.
Nice play, dimwits... how about doing something to get the government boot off the necks of small businesses so we can get some job growth...
1. Re:Par for the course by Cenan · 2013-07-09 20:17 · Score: 2
  
  always insisting the US must do things to make everybody like us no matter whether the actions will have long term negative effects
  The opposite of that is what spawns the terrorist boogeyman. You're deluding yourself if you think anything is done, that does not directly or indirectly put money in the pockets of those in power. Whatever people feel about the Americans as a nation, it is completely of your own doing, and invoking long term negative consequences as a boogeyman works both ways. The only significant difference in either school of thought is when the negative consequences manifest themselves, stop doing shit for profit all the time and you might actually see an improvement. That being said, this proposal is beyond stupid, in that we can agree.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
2. Re:Par for the course by Ogive17 · 2013-07-09 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  The bill wants to protect the items left behind by NASA. Basically they are saying the landers, the rover, the planted flag are historical landmarks and any future visitors should not remove them.
  
  They do not intend to mark off a couple hundred acres worth of moon surface and label it a US national park...
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
More and More.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 19:06 · Score: 0

I wish the Chinese giant will wake up and scare the US back into whatever rock they crawled from under. You people certainly aren't fit to be a superpower.
1. Re:More and More.. by jsepeta · 2013-07-10 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  And a Communist government is somehow better? Fuck off.
  
  --
  Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Lol by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 19:06 · Score: 0

Now anyone can see how stupid Democrats are. Next they will want a national park for the deepest part of the ocean. Then again, at least its a bill that dose not have negative effect like most of the things they pass, so I don't mind if they keep wasting time on stuff like this.
1. Re:Lol by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 20:27 · Score: 0
  
  For an outsider (non-american), the differences between dems and reps are marginal. But rest assured that the entire cast of politicians, no matter in what country you look, consists of lunatics and crooks only.
$5B ticket ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 19:54 · Score: 0

I guess a plane ticket to the moon (someday) will cost around $5 billions dollars?
write me down for a couple tix !!
Are you kidding me ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 20:22 · Score: 0

With the deep sh*t that the US is in financially, could it be that they have nothing better to do than come up with something like this ?
Unbelievable....
Only you can prevent forest fires. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 20:24 · Score: 0

Provided the Russians let you up there.
Lesser light by zaax · 2013-07-09 20:47 · Score: 1

In Genesis it is called the 'lesser light' that rules the night. In Revelation it will turn to blood.
moon landings in the future by Arancaytar · 2013-07-09 21:19 · Score: 2

Yeah, that is a thing that is going to happen. Any day now.
1. Re:moon landings in the future by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, just probably not from NASA, ever again.
  I'd say China ;)
2. Re:moon landings in the future by umafuckit · 2013-07-11 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, just probably not from NASA, ever again. I'd say China ;)
  Then India.
  
  --
  soylentnews.org
Already covered .. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 21:30 · Score: 0

We're whalers on the moon,
We carry a harpoon
But there ain't no whales, so we sing tall tales
And sing a whaling tune.
NRHP by Jonathunder · 2013-07-09 22:17 · Score: 2

The United States Department of the Interior listed a location outside the nation on the National Register of Historic Places: the oldest American embassy. The Apollo sites are certainly as worthy of preservation. They should be listed as historic landmarks.
1. Re:NRHP by sconeu · 2013-07-10 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  I thought that by International law, a US embassy is considered to be US territory. Therefore it *is* inside the nation.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
2. Re:NRHP by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  An embassy's ground is considered territory of the embassy's nation (case in point: Assange hasn't been arrested yet).
  So an active embassy is inside the nation, and as such is eligible for such things.
  There is also an international space treaty, which proclaims celestial body as off-limits to stakes (google it up to find the details), so no, the moon does not fall under american jurisdiction.
3. Re:NRHP by Jonathunder · 2013-07-10 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  The Old American Legation in Morocco is actually not an active embassy. It is not American soil but it is still listed on the NRHP. The Apollo sites on the Moon are also not American soil, obviously, but they are of great historic and cultural importance to the United States.
4. Re:NRHP by toddestan · 2013-07-10 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's no longer a US embassy since (if I recall correctly) 1961. The US Government still owns the building, but it's currently housing a museum.
I want my camera! by RDW · 2013-07-09 22:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

Hasselblad, who made some of NASA's photographic equipment, used to run adverts offering free cameras to anyone who was prepared to go and pick them up. These were, of course, the Hasselblads left behind by the astronauts on the lunar surface. And now this bunch of do-gooders wants to put all the Apollo artefacts off-limits! Has the camera offer been cancelled? I feel betrayed!
1. Re:I want my camera! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 00:05 · Score: 0
  
  Also... didn't NASA say "you can have one of those cars, just go help yourself"?
Great Idea.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 23:11 · Score: 0

When you can get a man to the moon again we will talk about it. Till then stop wasting money.
Proposal by nospam007 · 2013-07-10 00:19 · Score: 1

I propose Newt Gingrich as Chief Ranger.
Sounds absurd but by LoRdTAW · 2013-07-10 00:30 · Score: 1

The lunar landing sites are historically significant. At the very least there should be a policy in place that all space agencies, private and public, should recognize these sites and possibly protect them. At least make it so the lander base, flags, experiments and vehicles must not be disturbed, moved or vandalized. In the future if there are regular commercial visits people will try to take artifacts back for collection.
As for a national park: NO. The USA nor any other country or agency owns the moon.
Our government at work by kelemvor4 · 2013-07-10 00:36 · Score: 1

It's good to see our government working on important things. Things like making a national park in a place we're incapable of reaching right now. Doubly so since there's nothing else for our government to be doing right now.
Littering Space Programs & Democrats by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 00:49 · Score: 0

They can be so sneaky.. On the surface, this seems to be an outlandish attempt to get out of having to pick up the garbage they left behind on the moon they don't own and get out of paying a $50.00 fine..
Or.. maybe they should charge admission to their newest park and build a building over by the used up oxygen tanks and soda cans with which to facilitate this admission.. and send them there.
Park Service Budget Cuts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 01:09 · Score: 0

Recent budget cuts to America's National Parks probably has these Rangers astounded at this proposed legislature and rolling around on the ground in disbelief.. (exageratedly!)
Apollo artifacts are still US property by wired_parrot · 2013-07-10 01:22 · Score: 1

Aren't all artifacts left by the Apollo missions still considered US property and therefore still protected by federal law? As far as I know, the US government never relinquished ownership, and therefore no additional protection is needed.
All this does is add unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative costs. Once this "park" is set up, the artifacts will have to be catalogued, regulations drafted, lawyers proficient in space law consulted -all this will be non-trivial expenses for little benefit.
1. Re:Apollo artifacts are still US property by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know about that. You could make a pretty strong argument that they abandoned pretty much everything they left behind. It's been decades since we had the capability to even *get* people to the moon, much less do anything with the gear left behind. In fact, the mirror(s) are about the only thing that gets any use at all any more.
2. Re:Apollo artifacts are still US property by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  Actually these items would rightly be considered flotsam and jetsam. Well, jetsam at least. Derelict is also a description of these items. Items such as these may be considered the property of the original owners. If a legal battle came about then I would hope the government would lose. Laying claim upon things without the intent to take possession of them is very bad form. It is a backdoor way to lay claim to wherever the abandoned items may be. If you toss an aluminum can out of your car then claim it as your valuable property with no intent of recovering it then you deserve to have your claim disregarded no matter how much you revere the can. It's junk. It gets in the way of industrious activity like mining. If you wish to engage in sentimental naval gazing then at least take possession of your naval and clean it up.
Lunar National Park by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 01:23 · Score: 0

Ok,
I'll buy into this. It just means that we now will HAVE to go back to the moon. HOw else are we going to put Park Rangers in place to keep people from spoiling the sites?
Seriously though. Making them National parks probably isn't the answer. This implies that we're claiming those parts of the moon that the US has landed on. I think that maybe they should be made World Heritage Sites, overseen by an International Parks Service.
Just a thought...
Jason
who owns the moon? by jsepeta · 2013-07-10 01:37 · Score: 1

It's dumb for Americans to claim the moon as ours.

--
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
1. Re:who owns the moon? by JTsyo · 2013-07-10 01:46 · Score: 2
  
  it's not for the lunar surface but for the NASA artifacts left behind.
The trick is to by JTsyo · 2013-07-10 01:45 · Score: 1

start an embassy on the site.
out of jurisdiction by rossdee · 2013-07-10 02:08 · Score: 1

The UScongress does not have jurisdiction on the moon
neither does the UN
But it might be a good idea to send them (both houses ) there (on the B-Arc)
Send them by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 02:23 · Score: 0

"House Democrats Propose National Park On the Moon"
Do America a favour: send them all as the first visitors.
Someone needs to dedicate the new park by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 02:59 · Score: 1

Send Obama up with a ribbon for the new national park. Pelosi and Reid can ride along. No need for a return trip. They can have fun reading the Healthcare Bill while waiting for a taxi home.
10s of millions of US citizens out of work... by BoRegardless · 2013-07-10 03:33 · Score: 1

And...Congress wastes what little time they spend in session (between long weekends and 'breaks') on a Moon Park?
Before you rant... by Jarmihi · 2013-07-10 03:40 · Score: 1

There appear to be several commenters misreading the OP. Please be aware that the "National Historical Park" only applies to the artifacts themselves. Thus, they are only applying "American jurisdiction" to property that was ours in the first place, and not a would-be-controversial boundary on land.

Source: http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/jan2013/hr2617.pdf (page 4)

--
~Jarmihi
Mine, mine, mine. by FunkeyMonk · 2013-07-10 03:53 · Score: 1

This just looks like a land grab to me. I haven't taken the time to actually look it up, but I suspect the area covered by the Apollo 11-17 landings is actually pretty large. If we declare it a national park, we keep other countries from claiming it for themselves. It's real estate investment with no money down!
A compromise by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 04:00 · Score: 0

Democrats get a national park on the moon and Republicans get oil drilling on all National Parks.
US Owns the Moon? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 04:36 · Score: 0

By calling it a National Park, they are implying the moon is part of the United States nation. I believe most of the world would disagree with that. Yes some of these Apollo sites deserve preservation, but not all of them.
The argument is that there will be a lot more moon landing which may affect the original American landing sites, But the additional moon landings by foreign powers or private companies would be just as remarkable as the Apollo landings. Since they are just as remarkable, are we going to make every landing a "Park".
The economy must be getting better if the politicians have time to waste on legislation like this.
Memo to Congresscritters: by kheldan · 2013-07-10 04:56 · Score: 1

DEAR FUCKTARDS:

It's real nice of you to do something like this, but I have a suggestion for something you should be doing instead: End the god-damned motherfucking sequestration, you ignorant baboons!!!

Sincerely,
TAXPAYERS WHO ARE GETTING SCREWED BECAUSE YOU SUCK SO MUCH ASS

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
So do the moon belong to us? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 05:11 · Score: 0

So do the moon belong to us? Because "National" would imply that its on us soil... or .. perhaps international (dont really work either).. universal park then
Again, life imitates Futurama by Webs+101 · 2013-07-10 05:25 · Score: 1

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

--
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
Um, no. by rickb928 · 2013-07-10 05:32 · Score: 1

Sorry, but the Moon is not our territory.
If we really wanna do this, we better claim ALL of it, or there will be all sorts of parks there, and I'll have to buy permits for every damned one, and use every different reservation system to get a campsite. And that is annoying.
Not to mention I'm not about to drive all that way to see a bleached flag. I can do that on a sound stage in Arizona for cheapo.
Seriously, we have no other pressing issues to consider? Disrespect Congress much?

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
wow, talk about a blast from the past! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 05:33 · Score: 0

did he open-source the moon?
Already taken by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 05:43 · Score: 0

I am just a simple Computer Engineer, but I think one South American guy already registered the whole Moon. It seems to me like being the same case. Probably even worst, as it would probably be used as another zombie computer to bother somebody, like they probably do with Germany after the II World War. They should force Snowden to stay in Russia (anyway I think it is impossible for him to go to another "American" country), make him rebuild the Soviet Union, and then maybe they would have more chances. It worked once...
This from the country . . . by acitta1 · 2013-07-10 05:53 · Score: 1

that stood idly by while the Baghdad Museum was looted.
Earthfront Real Estate by psydeshow · 2013-07-10 05:57 · Score: 1

This isn't about who owns the Moon, because obviously no one does.
The more interesting question is, does the USA own the sites where our astronauts landed? And it seems to me that, absent any other legal precedent, we do. Or we would at least have a better claim to those sites than anyone else not currently inhabiting them.
I'm a little surprised that Congress, in 1969, didn't declare the Moon (or parts of the Moon) to be official U.S. territory, annexed by whatever means we used to annex a bunch of islands in the Pacific, and a big slice of Antarctica. Perhaps there is a residency requirement, but there are at least a few island territories that have no permanent inhabitants.
Anyway, I don't mean to troll -- we came in peace for all mankind, etc. But obviously there are analogous cases on Earth that could be used to define a protocol and legal framework for claiming non-contiguous, unoccupied land as a territory belonging to a nation-state. And if we didn't do it right during the Apollo missions, then that sounds like a damn fine reasons to haul our asses back there and stake a proper claim.
1. Re:Earthfront Real Estate by psydeshow · 2013-07-10 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Some followup, via http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/09/can_the_us_create_a_national_park_on_the_moon:
  The 1962 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space prevents states from asserting claims over parts of outer space, including the Moon.
  http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/gares/html/gares_18_1962.html
  However, according to 18 USC 7, spacecraft in flight (that is, that haven't returned to Earth) are US Territories.
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7
  So Congress could theoretically declare that the spacecraft we abandoned on the Moon are a National Park, but they have no jurisdiction over the areas around them that were explored by astronauts.
just came to say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 10:50 · Score: 0

It better be an amusement park. "We're whalers on the moon. We carry a harpoon. But there ain't no whales, so we tell tall tales and sing our whaling tune."
Whalers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 11:30 · Score: 0

We're whalers on the moon...
Everybody look at the moon! by MonkeyPaw · 2013-07-10 11:50 · Score: 1

He's so bright and milky white.
Shining down upon the ground.
He's so bright, milky white.
Shining down upon the ground.
Everybody look at the moon!
Everybody seein' the moon!
The moon is bright!
He's milky white!
Everybody look at the moon!
Uh!
Heey! I did a song! Jupiter, I did a song! You ain't got one! Heey!
(I got nothing else)

--
My studio - www.graylands.ca
The Moon as an international park by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-11 05:27 · Score: 0

This is an absolutely great and logical idea, on condition, of course, that it's an INTERNATIONAL park.
Archeology! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-11 11:11 · Score: 0

I actually took a class at university by one of the archeologists at the head of supporting this thing, and it makes sense. America, and the world at large, have a bad habit of ignoring historical sites until they're too far gone to be fully recovered. If we do a better job a protecting these things, then future archeologists won't have to struggle to find them and piece together the story from them.