This looks like a pretty clear-cut claim of sovereignty to me, and thus in violation of the Outer Space Treaty. Protecting the Apollo sites is a problem, but I don’t think that this is the solution. Unless, of course, we want to withdraw, which I certainly wouldn’t complain about.
17 thoughts on “Luna National Park”
Comments are closed.
“This looks like a pretty clear-cut claim of sovereignty to me, and thus in violation of the Outer Space Treaty.”
I thought so at first, but the bill makes it clear that the National Park only covers the artifacts that were left behind. The actual landing site is to submitted to the UN for designation as a World Heritage Site.
Amusingly, the bill states, “The Secretary [of the Interior] may enter into one or more agreements with the head of a Federal agency to
provide public access to… Apollo lunar landing site resources.”
A Federal agency (NASA, presumably) is going to be providing public access to the Moon? There seems to be a disconnect between this bill and the Space Launch System she supports.
http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/documents/HR2617%20-%20Apollo%20Lunar%20Landing%20Legacy%20Act.pdf
Well, generally, a “park” is real estate, with boundaries, not hardware.
They are putting the cart before the horse. While SpaceX is progressing quite quickly the market needs more competition. There is not even a viable market for manned space in LEO let alone the Moon. I can understand why they want to protect the artifacts however.
If the site needs protecting, they should send a team there to protect it.
Congress has successfully protected lunar sites from human contact for over 40 years.
On the other hand, they have left lunar artifacts fully exposed to radiation, temperature extremes, meteorites, and lunar dust. Not exactly a protected environment.
Ed,
That’s just plain mean. 100% true, but really mean. 🙂
~Jon
talk about a bridge to nowhere /snark
Its sad how little Congressional staffers know about space law. Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty already protects not only the Apollo artifacts but anything sent into space by the U.S.
The Apollo artifacts are ALL property of the U.S. government. Disturbance, theft or destruction would be prosecuted under existing laws that govern federal property. If they are foreign nationals than their government will be held responsible. This proposed law would not be able to change that in any way.
If NASA believes the Apollo artifacts are of historical value they could just transfer ownership to the National Park Service or Smithsonian using the same procedure as used for other NASA artifacts like the Shuttle Orbiters. No new laws are needed.
The Apollo landing sites also are easily protected under Article IX by simply declaring them as “exposure experiments”, science studies of how long it takes lunar soil to return to its “original” after it has been distributed.
Also does anyone really want the UN messing further with the Moon by declaring the Apollo sites World Heritage Sites? It may well lead to the Moon be put off limits as a “science preserve” much like what is be proposed for Antarctica.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-18/push-for-antarctic-world-heritage-listing/4076006
The law has “danger” listed all over it in terms of space settlement and development. I hope space advocates come out against it.
If ignorance of the OST is required to get the US to withdraw from it, I say we need more congressional ignorance (if that’s even possible).
Trent,
What is wrong with the OST? It ensures personal property rights in space, eliminates the nuisance of national sovereignty, along with the baggage of taxes and regulations that would come with it, and provides a great deal of flexibility in selecting a flag of convenience to operate under. Really, a true libertarian couldn’t ask for anything better.
It sounds like you bought into all the New Space about it by folks who haven’t bother to research the issue. Folks who aren’t able to move beyond their Earth chauvinism or attitudes.
I don’t care what the treaty says.. I care what people actually use it for: smacking down anyone doing anything in space.
Any examples you would care to share?
Planetary Resources: today we’re announcing the existence of our company and our goal is to go mine asteroids.
Random pundits: that’s against the Outer Space Treaty, common heritage of mankind yada yada.
I believe Rand even wrote something on the subject around the same time.
Trent,
I see, you are referencing folks who have never taken a course in either space law or international law. In short, folks who don’t have a clue on what they are talking about…
But Thomas, the OST is absolutely useless at keeping Apollo artifacts safe from bears, beavers, and other wildlife. That’s why a lunar outpost with actual National Park rangers is crucial to preserving the site’s integrity.
A lunar bear is smarter than the average bear.
Well at least we have a name for the next two lunar landers: Yogi and Boo-boo.