A park on the moon....not really a priority

[Angry Irishman]

Two House Democrats have proposed legislation that would establish a national historical park on the surface of the moon to mark where the Apollo missions landed between 1969 and 1972.
The bill from Reps. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) would create the Apollo Lunar Landing Sites National Historical Park. 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.


.....wow

​

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Deleted.

Subsequent comment has swayed my opinion.

 

[sandorski]

That's not a bad idea. Better than the xx attempt to repeal the ACA. It doesn't really cost anything, other than the time to put it through the system and I suspect that most Corps/Nations would be fine with it as it is an historic site.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

That's not a bad idea. Better than the xx attempt to repeal the ACA. It doesn't really cost anything, other than the time to put it through the system and I suspect that most Corps/Nations would be fine with it as it is an historic site.

It is an historic site, good point.

It would be interesting to see what happens to the moon in 100 years time.
Will there be 1,000,000's of cars on it by then ?

 

[Agent11]

We should have had a base up there by now, something capable of launching rescue and support missions to the ISS and any rockets or shuttles that experience problems. So it isn't hard to imagine stuff being developed up there in the near future.

 

[waggy]

It is an historic site, good point.

It would be interesting to see what happens to the moon in 100 years time.
Will there be 1,000,000's of cars on it by then ?

agree. i think this is a good move actually

 

[Angry Irishman]

If it costs zero dollars...it won't, then I'd agree this is a good move. Congress passed 15 or 16 laws this year and this is what they are worried about?

 

[sandorski]

If it costs zero dollars...it won't, then I'd agree this is a good move. Congress passed 15 or 16 laws this year and this is what they are worried about?

How many Laws did they Try to Pass?

 

[Jaskalas]

Mankind should decide on how to handle the moon.

The landing site should be historic, but not dedicated to America. It belongs to humanity.

 

[sandorski]

Mankind should decide on how to handle the moon.

The landing site should be historic, but not dedicated to America. It belongs to humanity.

Good point, but still this Bill is a good start to at least start the process.

 

[Slew Foot]

dont see the problem, it wont cost anything.

 

[DrPizza]

We should have had a base up there by now, something capable of launching rescue and support missions to the ISS and any rockets or shuttles that experience problems. So it isn't hard to imagine stuff being developed up there in the near future.

"Protecting" the area on the moon for historical reasons is a good idea.

This quoted post... not a good idea. It's about as foolish as building a fire department in Los Angeles in case there's a problem in the suburbs of NYC.

 

[Agent11]

"Protecting" the area on the moon for historical reasons is a good idea.

This quoted post... not a good idea. It's about as foolish as building a fire department in Los Angeles in case there's a problem in the suburbs of NYC.

I disagree, the logistics of launching say nuclear powered craft to respond to a situation versus earth based rockets should make it obvious I would think.

The only drawbacks are cost of building such a base etc, supplying it, and the distances between various missions that may require aid and the moon. Distance isn't much of an issue if planned for, I imagine our navy supply lines and patrol routes are much more complicated.

 

[DrPizza]

I disagree, the logistics of launching say nuclear powered craft to respond to a situation versus earth based rockets should make it obvious I would think.

The only drawbacks are cost of building such a base etc, supplying it, and the distances between various missions that may require aid and the moon. Distance isn't much of an issue if planned for, I imagine our navy supply lines and patrol routes are much more complicated.

Uhhhh, the ISS is 230 miles above the Earth. The moon is 238 THOUSAND miles away. If you have a situation, it's far easier to get there from the Earth - it would take too much time from the moon in case of a situation. Of course, a better solution would be to shove the whole thing into the Pacific ocean, then you don't have any situation to worry about. Double the money for NASA and reallocate it for more scientific missions.

 

[Agent11]

Yes but you could have nuclear powered craft patrolling from the base that could orbit for a few weeks before going back to the moon base, if you have several of these craft then you could have coverage for any operation taking place in orbit including the ISS.

 

[Zebo]

I like it. Stuff like this is what we should spend money on instead of paying people to sit at home to become unemployable and anti social. Or NSA spying on my pizza orders. This fosters science and is a productive activity.

 

[Angry Irishman]

dont see the problem, it wont cost anything.

Somehow it will cost something. If anything the bill will be pork barreled with other shit like everything else.

 

[Angry Irishman]

How many Laws did they Try to Pass?

This is exactly my point....not enough that matter in the bigger picture.

Here's the website to track:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There's an obvious problem. The US doesn't own the moon. We're a signatory to a 1967 treaty that prohibits it.

 

[colonelciller]

seeing as the surface of the moon is NOT THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES... this is taking america-owns-the-universe moronic imbecilism to astronomical heights

 

[IronWing]

Will the park be included in the Universal Studios tour? :sneaky:

 

[Slick5150]

Will the park be included in the Universal Studios tour? :sneaky:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60BjkUtqxPE

 

[FaaR]

Will the park be included in the Universal Studios tour? :sneaky:

Yes, there will be a hollywood-version replica of the surface of the moon, complete with a hamburger-and-hotdog stand and a giftshop.

 

[xBiffx]

What a waste of time. Good thing our lawmakers have their priorities in order. Also, good thing there are mindless sheep to not care.

People here that think its best to pick up a turd from the clean end.

 

[UglyCasanova]

There's an obvious problem. The US doesn't own the moon. We're a signatory to a 1967 treaty that prohibits it.

Exactly. What jurisdiction do they have to do that? The moon does not belong to the US, thus no way to create a national park on it.

Gets their name out there though.