Landmark Decision Clears Way For First Commercial Lunar Flight

spacedaily.com ^ | 3 SEP 02 | staff

[Frank_Discussion]

A growth industry for the moon is tourism. Lots of folks want to see the sterile rocks, and relish the trip to get to see them.

(Oh, and the rocks aren't sterile - they are resource rich. Oxygen alone is bound chemically all over the place, and we have a good idea where the water we need resides. When development starts, it won't be all that difficult.)

[Frank_Discussion]

I double-checked you, and I stand corrected, RightWhale.

However, as I said, settlement and use may change the landscape. As with the Missle Defense treaty, the US may unsign the Outer Space Treaty, if needed. And I would contend it will be needed.

[RightWhale]

the US may unsign the Outer Space Treaty

As is commonly done with treaties, there is a withdrawal clause contained within the body of the treaty. America should give its one-year notice of intent and pull out.

At the same time, America should establish an Office of Celestial Resource Licensing.

---

During his campaign for President, Bush's campaign staff said that the administration would look into the matter of property rights in outer space. That was a campaign promise and it should be done.

[Frank_Discussion]

Aye!

[Brett66]

Good for them, this should make such approvals easier to obtain in the future. Cutting through the red tape is a significant achievment.

[RightWhale]

That's true. Some kind of threshold has been passed.

[Brett66]

I always thought that Lunar resource claims might mirror sattelite claims. The companies will claim rights to their sattelites and no one has really challenged it. BTW, if someone set up a lunar hotel built with processed lunar soil and claimed it as their property, who would challenge them on it? I would assume if the proper authorizations are obtained, not much different from what Trans Orbital obtained, then it would be considered their property.

[Freedom4US]

Personally, I think the US should have claimed it as we were there "fustest with the mostest" as it were. It ain't a russkie or UN flag up there, after all.

Apparently, the US is content to fight all our battles, real and technological, with one or both hands tied behind our backs. Oh Well.

[Frank_Discussion]

I don't think the treaty says we can't refine the materials there for use, and it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that such lunar-derived products are no longer intrinsically "lunar". So, if you make a hotel out of lunar rock and soil, from which you derived building materials and fuel, then it's yours. Your work, your benefit.

Then again, even if the legal papers mandate the foolish route, purely from the view of reality who will stop the developers?

[Frank_Discussion]

"Personally, I think the US should have claimed it as we were there "fustest with the mostest" as it were. It ain't a russkie or UN flag up there, after all."

And at the time we landed, the Moon Treaty didn't even exist. PC is older than we think, eh?

[vollmond]

This is cool. With the technology that exists today, we can fake a much better moon landing.

[Frank_Discussion]

Ooooh... You SO funny...

[GnL]

That was my question when I read this article as well. I was going to go have a p!ss after I wrote this, but now I'm not sure whether I need permission from my U.S. government.