PDA

View Full Version : Who owns the moon?


Blackmoor
22-11-11, 19:56
When the astronauts (allegedly ;)) landed on the moon, they planted an American flag, but they didn't claim the moon for the US.

The Outer Space Treaty, the international law signed by more than 100 countries, states that the moon and other celestial bodies are the province of all mankind. :)

However:

Will this noble idea be sustainable in the near future?

Within the next 10 years, the US, China, Israel, and a host of private companies plan to set up camp on the moon. So if and when they plant a flag, will that give them property rights?

And if we disagree, who's going stop them anyway???? After all, if they're there and we aren't...

What shall we do?

Should the moon be carved up for individual states - should all of Earth have a portion maybe, or should nobody? Or, only those lucky few that have the technology, will and money to get there relatively quickly? Or do the US already own it?

And - it's one thing for a country to stake a claim, but what about a private company? :eek:

What do you think?




:confused:

tonyme
22-11-11, 20:00
Very interesting topic.:tmb:

I think it's going to be private, there's no other solution for it.

Zelda master
22-11-11, 20:02
No one owns anything. It's as easy as that if you ask me ;)

disapearing-boy
22-11-11, 20:07
It would work like Antarctica, I'd imagine. No one owns any land on Antarctica but many countries have camps/ bases there.

But i don't know how practical that will be as you said? Does the moon have any resources we can exploit?

If it had oil then expect the US to claim all of it!!!!:p

QiX
22-11-11, 20:13
Same solution as the one currently used for Antarctica, I think. An international agreement signed by a number of countries regulating preservation and scientific research, probably also forbidding mineral exploration and military use.

Edit:
It would work like Antarctica, I'd imagine...

Yeah, this. We had the same though, but I'm a slow typewriter :p

Cochrane
22-11-11, 20:30
This is already solved with the Outer Space Treaty (formally, according to Wikipedia, the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies). Under this treaty, no government can lay claim to any part of space. A state that launches a space ship or space station retains jurisdiction on this vessel, but that's it.

There are people who think that this allows private people or companies to claim whatever they want, but in the context of international law, that is just plain wrong. You can only own land if it is legal according to the laws of the country where the land is. If there is no such country, then you have no legal right to the land. And if you get on the moon and try to force people off a particular patch of land that you declared your own, then you will be held accountable according to the laws of the country your space ship started from.

Not all countries have signed the outer space treaty, but all the ones that are doing manned space flight and all the ones that are vaguely thinking about manned space flight have done so. Even if a country that did not were to start a space flight program, the outer space treaty would probably still apply as customary international law.



There is also a dedicated Moon Treaty (yes, they aren't very creative when it comes to naming these things), although it is not signed by any country that has ever put astronauts into space, so it's a bit pointless.

Ikas90
22-11-11, 20:59
No one owns the moon, just like no one owns the earth. Or any piece of land on earth, for that matter.

Tombraiderx08
22-11-11, 21:00
The idea of anyone owning the moon is just...silly :p

tomekkobialka
22-11-11, 21:03
No one owns the moon, just like no one owns the earth. Or any piece of land on earth, for that matter.

Funny, last I heard Russia owned Russia. :D

ultima espio
22-11-11, 21:05
Clearly it's owned by the Man on the Moon.

...But yeah nobody owns the Moon...Imagine if you did though, it would be a great pickup line.

Draco
22-11-11, 23:32
The Decepticons own it.

Evan C.
22-11-11, 23:34
Universe.

Mad Tony
22-11-11, 23:37
No one owns the moon, just like no one owns the earth. Or any piece of land on earth, for that matter.First part is true (at the moment), second part is wrong.

patriots88888
22-11-11, 23:46
Better question: Do you think anyone (any country) should be allowed to lay claim to the moon, regions of space, etc...? It's not so far out of imagination that one day space will be divided much the same as our planet is now.

digitizedboy
22-11-11, 23:56
Better still, what would be the benefits of owning a moon?

TRfan23
22-11-11, 23:58
If you apply for an Astrophysics course at University of Kent in Canterbury you will own a bit of the moon :p

robm_2007
23-11-11, 00:00
I think it should be able to be claimed. Not in it's entirety, but I think if we are to further our space programs, having a base built on the moon would be a good idea. They could have sections that are claimed by the US, China, Russia, etc. and they use the areas for their bases and research. I don't think that anyone should be able to "claim" the entire moon and "own" it.

scoopy_loopy
23-11-11, 02:54
It would work like Antarctica, I'd imagine. No one owns any land on Antarctica but many countries have camps/ bases there.

But i don't know how practical that will be as you said? Does the moon have any resources we can exploit?

If it had oil then expect the US to claim all of it!!!!:p

Anatartica is actually a mess. Many countries have made claims to chunks of it, and other country refuse to accept these claims.

For instance Australia claims a big part, but the US doesn't "recognise" it. If there were things of value discovered, like oil, beneath the surface do you think a piece of paper would stop others from taking the land?

The same will go for the Moon. Eventually, if something of value is found.

Johnnay
23-11-11, 02:58
First part is true (at the moment), second part is wrong.

this.

i dont see why countries dont own their land.. they historically lived there so its their land...(not some countries though)

Tyrannosaurus
23-11-11, 04:18
Better question: Who wants the moon? It's like owning the deepest trench in the ocean.

Spong
23-11-11, 04:29
No one 'owns' anything, not least of all the moon. It's mankind and their pathetic desire for one-upmanship that saw such principles as ownership being invented. While people can bitch and bicker about what chunks of this planet they think they own (even though they don't own any of it at the end of the day), no one has or will ever have the right to claim ownership of things beyond this planet's boundaries.

Draco
23-11-11, 17:26
Better question: Who wants the moon? It's like owning the deepest trench in the ocean.

Except the moon likely has all the same inorganic resources that the Earth does.

Cochrane
23-11-11, 18:47
It will be a very, very long time before you can exploit the moon's resources in an economical fashion. Getting up there and getting things back down is just too damn expensive. At a conservative estimate, you'd have to bring at least 4,5 metric tons of platinum back from the moon with every launch to break even. This is assuming today's Umicore Sales Price Fabricated for Platinum (http://www.metalsmanagement.umicore.com/en/PMQuotations/Platinum/), and assuming that you can get to the moon and back with that payload for at most the price it costs today to launch one Ariane 5 into just plain orbit. Especially the latter is very, very optimistic.

Prices for rocket launches are only going to get lower, of course, and prices for resources have steadily increased, but it will still be a long time before any part of this starts to make economic sense.

Ikas90
23-11-11, 19:01
First part is true (at the moment), second part is wrong.

No one man owns a country, nor has the right to.

No one 'owns' anything, not least of all the moon. It's mankind and their pathetic desire for one-upmanship that saw such principles as ownership being invented. While people can bitch and bicker about what chunks of this planet they think they own (even though they don't own any of it at the end of the day), no one has or will ever have the right to claim ownership of things beyond this planet's boundaries.

Thank you. :tmb:

The Great Chi
23-11-11, 19:11
At the moment in the States you can buy 'Moon land' now, mind you I think it is a bit of a joke.

Here is a typical example on the internet..... 100 Acres for $24.95, cheap at the price, but totally worthless..... :vlol:

http://www.mooncertificate.com/

Cochrane
23-11-11, 19:25
It is 100% a joke. Nobody recognizes these claims.

Greenapple968
03-12-11, 16:26
When the astronauts (allegedly ;)) landed on the moon, they planted an American flag, but they didn't claim the moon for the US.

The Outer Space Treaty, the international law signed by more than 100 countries, states that the moon and other celestial bodies are the province of all mankind. :)

However:

Will this noble idea be sustainable in the near future?

Within the next 10 years, the US, China, Israel, and a host of private companies plan to set up camp on the moon. So if and when they plant a flag, will that give them property rights?

And if we disagree, who's going stop them anyway???? After all, if they're there and we aren't...

What shall we do?

Should the moon be carved up for individual states - should all of Earth have a portion maybe, or should nobody? Or, only those lucky few that have the technology, will and money to get there relatively quickly? Or do the US already own it?

And - it's one thing for a country to stake a claim, but what about a private company? :eek:

What do you think?




:confused:

The moon doesn't belong to humanity, nor does earth. These things belong to the creator: God.

moodydog
03-12-11, 17:06
who owns the universe? :mis:

Draco
03-12-11, 18:27
The moon doesn't belong to humanity, nor does earth. These things belong to the creator: God.

Actually, if you believe what the Bible says, God gave everything to his children.

Nausinous
03-12-11, 23:34
No one owns anything. It's as easy as that if you ask me ;)

I was about to type this, thanks for saving my energy :tmb:

larafan25
03-12-11, 23:36
Actually, if you believe what the Bible says, God gave everything to his children.

God should know better. O.O

Assassin13
03-12-11, 23:43
Chuck Norris does.

Blackmoor
04-12-11, 14:29
There's two ways you can look at this - a high-level moralistic approach and a down to earth (;)) day-to-day management approach.

I think most of us agree that the moon is something precious and we need to be careful about how we a manage it. But saying, "No one should own it", or "It belongs to God", is only part of debate I was proposing with this question.

The point is:

It's all very well taking a theoretical or principled or laissez faire attitude to what happens to the moon when nobody is up there, and nobody has been (except one nation).

However, now there are plans afoot for various nations to go to the moon. What happens when they get there?

Even if they don't technically "own" the moon, those nations that get there first and establish themselves will in some way become its "owners". Who's to stop them from doing what they like up there?

Does it matter? Maybe it doesn't, but equally maybe it does. And if it does, then the time to think about it is now not later when it's way too late to do anything about it.

Saying, for example, that the moon belongs to God solves nothing. If you believe in that kind of thing, then the world belongs to God in exactly the same way, animals, plants and oceans alike. It doesn't though stop us humans from killing those animals and farming those plants, etc, to eat in order to live.

The moon is an asset. If it truly belongs to the whole of mankind then maybe before everyone goes back to the moon, we need to make sure that it is available to all nations of the earth. Not just (as usual) the rich nations of the planet who can get there.

Cochrane
04-12-11, 19:47
If economic exploitation of the moon ever becomes something useful (and it will be a long time until this happens, no matter how many people establish temporary or permanent research stations there), then I imagine it could be managed in a way very similar to the way international sea exploration is handled.

It only seems as if nobody could hold those accountable who are on the moon, but that is not realistic. Every country or business that goes up the moon has a major presence on earth, and all the things like suing each other, international pressure and so on still work there just fine.

TRhalloween
04-12-11, 22:06
Who Owns the Moon? (Girls)

benjamin_2010
04-12-11, 22:12
Aliens.

Romantics Inc.
04-12-11, 22:13
Who own the moon?

Well, I do, of course.

!Lara Croft!
04-12-11, 22:43
I dont think we should tamper with the moon at all... it holds too much of a grip over our planet. If something were to happen to it it would spell disaster for earth.

TombRaiderFan.
05-12-11, 02:29
It would work like Antarctica, I'd imagine. No one owns any land on Antarctica but many countries have camps/ bases there.

But i don't know how practical that will be as you said? Does the moon have any resources we can exploit?

If it had oil then expect the US to claim all of it!!!!:p

I was going to say the same thing. It seems like the most logical thing.

Alpharaider47
05-12-11, 04:40
I say whoever gets there first and sets up shop owns the moon. Then subsequently, whoever goes and kills/buys the first people off. Of course, there are just as many people who have "bought" land on the moon that would argue they own it.

My question is, does it really matter who owns it? It's not as if anybody has made any serious attempts at getting back there or setting up shop since we did it during the Cold War.

Blackmoor
06-12-11, 00:18
I say whoever gets there first and sets up shop owns the moon. Then subsequently, whoever goes and kills/buys the first people off. Of course, there are just as many people who have "bought" land on the moon that would argue they own it.

My question is, does it really matter who owns it? It's not as if anybody has made any serious attempts at getting back there or setting up shop since we did it during the Cold War.

Well apparently... these countries/agencies are interested in moon missions (not all of them manned though - yet).

US - NASA
European Space Agency
Japan - JAXA
Russian Space Agency
China
South Korea
India

You do have to wonder why now, all of them.

And one question I've always asked myself is why the Russians never went in the 70's. I mean just because the US got there first doesn't mean they had to stop. Especially when they carried on developing space technology, eg, the Space Station. Perhaps Esconder knows. :)

Cochrane
06-12-11, 05:25
Well apparently... these countries/agencies are interested in moon missions (not all of them manned though - yet).

US - NASA
European Space Agency
Japan - JAXA
Russian Space Agency
China
South Korea
India

You do have to wonder why now, all of them.Basically: Where else are you going to go in space? The other options are comets (and projects to look at them more closely are already underway, such as Rosetta) or really, really far away and thus very expensive. Plus, the moon may be the most interesting scientifically, because it can give information about the history of the earth.

And one question I've always asked myself is why the Russians never went in the 70's. I mean just because the US got there first doesn't mean they had to stop. Especially when they carried on developing space technology, eg, the Space Station. Perhaps Esconder knows. :)
The soviet union did successfully launch unmanned probes that reached the moon. They also had a program to land people on the moon, but it was started much later than the american one, was rather badly underfunded and relied too much on key personnel (some of whom died in the middle of development). In particular, all attempts to launch their moon rocket (the N1) were failures. Eventually, when the soviet government realized that they had lost to the americans, the whole thing lost political interest and was cancelled. Instead they focused on (and became quite good at) space stations.

Blackmoor
06-12-11, 11:21
The soviet union did successfully launch unmanned probes that reached the moon. They also had a program to land people on the moon, but it was started much later than the american one, was rather badly underfunded and relied too much on key personnel (some of whom died in the middle of development). In particular, all attempts to launch their moon rocket (the N1) were failures. Eventually, when the soviet government realized that they had lost to the americans, the whole thing lost political interest and was cancelled. Instead they focused on (and became quite good at) space stations.Well that may be the reason why, or it may not be. Either way it doesn't make sense to me.

As a side issue, I can't wait till we get the next manned mission up there. I want to see what it all looks like with today's video technology.

scion05
06-12-11, 11:28
I own the moon, bought it on ebay :cool:

Cochrane
06-12-11, 11:57
Well that may be the reason why, or it may not be. Either way it doesn't make sense to me.
Well, think about it for a second: Why would the soviet union want to get on the moon? There is no military benefit - they already had ICBMs at that point, which were the main reason for even having a space program (on either side). There is no direct economic benefit either. Sure, there are real-life applications of the technologies developed for such a project, but up front, it is a lot of money spent and basically none that is returned.

At the current prices (and even more so at the prices back then), the main reason to get a man on the moon is to be cool, to show a nation's power or a company's technology or similar things. Not doing that is really the more sensible option. Although I am very glad that the US did the unreasonable thing and landed there.

As a side issue, I can't wait till we get the next manned mission up there. I want to see what it all looks like with today's video technology.
I agree!

Blackmoor
06-12-11, 12:41
Well, think about it for a second: Why would the soviet union want to get on the moon? Why are all those countries wanting to go there now?

And, I don't believe the US only wanted to get there to win a race either. Or to show off their strength. The Soviet Union (as then) won every single part of the space race up until America suddenly landed on the moon. And then they gave up. :eek: If the US had had that attitude, then they'd never have even been in the space race as for most of it they were way behind, not even knowing if they could catch up.

I think it's one of the great mysteries of the 20th century - why the Russians never made it to the moon. They were so close.


At the current prices (and even more so at the prices back then), the main reason to get a man on the moon is to be cool, to show a nation's power or a company's technology or similar things. Not doing that is really the more sensible option. Although I am very glad that the US did the unreasonable thing and landed there.I could have sworn I read somewhere that in real terms it was cheaper for the US to get to the moon then than it is now. :confused:

And that some people were saying why don't the US pull out the old Saturn V rocket designs as they were so successful - in fact THE most successful rocketry in the history of space exploration - rather than reinvent the wheel developing something completely new.