Take a picture of the moon for your grandkids.

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
They'll probably never see it they way we see it today.

I'm guessing within the next 20 years or so it will start being strip mined to hell and back.

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - The United States government has taken a new, though preliminary, step to encourage commercial development of the moon.

According to documents obtained by Reuters, U.S. companies can stake claims to lunar territory through an existing licensing process for space launches.

The Federal Aviation Administration, in a previously undisclosed late-December letter to Bigelow Aerospace, said the agency intends to “leverage the FAA’s existing launch licensing authority to encourage private sector investments in space systems by ensuring that commercial activities can be conducted on a non-interference basis.”

In other words, experts said, Bigelow could set up one of its proposed inflatable habitats on the moon, and expect to have exclusive rights to that territory - as well as related areas that might be tapped for mining, exploration and other activities.

However, the FAA letter noted a concern flagged by the U.S. State Department that “the national regulatory framework, in its present form, is ill-equipped to enable the U.S. government to fulfill its obligations” under a 1967 United Nations treaty, which, in part, governs activities on the moon.

The United Nations Outer Space treaty, in part, requires countries to authorize and supervise activities of non-government entities that are operating in space, including the moon. It also bans nuclear weapons in space, prohibits national claims to celestial bodies and stipulates that space exploration and development should benefit all countries.

“We didn’t give (Bigelow Aerospace) a license to land on the moon. We’re talking about a payload review that would potentially be part of a future launch license request. But it served a purpose of documenting a serious proposal for a U.S. company to engage in this activity that has high-level policy implications,” said the FAA letter’s author, George Nield, associate administrator for the FAA’s Office of Commercial Transportation.

“We recognize the private sector’s need to protect its assets and personnel on the moon or on other celestial bodies," the FAA wrote in the December letter to Bigelow Aerospace. The company, based in Nevada, is developing the inflatable space habitats. Bigelow requested the policy statement from the FAA, which oversees commercial space transportation in the U.S.

The letter was coordinated with U.S. departments of State, Defense, Commerce, as well as NASA and other agencies involved in space operations. It expands the FAA’s scope from launch licensing to U.S. companies’ planned activities on the moon, a region currently governed only by the nearly 50-year old UN space treaty.

But the letter also points to more legal and diplomatic work that will have to be done to govern potential commercial development of the moon or other extraterrestrial bodies.

“It’s very much a wild west kind of mentality and approach right now,” said John Thornton, chief executive of private owned Astrobotic, a startup lunar transportation and services firm competing in a $30 million Google-backed moon exploration XPrize contest.

Among the pending issues is lunar property and mineral rights, a topic that was discussed and tabled in the 1970s in a sister UN proposal called the Moon Treaty. It was signed by just nine countries, including France, but not the United States.

"It is important to remember that many space-faring nations have national companies that engage in commercial space activities. They will definitely want to be part of the rule making process," said Joanne Gabrynowicz, a professor of space law at University of Mississippi .

Bigelow Aerospace is expected to begin testing a space habitat aboard the International Space Station this year. The company intends to then operate free-flying orbital outposts for paying customers, including government agencies, research organizations, businesses and even tourists. That would be followed by a series of bases on the moon beginning around 2025, a project estimated to cost about $12 billion.

Company founder Robert Bigelow said he intends to invest $300 million of his own funds, about $2.5 billion in hardware and services from Bigelow Aerospace and raise the rest from private investors.

The FAA’s decision “doesn’t mean that there’s ownership of the moon," Bigelow told Reuters. "It just means that somebody else isn’t licensed to land on top of you or land on top of where exploration and prospecting activities are going on, which may be quite a distance from the lunar station.”

Other companies could soon be testing rights to own what they bring back from the moon. Moon Express, another aspiring lunar transportation company, and also an XPrize contender, intends to return moon dust or rocks on its third mission.

“The company does not see anything, including the Outer Space Treaty, as being a barrier to our initial operations on the moon," said Moon Express co-founder and president Bob Richards. That includes "the right to bring stuff off the moon and call it ours.”
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
"The United Nations Outer Space treaty... also bans nuclear weapons in space, prohibits national claims to celestial bodies"

Typical of the UN, trying to be a party pooper. They're trying to block our claim and rewrite history, as if the US were not the first ones to claim dibs on the Moon. Our flag was the first flag on that moon!

Suck it world, the moon is ours. Perhaps the treaty was in effect prior to the US claiming Mars, so, you might get to share that with us, but the Moon? Nope, we claimed it forever ago. We'll blast it to hell if we really feel so inclined, but, we sort of like it... for now. So you can thank us, World. We haven't destroyed it in weapons testing, when we could have. You're welcome.

:awe:
 

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,731
3,440
136
The moon belongs to no one yet, so can I submit a claim to a portion of it? What gives anyone on earth more of a right, or a more solid case, to own a portion of the moon than myself or anyone else? Fucking ridiculous. Any argument anyone makes to PRETEND that they are entitled to own the moon more than anyone else is a bullshit argument.
 

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
I wonder if we could remove enough mass from the moon to screw up the tides lol.

Honestly I don't have a problem with it for the most part, at least in terms of it being commercialized/mined/utilized. I'd like to think that we at least know enough to not be completely reckless - but even if we are, the worst that happens is a desolate, lifeless, cold ball of rock gets a few more pock marks. That sounds arrogant but the problem with those practices on Earth is that it actually has negative impact on the flora, fauna, water, ecosystems, etc - none of that exists on the moon.

I don't like the pseudo "wild west" approach some people are taking to it however, just because it isn't "anyone's" doesn't mean it's yours for the taking.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
6,260
2,489
136
The moon belongs to no one yet, so can I submit a claim to a portion of it? What gives anyone on earth more of a right, or a more solid case, to own a portion of the moon than myself or anyone else? Fucking ridiculous. Any argument anyone makes to PRETEND that they are entitled to own the moon more than anyone else is a bullshit argument.

It would boil down have you landed on the Moon and built infranstructure? No then no claim for you.

If their are resources on the Moon that could faciliate the further exploration of space then their should be a mechanism for private companies to use and develop those resources.
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
Honestly I don't have a problem with it for the most part, at least in terms of it being commercialized/mined/utilized.

Imagine the biggest fucking most annoying roadside interstate sex toy store billboard you could possibly find and make it moon-sized. BAM. Instant advertising. :D
 

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,731
3,440
136
It would boil down have you landed on the Moon and built infranstructure? No then no claim for you.

If their are resources on the Moon that could faciliate the further exploration of space then their should be a mechanism for private companies to use and develop those resources.

No that's bullshit. Humanity is a fucking cancer if what you said happens. Humanity is identical to a corrosive, volatile mystery agent that spontaneously erodes entire planets.
 

polarmystery

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,888
8
81
No that's bullshit. Humanity is a fucking cancer if what you said happens. Humanity is identical to a corrosive, volatile mystery agent that spontaneously erodes entire planets.

tumblr_m2xzy7tLcW1qdl15zo1_1280.jpg
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,417
33,003
136
Also, as we mine all the diamonds on the moon and ship them back to earth, the moon will weigh less and thus increase it's orbital radius. This in turn will increase lift requirements to get there, thereby eventually limiting the diamond mining as lift costs > diamond value.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
In other words, experts said, Bigelow could set up one of its proposed inflatable habitats on the moon, and expect to have exclusive rights to that territory - as well as related areas that might be tapped for mining, exploration and other activities.

I demand more funding for NASA's "Bouncy Castles on the Moon" initiative.
 

DesiPower

Lifer
Nov 22, 2008
15,299
740
126
We fucked up the earth beyond repair, but from space it still looks the same... So I guess the moon, as far as its photogenics is concerned, should be OK.

We fucked up the earth beyond repair, I would be surprised if you grand kids, if the world lasts that long, will be healthy enough to care about what the moon looks like.
 

BarkingGhostar

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2009
8,410
1,617
136
I'm surprised AT&T and Verizon haven't mustered the effort to put wireless advertisements on the moon.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,417
33,003
136
We fucked up the earth beyond repair, but from space it still looks the same... So I guess the moon, as far as its photogenics is concerned, should be OK.
In the Heinlein story I referred to above the protagonist proposes to use rockets to scatter black dust on the moon in order to form giant ads visible from earth.

I suppose we could use giant earth based lasers to write ads on the moon Pink Floyd style.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
6,260
2,489
136
No that's bullshit. Humanity is a fucking cancer if what you said happens. Humanity is identical to a corrosive, volatile mystery agent that spontaneously erodes entire planets.

So I take it you are against Asteroid mining also?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
So I take it you are against Asteroid mining also?

I would be against lighting it up like a christmas tree like we have here.

Just have everything sent up go to the "dark" side so we don't have to look at a thousand mile wide billboard.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
6,260
2,489
136
I would be against lighting it up like a christmas tree like we have here.

Just have everything sent up go to the "dark" side so we don't have to look at a thousand mile wide billboard.

A object would have to be larger than 220 kilometers for the human eye to see it on the lunar surface from the Earth's surface.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
A object would have to be larger than 220 kilometers for the human eye to see it on the lunar surface from the Earth's surface.

Like I said, put it on the dark side. If an costing billions was visible to everyone everywhere it will happen. Never underestimate the ability of humanity to completely mar something for a buck.