Slashdot Mirror


Who Owns the Moon? A Space Lawyer Answers (theconversation.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: While the legal status of the Moon as a "global commons" accessible to all countries on peaceful missions did not meet any substantial resistance or challenge, the Outer Space Treaty left further details unsettled. Contrary to the very optimistic assumptions made at the time, so far humankind has not returned to the moon since 1972, making lunar land rights largely theoretical.

That is, until a few years ago when several new plans were hatched to go back to the moon. In addition at least two U.S. companies, Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries, which have serious financial backing, have started targeting asteroids for the purpose of mining their mineral resources. Geek note: Under the aforementioned Outer Space Treaty, the moon and other celestial bodies such as asteroids, legally speaking, belong in the same basket. None of them can become the "territory" of one sovereign state or another.

The very fundamental prohibition under the Outer Space Treaty to acquire new state territory, by planting a flag or by any other means, failed to address the commercial exploitation of natural resources on the moon and other celestial bodies. This is a major debate currently raging in the international community, with no unequivocally accepted solution in sight yet. Roughly, there are two general interpretations possible. Countries such as the United States and Luxembourg (as the gateway to the European Union) agree that the moon and asteroids are "global commons," which means that each country allows its private entrepreneurs, as long as duly licensed and in compliance with other relevant rules of space law, to go out there and extract what they can, to try and make money with it. [...] On the other hand, countries such as Russia and somewhat less explicitly Brazil and Belgium hold that the moon and asteroids belong to humanity as a whole.

208 comments

  1. I do by nnet · · Score: 1

    I own it.

    1. Re:I do by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I own it.

      Do you rent it out for parties?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:I do by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The property taxes must be out of this world!

    3. Re:I do by gnick · · Score: 2

      He can't say he wasn't warned that she's a harsh mistress.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:I do by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      Would you be interested in selling it? I think it would look good next to the bridge I just bought in New York City.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    5. Re:I do by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "I own it."

      Obviously it's the cheesecake factory owning it.

    6. Re:I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you be interested in selling it? I think it would look good next to the bridge I just bought in New York City.

      Yes, it does.

    7. Re:I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly it is owned by whomever Delos D. Harriman sold it to. For reference, see The Man Who Sold the Moon (published 1950). Unless that guy sold it again...

    8. Re:I do by saloomy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Frankly, I dont see how anyone can claim to own it (government or otherwise) which hasn't claimed it. Governments get their power through the citizenry they govern, not through some mystical power bestowed on them. I don't see how Brazil or Belgium have the right what other people do with things that are not Brazil's or Belgium's? The moon certainly isn't, nor are far off asteroids. If you want something, get there and claim it. If someone invades, and wants it for themselves, then you either have to have the means to defend it (which, lets be honest; if you are mining on the moon, you probably have the means to), or establish treaties with those who do.

      The moon is no different than an island, its just the ocean that has changed. In the old days, when new islands were found, they were ruled by the people who found them (think of Hawaii). If you didn't have the means to defend yourselves against someone else who wanted it, you lost that right (again, think of Hawaii).

      I will have a party on the moon, best of luck stopping me.

    9. Re:I do by cshark · · Score: 1

      No, the moon is mine, titled to me by my great gran-pappy, and I'll go to space war with anyone who leaves a slashdot comment to the contrary.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    10. Re: I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh noooo.... So All my non terrestial deeds are worthless? Who knew?

    11. Re:I do by blindax · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there

    12. Re:I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The clangers do.

    13. Re:I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah theres no atmosphere.

    14. Re: I do by supremebob · · Score: 1

      They are until Trump gets "Space Force" up and running to enforce those laws, anyway.

      Perhaps this is how we can finally convince the US government to send a manned mission to Mars. Get China or Russia to send an unmanned mission there first that plants a flag on the planet, and then have their government release a statement saying that they "own" the planet now.

      The outrage generated from Fox News and the other "America First" conservative outlets might actually be enough to get a NASA or SpaceX mars mission funding bill passed. The footage of them taking down the Chinese or Russian flag and putting up a bigger US flag in it's place would be pretty epic. 'Merica!

    15. Re: I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cute, you think your country has a chance to beat China in a space race. The US was a 20th century superpower that failed because they forgot to educate their population.

    16. Re: I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >_ Get China or Russia to send an unmanned mission there first that plants a flag on the planet, and then have their government release a statement saying that they "own" the planet now.

      That's why we make treaties to ensure space exploration can occur in a balanced and neutral manner. The idea is not preventing exploration, but instead preventing wars caused by greed.

      >_ The footage of them taking down the Chinese or Russian flag and putting up a bigger US flag in it's place would be pretty epic. 'Merica!

      I'd rather believe it's not impossible to be both a patriot and a reasonable person. That phrase is not reasonable at all. That's how you lose friends -- even among compatriots, me thinks. While you can, I suggest you mend your ways. Just advice, not a threat at all.

    17. Re:I do by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Countries regularly refuse to acknowledge someone's ownership of something, even if it is obvious. For example, many countries don't acknowledge Taiwan as a country separate from China, at least not officially. It's just politics.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    18. Re:I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, I dont see how anyone can claim to own it (government or otherwise) which hasn't claimed it. Governments get their power through the citizenry they govern, not through some mystical power bestowed on them. I don't see how Brazil or Belgium have the right what other people do with things that are not Brazil's or Belgium's?

      They are not saying anything like what you're implying. Brazil is a large country in every sense - territorially, demographically and economically - several times bigger than Russia. It has a right to propose anything it wants.

    19. Re: I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a very American view of governing. Most governments in history did not govern through the consent of the governed, it's mostly rule by might.

    20. Re: I do by saloomy · · Score: 1

      Which is why Taiwan buys armaments from the US and has treaties for its protection. If they can't protect themselves from Chinese intent of ownership, they are pretty much screwed. Alliances, treaties, and self defense are the solution there. Just like a moon base.

    21. Re:I do by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      sounds a lot like the speech of that indian (its native american now isnt it) dude who couldnt understand how anyone could *claim to own the earth* ... so they ran him over with smallpox and booze and claimed it ... if air power is the current apex then space power (yea i see words like killer robots and space lawyer here lately, so why not) is the next step, whoever claims the moon and gets dominance "extra-"atmosphere is bob-your-uncle ... who's gonna launch an offensive from the floor if the sky is full of stuff that can see you when you just exit your front door ? in reality as always and i dont think things have changed much since Julius Caesar looking at the panem et circenses all around he who claims it and can hold it will be the owner ... i doubt lawyers, even SPACE lawyers will change that, because he who claimed it will re-write spacelaw (space lawyer lol)

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. goatse is king of the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rip

  3. Finishing the summary.... by apoc.famine · · Score: 5, Informative

    The two possible interpretations are that they are global commons and countries can license operators to exploit them, or they belong to humanity as a whole, and we can only exploit them together.

    Both have analogies back on earth, and treaties that cover these mechanisms.

    Would be nice if /. had editors. They might have been able to add this information so the summary didn't just end on an incomplete thought.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    1. Re:Finishing the summary.... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Until someone causes global warming on the moon.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    2. Re:Finishing the summary.... by apoc.famine · · Score: 2

      You do realize that if they could do that to a significant extent, it would make the moon habitable, right? I think a lot of people would be 100% for that.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    3. Re:Finishing the summary.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The day side of the moon is already 260F, but it falls to -280F at night. It's a little more complicated than simply warming it up.

    4. Re:Finishing the summary.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The two possible interpretations are that they are global commons and countries can license operators to exploit them,

      License with whom? There is no global licensing authority.

      or they belong to humanity as a whole, and we can only exploit them together.

      And countries on this globe are so well known for cooperation, aren't they? Some are known for stirring up sh!t all over the planet to further their own ends. (Not to name names, but their initials are U.S.A. Figuring out who that is is left to the reader.)

      The airy-fairy "the moon belongs to everyone" sounds all well and good, but the same reasoning should be just as applicable to the Earth and you know that that will never happen. The same thing will happen with the moon: it "belongs to everyone" until somebody puts down roots of some sort and then it'll become "get off my land!", same as has always happened on this planet.

    5. Re:Finishing the summary.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny how the countries that want the Moon to be 'for humanity' have no ability to land people there

    6. Re:Finishing the summary.... by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a conspiracy from the Chinese.

    7. Re:Finishing the summary.... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 0

      You're severely underestimating how hostile the moon is to life as we know it. Even the dust will fuck you up.

    8. Re:Finishing the summary.... by Spazmania · · Score: 2

      Generally speaking, if you gain continuous control of a previously unclaimed location, that location belongs to you. Planting a flag is not sufficient. Planting a person is, but only for the area over which that person is capable of exerting control.

      Treaty or no treaty, the parts of the moon will go the same way.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    9. Re:Finishing the summary.... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      What the Space Treaty was designed to prevent was the annexation of territory in space by Earthly countries. It has nothing against private developers using resources there and establishing communities of their own, so long as such governments are 'local'.

    10. Re: Finishing the summary.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moon dust would be a great drug name.

    11. Re:Finishing the summary.... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      License with whom? There is no global licensing authority.

      I would assume with the appropriate government entity that signed the treaty.

    12. Re:Finishing the summary.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A more sensible position is: who cares? For our ability to even get there to exploit resources, there is so much available moon and asteroid that it doesn't even matter. There aren't even any environmental concerns on the moon. So for now (and probably the next several hundred years) just let everyone do anything except stake permanent claim to any geography other than the immediate area around any operational equipment or artifacts of internationally recognized historical importance.

    13. Re:Finishing the summary.... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Seems to me the correct answer is that they're a "free for all" as far as resource collection goes. If you're able to get there, mine the resources, and bring them back to Earth -- they're your resources to resell.

      They "belong to humanity as a whole", to the extent that any or all of us are able to get there. The trip is still quite risky, costly and technically difficult to make -- so whoever invests all of that towards going there deserves to be able to profit from it on our planet, if they can.

    14. Re: Finishing the summary.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to google ESA. And also try not to make generalisations based on the few examples given.

    15. Re:Finishing the summary.... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I think you mean Mars... it takes an atmosphere to cause global warming, and that's one thing the moon doesn't have. At all. Nada. It doesn't have the gravity to sustain one, it all floats off into space.

    16. Re: Finishing the summary.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have not seen the mighty ESA space fleet

    17. Re: Finishing the summary.... by Whibla · · Score: 1

      It was, but the drug was aimed at children...

      Ah, the sour sweet tingling pop of popping candy exploding in your mouth. If my watering mouth is anything to go by it seems just like yesterday. Who knew 40 years would pass so quickly?

    18. Re:Finishing the summary.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No chance of that happening. The moon's gravity is too low to hold an atmosphere. Any gases you added would be unlikely to be a breathable mixture and they would quickly float away anyway.

      Somewhere like Mars, maybe. Again it'll depend what you're dumping into the atmosphere though. Emissions from industrial processes on Earth aren't exactly clean.

    19. Re:Finishing the summary.... by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      No. You've missed the point entirely. If someone could cause global warming on the moon, they would need to give it an atmosphere. That would make it far more habitable than it is now.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    20. Re:Finishing the summary.... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Giving the moon an atmosphere (assuming it could hold onto it) would help a lot with that problem too.

    21. Re:Finishing the summary.... by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Define quickly.

      100,000 years?

      10,000 years?

      1000 year?

      even 100 years, provided it could be done cheaply enough

      So quickly float away means nothing if the quickly is only relative to cosmological time and not human time

  4. And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This illustrates the problem with the very concept of 'ownership'. This is a purely human invented concept and really doesn't have any true, logical definition. It is simply a way that one person gains power over other people. The whole capitalist system, which is based on the concept of ownership of resources, is completely unnatural and in reality the earth and everything on it should belong to all people equally.

    1. Re:And here you go. by TigerPlish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a purely human invented concept and really doesn't have any true, logical definition.

      Really?

      Find a big nasty dog that's chewing on a steak. Try to take that steak away from the dog.

      Still think it's a purely human concept?

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    2. Re:And here you go. by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You time is better spent arguing with a rock. Anybody who still buys into socialism at this point in history is just unreachable by reason.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically the dog is renting it. No ownership involved. I can shoot it in the head and take it as well.

    4. Re:And here you go. by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      And anyone who doesn't is unreachable by both reality and morality.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    5. Re:And here you go. by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Now take that big, nasty dog and try and eat your own steak in front of it, and see how well it respects your concept of ownership. Securing and taking resources by force is neither a human invention nor ownership.

    6. Re:And here you go. by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

      Now take that big, nasty dog and try and eat your own steak in front of it, and see how well it respects your concept of ownership. Securing and taking resources by force is neither a human invention nor ownership.

      I'll give him the scraps off the table, like Our Dear Leadership and Commerce does, and the big dog STFUs and contentedly chews away.*

      Like we do. Right?

      * works every time with my friend's two pits. They're sweethearts, tho. Kill you with slobber, they will.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    7. Re:And here you go. by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And there is a perfect example...just ignorant of history and proud. Own your megadeaths, then talk about morality.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, the dog will later use the steak to layout his territory while also using the energy extracted from the steak. Dogs have land disputes that will erupt into brief wars when another dog lays claim to an already claimed property. This also applies to packs of wolves, lions, most pack animals.

      Also, your going to war with the dog by performing a preemptive strike is just showing you know the dog will defend its property.

      Of course, if you think the dog is truly just renting the steak you won't mind eating it when he's totally finished with it.

    9. Re:And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everyone is unreachable?

      well if that is the case i would rather live in the system where people are fat and free to exchange goods and services in a system that has lifted more people out of poverty than socialism.

    10. Re:And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Own your megadeaths, then talk about morality"

      WTF?? There's plenty of genocide to go around and the True Believers in will have a lot to answer for if their magical superfairies do in fact exist.

    11. Re:And here you go. by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that anyone who isn't a socialist is not moral? Do you really want to say that? And be careful using the word "reality"; it's not the same as truth.

      Let's just say you haven't thought everything through yet. Your philosophy leaves a bit to be desired.

    12. Re:And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever seen a puppy take an older dog's favorite toy and the older dog tear it away to keep for themselves? Ever seen a placid dog go berserk the moment it thought you were about to open the gate to its yard? Ownership is the idea that something is mine regardless of whether I'm there or using it, and that there will be consequences (from myself or others) if you are found to be in violation of that concept. Some animals most certainly understand it. They just don't get the concept of widely agreed ownership of a lot of things that almost nobody ever challenges. That part is the very human part.

    13. Re:And here you go. by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are actual counts in the 20th century. It's no contest. Marxists are covered in blood, head to toe.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [ownership] is a purely human invented concept

      Absolutely untrue. Ask any territorial animal. Ask a seedling that's growing right next to a slightly shorter seedling. They'll all tell you "I own this place."

      It is simply a way that one person gains power over other people.

      It is how anything that uses resources asserts (or describes?) its power over competitors.

      The whole capitalist system, which is based on the concept of ownership of resources, is completely unnatural

      No, it's deeply natural and that's why some people don't like it. Some people think that idealizing nature is ultimate anti-humanist, since nature doesn't value the same things that people claim to value. Idealizing Jehova or Quetzalcoatl would be no less perverse.

      So they worship humanity, since it's the BEST THING (warning: the judge is biased!!) that has ever existed in the known universe.

    15. Re:And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a Rock....
      (or a Cat if you're well-read).

      CAP === 'tripod'

    16. Re:And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You might want to tell that to the Nordic countries. They've been socialist for a while now and are doing better than most of the rest of the world on almost every front.

      I'd also like to point out that while many Americans regard socialism as a dirty word, the USA is technically socialist. The education system, medicare, old age pension, etc are all socialist constructs.

    17. Re:And here you go. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This mental dropping was modded to "5: insightful"? Anyone who doesn't recognize that most of the developed world -- including the United States -- has elements of socialism is someone who doesn't know history, economics, politics, and may be unreachable by reason.

      Are there now brigades on Slashdot hell bent on voting up people promoting a certain message, regardless of how poorly it's made?

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    18. Re:And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there now brigades on Slashdot hell bent on voting up people promoting a certain message, regardless of how poorly it's made?

      Yes, but in the direction you agree. Unfortunately for you, they blew all their modpoints on attacking the US and Trump the last couple days. So now we get to hear opinions without the socialist tactic of bandwagonning.

    19. Re:And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's American.. you can't blame him. lol

    20. Re:And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's why our flag is red.

    21. Re:And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to you (not really) but there are lots of countries with social systems for health, education, welfare, etc. and they are doing just fine. You can take your american "fuck you, I got mine" attitude and eat a dick.

    22. Re: And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.
      The concept of land ownership is simple. This place here is mine, which means I'm doing shit with it, so don't fuck around without my permission.

    23. Re: And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All of the are capitalistic, they just have a large social safety net. Norway is probably the most "socialist", since certain natural resources are nationalized, but that only means that the resources extraction is heavily taxed.

      None of the Scandinavian countries is socialist by a long shot. You are confusing social programs with socialism. They are as related as Scientology is to science.

    24. Re: And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only socialist element in current U.S. socioeconomic system is corruption. Socialism != Social Welfare

    25. Re:And here you go. by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Socialized Medicine is beloved by the citizens of every country that has tried it, and cheaper than Capitalist Medicine while also giving better medical results. Possibly you mean Communism? It's not the same thing.

    26. Re:And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is the better quality of life? Death or enslavement?

    27. Re:And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ownership can be transferred. Either willingly or by force.

    28. Re: And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are funny. You're redefining concepts to fit your own thoughts.

    29. Re: And here you go. by Evtim · · Score: 1

      If you are twenty and you are not a communist you have no heart.
      If you are forty and still a communist you've got no brain.

      Don't let compassion fol you. In extreme it is just as dangerous as no havung it at all...

    30. Re: And here you go. by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Stupid swipe keyboard....sorry!

    31. Re:And here you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ownership of LAND - which is what he meant by resources - is completely different from the ownership of personal things (e.g. clothes/tools/weapons etc.).

      The reason for this, is that FARMING for food - (we were apparently farming for ingredients to make beer LONG before the neolithic era, which is when this matters) - was an ARTIFICIAL creation of humanity, made ~12000 years ago. (The neolithic era is all about the start of farming and agri- (or aqua- in some places) culture.)

      Before humanity became farmers, the relationship hunter-gatherers had with the land was COMPLETELY THE OPPOSITE (which we know from surviving hunter-gatherers) to that which we have inherited today. In other words, as a hunter-gatherer, you DID NOT OWN LAND OR TERRITORY - the LAND OWNED YOU - you were OF the land itself, even though it often had a similar effect for conflict and warfare.

      As such, the actual personal ownership of land and resources, is a very recent concept for humanity itself.

      Yes, the ownership of land for growing food is what enabled capitalism. Unfortunately, this led to a rich minority - that we still struggle with today - declaring that their ownership of such land and resources INHERENTLY means that they should have economic power over the rest of humanity, and if they don't like it - then they should essentially just die and get it over with. Reacting against this, is what government was invented for - to regulate such economic relationships that then allowed cities to exist. There is a good reason why the extremist capitalists are either the rich, or rural that don't live in cities that require such regulation to exist.

      Since 80% of the worlds population now lives in cities, all extremist capitalist views are essentially a death sentence (starvation) for humanity.

      ------------------

      So what does this mean for resources in space? It means humanity needs to make a decision about ownership and regulation.

    32. Re: And here you go. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You might want to check the dictionary before commenting, Einstein.

  5. The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    If the above statement isn't currently true in the legal sense, then it should be made true. No one individual, legal entity, group of people, company, corporation, conglomerate, or government should ever 'own' Earth's Moon. The reasons for this should not require explanation.

    The above, having been said, and for the sake of argument accepted as fact: I'm perfectly okay with structures on the Moon, and the ground underneath them, being owned by whoever is responsible for them. Similar to how the Embassy of any given country, within the borders of another country, is considered to be part of the Embassys' home country. There's one exception I'd like to make to this, however: No military bases, of any country, on the Moon, again for obvious reasons.

    Make sense?

    1. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by nnet · · Score: 1

      No embassies either.

    2. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No?

    3. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The Moon belongs to EVERYONE

      One of the great song lyrics of all time:

      https://youtu.be/CQE8LVamYFk

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      should not require explanation

      again for obvious reasons

      You should spell it out.
      You won't get people like me on your side for listing your shoulds and oughts without any arguments offfered.
      For obvious reasons, of course.

    5. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reasons for this should not require explanation.

      Why? What argument can you make to convince someone who does not already agree with you?

      What makes the moon, or parcels of it, fundamentally different from the earth, and ideas, and creative works, and even personal identities, in regard to ownership? What makes ownership of those things acceptable and not the moon in such obvious fashion that no one is allowed to hear the justification?

    6. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

      Enforced by whom? The only people with the actual ability to stop people from doing what you're worried about are the very people you're worried will secretly do those things.

      In practical terms, whoever proclaims ownership of the moon (or part of it) and defends the claim (possibly involving violence) owns the moon (or the part the claimed to own). Since there is no value in making a claim or way to defend a claim at the moment, nobody owns the moon.

    7. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by mrbester · · Score: 2

      > Similar to how the Embassy of any given country, within the borders of another country, is considered to be part of the Embassys' home country.

      Except it isn't and never has been.

      Vienna Convention: "Article 22. The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolable and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission."

      This is erroneously taken to mean that an embassy is foreign soil.

      Most of the time the guest country doesn't even own the embassy building and just leases it (see previous US embassy in UK, which was owned by the Duke of Westminster).

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    8. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      But it's treated as such. Close enough.

    9. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Agreed to by all countries, and enforced by all countries. Can't be any other way. Any country violates the agreement, they get jumped on by everyone else.

    10. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll wait a long time. This guy is one of Slashdot's resident idiots.

    11. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      I'm ok with a limited number of structures on the moon but do not feel there should be any mining of the moon.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    12. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      A clear lesson from history is "If you can defend your claim, it's yours." If you foolishly think a bunch of laws trump guns you are clearly ignorant of the current state of Palestine.

    13. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If land on the moon turns out to be of value, then ownership will be settled as it always has - whoever claims it first and then via war. Whatever the lawyers think is just mental masturbation.

    14. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Agreed to by all countries, and enforced by all countries. Can't be any other way. Any country violates the agreement, they get jumped on by everyone else.

      So, you're in favour of starting WW3 if, say, China lays claim to the Sea of Tranquility by establishing a permanent base there?

      Bit of an overreaction, I am thinking....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      No military bases, of any country, on the Moon, again for obvious reasons.

      Ok, you volunteering to remove the secret Space Nazi base on the dark side of the moon? Anyone?

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    16. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      You clearly didn't bother to read or understand what I wrote, did you? They can have a base there all they want -- so long as it's not miliary, and so long as they don't claim to own the WHOLE MOON. That clear enough for you?

    17. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I don't exist to write entire volumes of 'explanations' of my opinions for AC's, go figure it out for yourself.

    18. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      LOL that just means you didn't agree with me and are butthurt. Meanwhile I get modded up regularly, and you do what, whinge and whine anonymously?

    19. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Mainly some ambitious country making the Moon a military installation to hold the rest of the Earth hostage from. Go read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.

    20. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      If we established a colony on the Moon the mining of it would be 100% necessary for building materials and other resources, and by the way why would it matter? It doesn't have an ecosphere to disrupt or destroy, it's got no atmosphere, and in fact there is research and industry that could be conducted much more safely on the Moon than on Earth. Also there is so I hear much Helium-3 on the Moon, and that might be useful for fusion reactor power generation (if we ever get the details of that figured out).

    21. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Think this through: the alternative is for, say, the U.S. to clandestinely start building a military installation on the Moon starting NOW, and when discovered lay claim to the entire Moon, forbidding all others to go there. Meanwhile we'd be starting World War 3 over it because everyone would protest. Replace 'U.S.' with any country and the result is the same. The Moon has to be for everyone or for no one at all. The strategic importance of it is literally astronomical. That's why.

    22. Re:The Moon belongs to EVERYONE by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      *poker face*
      Don't quit your day job.

  6. Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No human is going back to the moon or further for at least another century. It is a waste of time to argue this stuff. In the end, the ones who get their first and exploit it will own it. That is human history and future. Capitalism is going nowhere (despite the ravings of a lunatic fringe on the left).

    1. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No human is going back to the moon or further for at least another century.

      President Newt "Moonbase" Gingrich would have had a colony already started.
      And just wait until you see what the MAGA Space Force! will accomplish, under the Russian flag.

    2. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless these "it belongs to everyone" nutbags get their way. Let's say they do. Let's say your great grandkids go there and find some cool stuff. They bring it back and want to sell it. But, who the hell do they pay for the rights? Some nebulous "everyone"? Some ridiculous "rights clearing house"? It makes no sense for it to belong to everyone. There is a reason we are almost all for private space flight like SpaceX and others. But if there is no money to be made why go? "Because it was there" sounds good for some guy climbing Everest. But it isn't a reason to spend billions on a moon mission (for private industry).

  7. hyperbole by jm007 · · Score: 2

    "This is a major debate currently raging in the international community"

    I hear one guy even had to re-tape his coke-bottle glasses during one their debate-cum-riots

    1. Re:hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh daddy, sign me up for one of those cum riots

  8. We the people... by puddingebola · · Score: 1

    We the people of Sirius 9 own your pitiful rock satellite. Do not attempt to place a base there. You will be annihilated by a squadron of attack ships if you choose to do so. You have been warned.

    1. Re:We the people... by knarfling · · Score: 1

      Surely, you cannot be serious!! (And no, I will not stop calling you Shirley.) If you are really from Sirius 9, you are very confused about the ownership of OUR moon. In fact, I would have to say that you are Siriusly confused.

      --
      Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
  9. Like Armageddon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If one of these have diamonds, will it be there a war in space?

  10. Space Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IANASL, but this sounds silly.

  11. This is something I've never quite understood by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    about human civilization. The land and resources were here before us. We give it and everything it has to either whoever gets there first or whoever can con the most rubes out of it. I mean, when we used to give it to whoever had the biggest army I got that. But the current system is just nuts.

    What I'm saying is that everywhere should be like Alaska. As human beings we've all got a legitimate claim to the earth's resources. Aside from humanism (the idea that human beings have intrinsic worth) this is the other major moral justification for socialism.

    TL;DR, pay your taxes, Mr Mega-corporations.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This is something I've never quite understood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >moral justification for socialism.

      make everyone poor and starve so they can't rape mother earth with farms and enterprise. But at least we care about you when your starving!

      > moral justification for capitalism

      free individuals free to exchange goods and services and sell their labor freely. everyone is fat and the poor live like kings of old. More people taken out of poverty than any other system in human history.

      do you even morals?

    2. Re:This is something I've never quite understood by mysidia · · Score: 1


      What I'm saying is that everywhere should be like Alaska. As human beings we've all got a legitimate claim to the earth's resources.

      Actually no.... we have a legitimate claim to resources we are able to take and do take from the earth and hold without interfering with what anybody else is already doing.

      I get no claim to something someone else managed to extract from the earth; unless they had to intrude upon a right of mine to get it.

      In the case of Sovereign states.... it was easy: The government was physically present, so they could claim all the land for their citizens --- It's a little bit sketchy regarding HOW the process got started of private citizens getting to own land; I think it started with governments Deeding rights to large plots of land to business people who then subdivided and Deeded off rights to pieces of the land to individuals who purchased it to further develop, but before any claims could be solidified --- people had to be there REGULARLY; the mere act of going somewhere and planting a flag doesn't provide a durable claim of rights.

    3. Re:This is something I've never quite understood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As human beings we've all got a legitimate claim to the earth's resources.

      Mind if me and my buddies borrow your wife for a bit? If you don't have one, you'll do fine for half of em.

    4. Re:This is something I've never quite understood by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I've got news for you, the standard is still who has the most power. It has nothing to do with who was there first. It has to do with who put them there, and what they will do to keep them there. See: the West Bank, and the Gaza strip. Or anywhere actually...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re: This is something I've never quite understood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >thinks like an american public school education

      enjoy your mcjob and mclife tweeny!

  12. I am a citizen of the Moon by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    And I demand that Trump deport me there.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:I am a citizen of the Moon by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Ok, but you have to provide your own deceleration. We can only afford the acceleration.

    2. Re:I am a citizen of the Moon by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Most expensive viking funeral ever.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  13. Boots on the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I have more, and bigger, guns than you do; thus it's mine.

    Until the next guy with even more and even bigger guns than me comes along.

    (pssttt, that's what Twitler and Putin have in mind for the U.S. Game of Thrones style. Pass it along.)

    1. Re:Boots on the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yours is the only accurate comment.

      All the rest of the comments are proof that stupidity is in abundant supply.

  14. D, D, Harriman, of course by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    I thought everybody knew this.

  15. transference by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    There is an American flag on the Moon, so I assume Vladimir Putin believes it now belongs to him.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:transference by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Bleached to white decades ago, so French flag.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:transference by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Bleached to white decades ago

      Fake news. These colors don't run. Except from Putin.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:transference by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Get a new obsession. Russia is economically the size of New York City. Not even a world player. A resource export economy, like Nigeria. Russia exports energy and prostitutes. Price taker.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:transference by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Get a new obsession. Russia is economically the size of New York City. Not even a world player.

      Japan wasn't a world player in 1935.

      Russia exports energy and prostitutes.

      That's not a very nice way to talk about the First Lady.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re: transference by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That's not a very nice way to talk about the First Lady.

      I know that some Americans such as yourself are completely ignorant about the rest of the world, but there are actually more countries than just America and Russia. One would think that you would at least recognise a country you bombed a couple decades ago.

    6. Re: transference by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      know that some Americans such as yourself are completely ignorant about the rest of the world, but there are actually more countries than just America and Russia

      Russia has it's eye on Slovenia. It was a Soviet client state once, and it will be again if Putin has his way.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re: transference by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It was a Soviet client state once

      It's adorable when you pretend to know stuff, but back in the real world Slovenia had been a part of the Austrian empire and then became a province of Yugoslavia ... several years before "Teh Soviets" even existed.

      But all of those places are over there around that "Europe" are, though, so like they're all the same anyway, right?

    8. Re: transference by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      and then became a province of Yugoslavia

      What do you think Yugoslavia was? I've lived and worked in Belgrade and own property there and in Montenegro. I am well aware of the former Soviet influence in Yugoslavia and Putin's current attempts to exert control there.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re: transference by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      What do you think Yugoslavia was?

      A sovereign state with a neural position on the split between the iron curtain and the western bloc, which was friendly with both the USA and the USSR. During the height of the cold war they managed to sell America the infamous Yugo, and had military personnel posted in the USA as part of cultural/military exchange programs.

      If that's your definition of "Soviet client state" you're even more delusional than I previously thought.

      I've lived and worked in Belgrade and own property there and in Montenegro.

      This is a bit like the old "I have a black friend" routine. Regardless of whether or not it's true, it clearly means nothing in your case.

    10. Re: transference by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      A sovereign state with a neural position on the split between the iron curtain and the western bloc

      You're silly. It was nothing of the sort.

      During the height of the cold war they managed to sell America the infamous Yugo,

      The Cold War ran from 1947 to 1991. The Yugo, marketed with the help of Armand Hammer, did not start selling in the US until 1984. If you believe that was the "height" of the Cold War, then nothing you say in this discussion can be taken seriously.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re: transference by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You're silly. It was nothing of the sort.

      You might want to pick up a history book now and then instead of pretending to be a property owner.

      The Cold War ran from 1947 to 1991. The Yugo, marketed with the help of Armand Hammer, did not start selling in the US until 1984. If you believe that was the "height" of the Cold War, then nothing you say in this discussion can be taken seriously.

      I see. So your claim is that Melania Trump is a "Russian export" because she was born in the nation of Yugoslavia which had a great relationship with the USA but didn't sell it the Yugo until 1984.

      Strong argument there. Can't argue with your logic.

  16. proper term is Astrolawyer by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    The moon belongs to America, and eagerly awaits our Astromen.

    By 1964, experts say man will have established twelve colonies on the moon.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:proper term is Astrolawyer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      The moon belongs to America,

      Didn't you hear? The Americans gave up the moon after waving the white flag of surrender.

    2. Re: proper term is Astrolawyer by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Well that settles it then. The moon belongs to France.

    3. Re: proper term is Astrolawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That swastika shaped base on the dark side sure doesnt look French. But keep hating on the inventors of modern liberte, your cuntry is sooo much better.

    4. Re: proper term is Astrolawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I couldn't hear you over the surrendering French sounds.

    5. Re: proper term is Astrolawyer by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      *French national anthem

  17. Possession is 9/10 of the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The outer space treaty isn't going to mean squat when companies/countries start claiming chunks of space real-estate. Sure everyone who isn't trying to claim their own piece of planet/asteroid is going to throw a fit but it's not likely to amount to much. Just look at the claiming of the ocean floor, Pre WWII I think it was "internationally agreed" that countries only owned a dozen or so miles off of their coasts. Today most countries claim hundreds of miles and as ocean floor mining becomes more common that is likely to increase.

    1. Re:Possession is 9/10 of the law by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The outer space treaty isn't going to mean squat when companies/countries start claiming chunks of space real-estate. Sure everyone who isn't trying to claim their own piece of planet/asteroid is going to throw a fit but it's not likely to amount to much. Just look at the claiming of the ocean floor, Pre WWII I think it was "internationally agreed" that countries only owned a dozen or so miles off of their coasts. Today most countries claim hundreds of miles and as ocean floor mining becomes more common that is likely to increase.

      I think you still need a template of some kind. Assume SpaceCo wants to land on the moon and build a mining facility.

      Is it a homesteading arrangement, they build a facility according to a certain spec and they get a 1km radius, or do they buy/lease the land, contributing to some international fund?

      You could probably avoid land rights entirely at first since it will be such a struggle to get up there, but it's a good idea to know what kind of eventual system you're working towards.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Possession is 9/10 of the law by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The people paying for the rockets and mining equipment want property deeds, so that will be provided. So long as they limit the claim size the rest of the world will do nothing to stop China from setting up mining colonies on the moon. Once the first colony is started all the other world powers will do the same so they don't get left out.

  18. There is no law on the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are interpreting laws and treaties to figure this out, then you have already lost. You don't own the moon.

    If you are interpreting other powerful parties' intents and capabilities, and also trying to figure out how much it's worth to you, then you're at least on track to possibly own the moon.

    Ownership of the moon isn't something to be discovered; it's something to be decided. It's there for the taking, and treaties are just ink on a page.

  19. Whoever can and will defend it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Might makes right, no matter what starry-eyed people say.

    1. Re:Whoever can and will defend it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That about sums it up.

  20. It should be simple by Targon · · Score: 1

    Who owns any planet/moon/asteroid or whatever should be answered by, "no one", but at the same time, any probe, colonization platform, or spacecraft should be owned by whoever put it there. If a miner is on an asteroid and is working to mine resources, that miner is what should be protected, and certain rights about space around said miner should be "claimed". Any claim should have an expiration period to make sure things are not claimed and then abandoned, with an extension based on "good faith" claims that may be needed if replacement equipment is needed(a defunct piece of equipment might shut down operations, and it might take years to get a replacement piece of equipment into place, even if launched immediately).

    Common sense stuff in my opinion, but common sense is not terribly common these days.

  21. Law of the Jungle valid in Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever has the ability to defend their presence on the Moon from any military intervention, is the one who owns it.
    That's pretty much it. Opinions are something i can wipe my ass with, so are beliefs, so are convictions, because none of this feeble abstract thought shit can change the fact that if you can't get past my military might then you can't do shit and don't own shit.
    Ergo this whole question is pointless and worthless philosophizing which doesn't affect reality, what affects reality is physical manifestation and presence.

  22. Moon Nuclear Test. To nuke there gratis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kim Jong-un will need a new experiment: to test his capability to superdetonate nukes on Moon.

    What is his objective?

    To detonate his nuclear warheads on the Moon under the NorKor flag.

    He wanted numbers as many gigatons and becoming red the Moon for the fulfillment of his prophecies.

  23. Considering mankinds history, we need to.... by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

    PLACE A SPACE-MISSILE BATTERY ON THE MOON. Stick some nukes in it for fun... cuz America.

    Now you can deny anybody access to space until you run outta missiles. I guarantee this is going to happen eventually. Might as well get started today.

    Or I guess we can wait for China to show us how it's done. Then once it's been used a few times, the huge amounts of way-to-small-to-track (WTSTT) space garbage will deny everybody access, and we can all just fester and die on our doomed planet.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  24. Come evict me then. by coolmoe2 · · Score: 1

    If im living on the moon and some entity has a problem with it fine. Come serve me papers telling me when I have to show up for court. Otherwise STFU

  25. Stupid humans........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How very human to think we "own" anything in space......what a bunch of idiots......

  26. The Nazis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  27. Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I own it. Commons is just another way of saying communism.

    If anyone says I don't own it, I'll start ranting about guns until they get bored.

    --
    c6gunner

  28. The Moon is for Virgin Mary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rev 12.1: And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

    And the Earth is for Jesuchrist.

  29. Grab it first and it's yours? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

    Looks like the kind of comment a big oil company's legal team would make when questioned about corrupt or otherwise shady business dealings.

    we have a legitimate claim to resources we are able to take and do take from the earth and hold without interfering with what anybody else is already doing.

    "Legitimate" my ass: suppose there would exist some material called unobtainium, that's both so rare & essential to (human) life, that it would be unethical if any stash found wasn't -somewhat- evenly distributed over a large # of people. And suppose you happened to stumble upon a heap of this unobtainium. You think it should be yours (including the option to deny others having some of this life-essential material), for the simple reason you happened to dig it up first?

    Country has oil field -> corrupt government sells contents to big oil company -> oil company sucks the field dry & and is now legitimate owner of that extracted oil? (according to your logic). Same thing.

    If early in life, I had been offered an equal share of this planet's fertile land, mineral resources, unpolluted waters & air, no more, no less, I'd have taken that offer and my life would have been very different today. Specifically: with a more direct relation between [work put in] and [fruits of labour enjoyed].

    The "boots on the ground, and my guns are bigger than yours" comment made elsewhere in this thread is very much accurate. That's how it's been historically. Later a whole legal framework was crafted to help protect such interests. And history + practicalities tend to form a massive whole that's damn near impossible to fight. So most people (as they grow up) accept that status quo and get on with their life. But FAIR? Hell no!

    We are all just temporary stewards of pieces from this blue marble in space. Anything beyond that is history & legal constructs foisted upon us by our ancestors.

    1. Re:Grab it first and it's yours? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extracting resources from Earth is not free - it requires resources and labor. Sorry, but you can't claim anything from anyone as a share, that belongs to you... because nothing belongs to you where you have not invested. You just can't claim anything from anyone, because it is a daylight robbery, but the best you can do is denying extraction to someone else and use shovel and pickaxe and start digging by yourself. The idea about equal share is complete nonsense - if you were offered equal share in beginning of your life, you better would have been prepared to born in Africa with lesser share of wealth and opportunities and genetical mutations, than your parents and society gave you...

      The main challenge is not accepting status quo, but accepting quality of life living without some resources, that are gained by any means without regards to future and anyone else - try and walk in the park for a change and not use car or any items, that are made from oil(plastic) ;)

      Oh, and your judgemental comment has no mentions of animals - they live on this planet longer than your ancestors. They don't have any rights - granted by humans.

      Planet Earth is not permanent, too.

    2. Re: Grab it first and it's yours? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You think it should be yours (including the option to deny others having some of this life-essential material), for the simple reason you happened to dig it up first?

      Yes.

      Of course, what I think doesn't matter if I don't have the power to keep it for myself, just like what you think doesn't matter unless you have the power to take it from me. So your entire thought exercise is just mental masturbation; in the real world it all comes down to the ability to project force.

  30. We all know Canada owns it by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    They're just too polite to admit it in public

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  31. mute point by renegade600 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    US owns it since they have had a base up there for years. Why do you think they are bypassing the moon and plan on going to mars now? Remember a few years ago when an explosion was reported on the the moon and they try to claim it was a meteor. Well, it was really one of the many large oxygen containers they were using to support the base.

    1. Re:mute point by swillden · · Score: 1

      Like I'm going to believe anyone who doesn't know the difference between "mute" and "moot".

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:mute point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like I'm going to believe anyone who doesn't know the difference between "mute" and "moot".

      The moon is in space idiot! No one could hear the explosion. It was mute.

  32. Whoever wins the war for the moon by williambbertram · · Score: 2

    I think the real question is "Is owning the moon worth fighting a war over". Doubtless this is where any such claim would immediately lead.

    1. Re:Whoever wins the war for the moon by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If you build an automated factory on the moon building orbital solar power stations and catapulting them into earth orbit, then it's worth fighting over. For mining? No, the shipping costs are too high.

  33. Long-winded masturbatory lawyerdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Laws and treaties don't mean shit unless you have the power and will to enforce them.

    Say the USA breaks the space treaty... then what? Other countries will have to decide how they're going to retaliate. Will it be economic sanctions/embargoes/tariffs/travel bans or war? Or maybe just an angry letter? What are the potential ramifications of taking action and are they prepared to suffer the consequences?

    Might makes right. War crimes are for the losers. History is written by the victors.

  34. Earth doesn't own the Moon by rossdee · · Score: 1

    The Moon owns the Earth.

    The laws that matter are the laws of physics.

    as Mike said, "Luna has many rocks"
    and the high ground

    1. Re:Earth doesn't own the Moon by careysub · · Score: 1

      But how many electromagnetic coil equipped aeroshells does the Moon have to put the rocks in? EM launchers can't move rocks, and rocks by themselves can't stand high angle entry into the atmosphere.

      And how many electromagnetic launchers with power supplies does the Moon have that can withstand nuclear attack? Such a system could only do substantial damage on Earth with a very long, slow bombardment, lasting weeks or months. People on Earth will do something about that.

      There is at best only a 19-fold energy gain in launching a payload from the Moon. Given the extremely high cost of building the launcher, this is a paltry gain. Nuclear weapons rule.

      The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is just an entertaining story.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  35. wasn't real socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    reeeeeeeeeeeeee! drumpf

  36. Who owns it? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

    All the legal wrangling is meaningless. What this will actually come down to is who can get to the resource and defend their claim from anyone who challenges it. This is no different from the land rushes of past centuries. If you stake a claim and no one cares to or is able to dislodge you from it, it's yours, pure and simple.

    Let us suppose some enterprising soul manages to fly a vehicle to and establish a permanent habitation on an asteroid. That asteroid is effectively theirs at that point regardless of what any piece of paper may say. If someone or group of someones (say, a nation) disagrees with that person's habitation, they can wage war to evict them. That's how such matters have always been settled when competing claims can't be negotiated.

    Which brings up the interesting question of whether it's worthwhile for any nation, state, or even a private company would find it worthwhile to even try dislodging such a thing. It would be impractical for anyone to lay claim to even a small asteroid much less a large swath of the moon since it would be impossible to defend. At the same time, there's so much out there it's somewhat ridiculous to fight over it at this point.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    1. Re:Who owns it? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I disagree it would be "impossible to defend" an asteroid. Upon seeing a ship lauched on trajectory to intercept, one could start moving the asteroid. Weeks, months later the incoming rocket would miss by distances that are of interplanetary scale.

      orbital mechanics make "attacking" a moveable target a bitch.

    2. Re:Who owns it? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Moving any sizable asteroid would be far more difficult than changing the intercept course of an inbound ship. Mass is hard.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  37. Who owns it if extra terrestrials claim it? by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    Would the earth countries gang up and take the moon back? It might be a losing proposition for earthlings and the whole earth becomes a planet of slaves, if there are any humans left alive.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    1. Re:Who owns it if extra terrestrials claim it? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      You honestly think that if aliens claim the moon, who have advanced technology that allows for space travel, etc. that they are going to be defeated by a bunch of technology illiterate monkeys, aka humans??? Methinks you have been watching too much Independence Day.

      --
      Humans are some of the dumbest "intelligent" species in the Galaxy. Animals have lived for Billions of years without currency, yet humans are still too stupid to figure this shit out.

    2. Re:Who owns it if extra terrestrials claim it? by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      A little bit of sarcasm here. The earthlings would likely either be slaves or destroyed. Or, remember the Twilight Zone episode involving the very tall aliens that ended up raising humans for food. The must have had a pretty cheap energy source to be able fatten up people and transport them to some faraway planet.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    3. Re:Who owns it if extra terrestrials claim it? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      There is a 3rd choice. They wouldn't _need_ human slaves because they have far superior technology, so they would leave us alone.

      You'll find out in ~2030 which choice they make.

    4. Re:Who owns it if extra terrestrials claim it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh yes..The Kanamits came with their cookbook..To Serve Man. I'd love to have seen the pictures that accompanied the recipes.

    5. Re:Who owns it if extra terrestrials claim it? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I think they'd want Earth, we have a nice cozy blue planet in the habitable zone, even with a little extra CO2, "what plants crave".

      So they engineer a virus or some grey goo and kill all humans. Then, pop open a cold one on their new acquisition.

    6. Re:Who owns it if extra terrestrials claim it? by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      If we're going to use movies to determine this, the aliens have already defeated themselves. They have a fatal weakness to stuff like water and human colds.

  38. Pluto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows Taylor Swift owns Pluto, because of the gigantic heart of the face of it.

  39. This is all pretty silly by Ferretman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of *course* the Moon and everyplace will developed individually...some by corporations, some by alliances, some by new nation states as we expand out into the solar system. I expect a wild and wooly mix, and that's okay.

    This silliness that "everything is owned by the common group called Mankind" will last until about 10 minutes after the first mining ship arrives to bring back a load of gold or something.

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  40. counterpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moon belongs to America, and anxiously awaits the arrival of our astro-men. Will YOU be among them?

  41. Argue with the Canadians by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and the Germans. And the French. And the British. And the Scandinavians.

    And when you get done arguing (and losing the argument to) all those people then by all means, argue with a rock. I mean, we've got just as much evidence that you can argue with a rock as we do that socialism, when actually tried, doesn't work.

    Or did you mean fascists dictatorships who happen to borrow socialism for their rhetoric? I mean, if people actually acted on professed beliefs then the parts of the Bible and Koran that require charity would have wiped out poverty centuries ago and the whole "Thou Shall not Kill" would sorta put a damper on wars. I mean, Hitler was a Christian after all. Stalin made peace with the Church. I guess you've still got Mao, but then again China is anything but socialist. They can't even claim to be communist anymore....

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Argue with the Canadians by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Do we really need to discuss the reality of socialized medicine? That reality being that in every country where it exists it survives because people can visit other venues where pay for play medical systems exist.

      Britain has a system where individuals can buy insurance and use private healthcare if they can afford it.

      Canadians come to the U.S. to get care that the Canadian system denies them.

      Australians and Europeans travel to Asia to get the treatment unavailable to them in their own systems.

      The one thing in common in all these cases? Only the well off get care. Everyone else hopes they don't get too sick of the wrong health problems. Most times they suffer only declining quality of life as what would be relatively minor problems blossom into long term problems as they wait weeks and months to get care that happens in just a short time for U.S. citizens with decent insurance or rich people. Other times they're offered a get out of life card rather than a cure because it's too expensive or they're too old (no longer socially productive.)

      We've seen government run care in the U.S. and it's called the VA. If the scandal that is the VA doesn't wake you up to the reality of government run health care then you deserve what you get.

  42. GP trolling asside there is a problem by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    with ownership. The land was here before us. So where the resources. Why is it that whoever has the muscle and the bombs to claim it gets it? Are we really just a bunch of growing dogs ready to savage each other for a steak?

    I'd argue that all of humanity has a birthright to the planet's resources. This doesn't mean I'm a communist (I'm not, I'm a democratic socialist) but it means that when we allow somebody to lay claim to those resources and profit from them we also make them pay back (usually in the form of taxes). When it comes to things like oil, water, fertile land, etc then as a rule you really didn't build it (I'd be willing to argue on the soil if every anyone actually did large scale terraforming, but so far all I've seen are irrigation projects supported by oil byproducts).

    Basically, think Alaska. Everybody gets a cut because we're all born of the same land.

    Now, if somebody wants to say "I own this" go right ahead. So long as they pay their taxes I'm pretty indifferent. What I'm not so happy about is we've got the 1% laying claim to the entire world and demanding they be given everything while also shirking their responsibility to the society and civilization that made it possible. That's nothing new, mind you, but I've got the Internet, so I can see them doing it now.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: GP trolling asside there is a problem by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      People who make $400,000 a year are laying claim to the entire world?

      while also shirking their responsibility to the society and civilization that made it possible.

      The 1% who pay 40% of all income tax are shirking their responsibility?

  43. Just apply homesteading laws. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't want robots destroying these planets, we want humans establishing permanent colonies. Make human habitation a requirement.

  44. Might makes right. by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    As with all things, sadly.

  45. Not for those animals from Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The greys own the moon. They've been there maybe longer than homo sapiens has existed. The told those animals that visited to get down from there and don't come back. These animals kept coming back where they were clearly not welcome and were so dumb that it took 5 more visits for them to get the message. Maybe they were getting ready to spritz them with the spray bottle (or the equivalent deterrent for the human animals). Even cats get the message quicker.

  46. isn't possession 9/10ths (or 100% in this case) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of the law?

    If you can keep the land and defend it, it's yours.
    So, anyone that can reach the moon with a nuke can wipe out any colonies, unless said colonies have anti-ballistic defenses.

  47. You don't need to be a lawyer by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    The moon belongs to whomever has the will and military power to defend it.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re: You don't need to be a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the will, and since there are no adversaries the needed military power (= none) to defend it.

    2. Re:You don't need to be a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moon belongs to whomever has the will and military power to defend it.

      The military threat to the moon is 0.
      Anyone establishing a permanent presence there will have the military power to defend it from the plausible threats.

      Maybe the threat will be larger if someone establishes a military presence there or of someone manage to make it profitable.

  48. Ownership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I own that piece a dark matter way over yonder.

  49. Niether Stalin or Mao were Marxists by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they were fascists who borrowed Marx's books for rhetoric. At no time did they implement any of Marx's ideas. A man can claim to be something he's not, ya know. People can lie. Propaganda is a thing. Actions are what matter, and no part of the USSR or China are or ever were communist.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Niether Stalin or Mao were Marxists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed! No nation ever implemented a communist system as envisioned by Marx. Communism is all about equality, and having a dictator and elite ruling class is the opposite of equality. Communism could only work with a democratic form of government. Most people have no idea that communism is an economic system, not a form of government. Americans and the rest of the so-called 'free world' have been brainwashed and fed misinformation for many decades. Communism threatens the wealth of the greedy ones who will do anything to keep that wealth for themselves. Capitalism is nothing more than the Law of the Jungle..something that wild animals live by, not civilized beings.

    2. Re: Niether Stalin or Mao were Marxists by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Agreed! No nation ever implemented a national socialist system as envisioned by Naumann. Nazism is all about equality, and having a dictator and elite ruling class is the opposite of equality. Nazism could only work with a democratic form of government. Most people have no idea that nazism is an economic system, not a form of government. Americans and the rest of the so-called 'free world' have been brainwashed and fed misinformation for many decades. Nazism threatens the wealth of the greedy ones who will do anything to keep that wealth for themselves. Capitalism is nothing more than the Law of the Jungle..something that wild animals live by, not civilized beings.

    3. Re:Niether Stalin or Mao were Marxists by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Seriously, the No True Scotsman fallacy again? Come on, you're standing on top of a mountain of skulls and claiming there's nothing to see here.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  50. Stupidity from the legal system has no bounds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just as stupid as it sounds, private property rights have to be tackled soon or later, is really getting out of control... The next thing it will be who owns the clean water of the world, who owns the clean air of the earth or whatever, is just madness of dumb people whose small minds can't understand reality, they only keep thinking in ways to make some fraud or scam.

    And by the way, I know of some people that bought plots of land in the moon and others complete stars, so sadly it might have already owners.

  51. space arms race by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    Whoever has the biggest space army, owns it. Duh.

  52. Leave it to the Chinks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only the Chinks would think anyone could own the moon. Time to nuke their queer army back to the stone age.

  53. who built the moon ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the Moon is owned by those who installed it up there. The planets and moons engineers.

  54. Who owns the moon? That's easy. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Whoever has the most firepower. As usual. If I find means to get a sustainable society up there and we have enough military force to defend our moon I can officially call myself King of the Moon. If my peasants let me that is. If not, it's probably "Republic of Moon" or something.
    Same thing with Mars. If you can go and seize it and are strong enough to sustain your living there and defend the planet it's yours.
    This is how it will be one we're powerful enough to build societies in space.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  55. USA owns it by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Well established law. The US landed on the land (moon in this case) and a man planted their flag first and claimed it. It's theirs. Anyone else complaining - it's age old BS. They don't like it. Tough. It belongs to the USA "throughout the known universe and until the end of time."

    Same with all the other BS in the world. California belongs to the USA as well. In fact the US took land clear down past Mexico city and they gave a lot of it back.

  56. Stand on it! by geowash01 · · Score: 1

    The real answer is the owner will be the nation, company, etc., standing on it with enough fire power to enforce their claim. Just like everything else in human history.

  57. Re: I dol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is why China was sued in International court for invading areas that belong to the Philippines, was found guilty of violating international treaties they signed, and yet ignore the finding and still are in Philippine territory.

    Treaties only matter to countries when they are convenient, or when military might protects said treaty. The Philippines canâ(TM)t protect their territory, so China takes it, and lies about it âreally always was Chinaâ(TM)sâ(TM)

  58. Needs a Poetic Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Can I claim thee? I would as much own the moon..."

  59. It's not much of a debate... by Timothy2.0 · · Score: 1

    Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty kind of covers any attempt by a private firm to make a claim of ownership:
    /
    States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty...

    Where's the debate?