Moon Bill Would Create National Park to Protect Apollo Landing Sites

[boogabooga]

http://news.yahoo.com/moon-bill-create-national-park-protect-apollo-landing-110016060.html


Yes, I would like to apply for a position with the Park Service. :rofl:


Yes, of course it's unenforceable nonesense at this point. Probably a violation of the Outer Space Treaty, too.

 

[Urwumpe]

Probably a violation of the Outer Space Treaty, too.

Partially yes. But you could push at the UN to define this as special world heritage site, which would be compatible with this bill, since the US minister of interior and NASA would then be working on behalf of the UN as well to preserve the site.

Of course, Iran and some others would claim that the USA have never been on the moon and that there are whistleblowers who prove this. :lol:

 

[Donamy]

We had better start building shielding around it, to protect it from MMD strikes.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Hrm... sounds like a reason to support the continued existance of the SLS...

 

[Hielor]

Let's not forget to put a runway nearby so visiting spaceplanes can land!

 

[Traveller]

Someone must have seen the cover to Traveller Chronicle #11. From memory, it has the lander under a dome with a covered walkway leading to it. There is also a plaque commemorating the landing. I have the issue somewhere in my library.

Here's a link to a wiki page concerning it.

 

[Michkov]

Bit OT

Does that mean that there can be US National Parks outside of US territory? Say Antarctica or France...

 

[boogabooga]

I think the point is to claim the Apollo landing sites as U.S. territory, which is why I think it violates the treaty.

Sorry Urwumpe, turning this over to UNESCO is not mentioned in the article. Actually this gave me a chuckle, the thought that Congress would turn over such a nationalistic symbol to the protection and authority of the UN.

Here is a fun game to teach the difference between how Americans perceive National Parks vs. UNESCO sites. Here is the website for the UNESCO World Heritage site that happens to be closest to myself:

http://www.nps.gov/maca/index.htm

Actually I had to look it up to find out, though I knew it as a national park and many of my friends had been there. Anyway, go to the website and see how long it takes you to find any reference to UNESCO or the UN. Do you think they would promote themselves as having such an honor?

Edit:
Wait, no, actually it does mention UNESCO, but only for Apollo 11. My bad. :facepalm:

But still the priority is National Park first, so I'm not totally wrong.

 

[paddy2]

I truly do not wish to sound I am Knocking 99.999% of our friends over the pond but this must rank high in the 10 ten of stupid things Politicians anywhere have come up with.

While I do think that the idea of the first company to fund a trip to the moon should be able to grab any Apollo items wrong in so many ways, to pass a law in the USA to cover the Moon AND think it would apply in any other place is beyond a joke. Following the passing of such bill I would require the Crown to declare the District of Columbia sovereign land and take possession of it. ( Its not as if you want it as a state!!!)

I understand this could be a mechanism to take the idea to the UN but come on a "National Park" !!! Watch out Canada, all the great lakes are about to become "Chicago City boating pond"

P.S. I still think you can / should / welcome to retain title to a plot of land at Runnymede.

 

[Urwumpe]

Actually I had to look it up to find out, though I knew it as a national park and many of my friends had been there. Anyway, go to the website and see how long it takes you to find any reference to UNESCO or the UN. Do you think they would promote themselves as having such an honor?

Well, maybe because you used the wrong link I had the problem for the ones closest to my place, when I sampled them:

While the page of the church community is not having mich UNESCO on them, this one does:

http://www.welterbe-hildesheim.de/

And this one has at least a small text about it:

http://www.harzwasserwerke.de/index2.html?ohwr.html~haupt

And of course... we are talking about the USA... created the UN and then dropped it like a one year old toy on christmas. :lol:

More range (<200 km):


http://www.rathaus-bremen.de/sixcms/detail.php?gsid=bremen02.c.738.de
http://www.fagus-gropius.com/
http://www.museum-kassel.de/index_navi.php?parent=1312
http://www.quedlinburg.de/de/ *

* Never knew it was a world heritage site... but it obviously is.

 

[Codz]

While I do think that the idea of the first company to fund a trip to the moon should be able to grab any Apollo items wrong in so many ways, to pass a law in the USA to cover the Moon AND think it would apply in any other place is beyond a joke. Following the passing of such bill I would require the Crown to declare the District of Columbia sovereign land and take possession of it. ( Its not as if you want it as a state!!!)

I don't see how this is claiming the entire Moon as US property. Wanting to protect small specific sites on the Moon that are massively important to American history and human achievement in general, is not at all close to your absurd comparison. The District of Columbia is not a state, but it is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[boogabooga]

While I do think that the idea of the first company to fund a trip to the moon should be able to grab any Apollo items wrong in so many ways, to pass a law in the USA to cover the Moon AND think it would apply in any other place is beyond a joke. Following the passing of such bill I would require the Crown to declare the District of Columbia sovereign land and take possession of it. ( Its not as if you want it as a state!!!)

Mehh...

Planting a flag an claiming territory worked for European and some Asian countries for centuries.

But no yeah, it's a little silly. Probably better to just claim the hardware itself as government property, if the intent is to have a legal framework to thwart space tourist looters.

 

[Urwumpe]

Planting a flag an claiming territory worked for European and some Asian countries for centuries.

I think it was rather the good old building of castles/forts that worked. :lol:

 

[statickid]

While I do know that the landings were largely a political action, so to speak, I feel that just as a human I would like them to be protected. I actually feel that it is almost a shame that the landings were accomplished in such a way that people might say "well that was an american achievement" It may have been better for history if it had been an international collaboration so that there would be international interest in preserving the sites without it being "OH THE U.S. IS TRYING TO CLAIM TEH MOON!!!11!!"

In my mind the space race was, in a way, an international collaboration. Seriously, would the moon landings have occurred if there weren't a fierce competition in lieu of war? For both sides, i think, it was quite noble to engage in a "friendly" competition rather than start a war.

For me the bottom line is that it was a human achievement first, and a national achievement second and in the scope of history, it almost doesn't matter who did it. In the far distant future, i doubt there will be the U.S. but there will always be the first humans to land on a different world. If we survive long enough, we might not even know why people did it or what planet we came from, but we will still know that we started somewhere, and that at some point in the distant past, someone took the first steps into space.

 

[Melvin]

I truly do not wish to sound I am Knocking 99.999% of our friends over the pond but this must rank high in the 10 ten of stupid things Politicians anywhere have come up with.

Oh no... never EVER underestimate the stupidity of the professional American politician.

This is relatively sane in comparison to some of the dandies we've been subjected to in our history.

 

[paddy2]

I am not claiming that the act makes the moon part of the USA but that a signed piece of paper in Washington is not big enough to cover the Moon.

absurd comparison. The District of Columbia is not a state, but it is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.

If we where to swap Moon for District of Columbia then absurd comparison would ring true.

However as I have no wish to take part in a flame war I will not be posting to this thread again. ( unless an act is passed in some far off land, which has no jurisdiction over me, by Politicians with inflated egos, makes out that it can demand it of me.....)

 

[C3PO]

Oh no... never EVER underestimate the stupidity of the professional American politician.

This is relatively sane in comparison to some of the dandies we've been subjected to in our history.

I liked the one that would order NASA to drive Spirit or Opportunity over to the Apollo landing sites in order to silence the Moon hoaxers once and for all.

 

[Codz]

If we where to swap Moon for District of Columbia then absurd comparison would ring true.

Actually, it still wouldn't. The Moon is not an entity populated by citizens of the country in question, as well as its seat of government. It's an oversimplification of the situation.

 

[Melvin]

I liked the one that would order NASA to drive Spirit or Opportunity over to the Apollo landing sites in order to silence the Moon hoaxers once and for all.

Oh man... :facepalm: That was a good one. :rofl:




Meanwhile, back at NASA HQ...

 

[Evil_Onyx]

Back on topic.
I agree that the Apollo landing sights should be protected, but If anyone thinks it will happen with out an international agreement and inclusion in a Treaty they are crazy, and i don't think that it is enforceable for the foreseeable future in any event.