Debate and Discussion

selling the moon
subcultured at 6:29AM, March 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
why are there people buying land on the moon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/12/1081621893552.html


it won't hold up. i think of the moon as the wild west…free land until you can put a flag up there and stay there and build.

you can't sell something that doesn't belong to you…
it's like me saying I own the milky way

i rule over everyone!
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
Phantom Penguin at 7:21AM, March 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
I'm suprised some really rich dude hasn't bought the whole damn thing yet.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
ozoneocean at 7:27AM, March 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,091
joined: 1-2-2004
Oh it's nonsense of course. All ownership ultimately has to be able to be backed up by some kind of tangible force doesn't it? The first nation or corporation that gets out there and plants its infrastructure (base, mining equipment, whatever) will own what they hold, (if they can hold it). People on Earth can buy and sell what they like but it doesn't mean anything, it's just fantasy.

It's like ownership of territory in international waters; Countries try and annex little islands as part of their territory so they have control over the international waters around them- they become territorial waters instead; that way they gain military advantage, but most importantly they get exclusive access to valuable fish stocks, oil and gas reserves and control over lucrative shipping lanes. But they only HAVE that so long as they control those islands, which they'll usually be in dispute over with other countries.

Another complication occurs when nations adjoin each other or where their territorial waters meet… They have to carefully negotiate where they overlap. Throughout all this it's force that is one of the major deciders, in fact it's probably the major decider, beyond trade, diplomacy and all the rest.

Let these mooncalves argue the finer points of law and how it applies to ludicrous impossibilities. When space exploitation actually does become a viable concern these loons will find out just exactly how much their claims are worth.

-obvious puns there… ho hum.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
subcultured at 10:26AM, March 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
i hope space pioneering comes within my lifetime. i would so like to go to the moon…but they have to create something to protect people from cosmic rays, sun radiation, cosmic rocks and projectiles, no 02…a lot of work. so unless those guys that “own” the moon can figure out how to do that and stay there, it's all b.s.

like the bumper sticker “my other car is a porche”

J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
ozoneocean at 12:15PM, March 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,091
joined: 1-2-2004
I personally doubt that space exploitation will be possible at all without heavy investment by governments setting up the infrastructure first, as well as funding all the R&D. No private source has the resources needed to fund something that will never be commercially viable by itself. ie. whatever project they would like top get underway in space could NEVER pay off it's start-up costs. So commercially driven exploitation of space is impossible, at least in the mid to short term.

But governments can easily afford to piss away trillions on things that will never turn a profit. They have virtually unlimited resources because all they have to do is keep skimming their populace for more. It's the strategy that most big companies and billionaires rely on to get even richer: Let a governments do the work for you and then you just step in and take over once they've taken all the big risks. That's how space expansion can happen in the long run!

As for the moon: the simplest thing to do would be to set up bases underground. Nothing protects from radiation and micro-meteor impact like solid rock. Mining is a straight forward operation, I'm sure it could be managed. The moon would be the perfect base for expansion into the solar system, because once you're out of the Earth's gravity well you can do what you like with energy… Set up nuclear reactors on the moon, Solar power stations, whatever. Mine asteroids and maybe even send resources back down via some kid of carefully plotted controlled/assisted orbit. But once you've gotten enough workers and materials out of the gravity trap of earth to be self sustaining (and more) on the moon (or somewhere else), the battle is won.

The trouble is getting them, the equipment and start-up resources there to start with, and then making a start. It's so amazingly expensive and hard and dangerous that it's just impossible for us to do in the near future.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
subcultured at 12:27PM, March 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
with a moon station they would be able to launch things out to space easier and with less pollution for earth. the gravity is low, so it might speed up the colonization of mars or whatever planet we will try to colonize now.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
Custard Trout at 12:46PM, March 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
Kind of reminds me of something from the Red Dwarf book, Peterson buys property on one of the planets moons, but it has a methane atmosphere (was it methane? I'm pretty sure it was), so all he could do was float around in a space suit.

'Also, the moon orbits BACKWARDS!'

'Is that really important?'

'Not really, but it's a nice talking point'

(quote is not accurate, I can't find the book to check, but that's basically what it says)

Aha, maybe that's it? They buy it have a talking point and show off how rich they are.

'In a few years they plan to install an atmosphere, you know what'll happen to house prices then? They'll rocket baby!'

Or they could just be getting ready for when we can actually live there. IF we ever manage it. Which probably won't be in their lifetimes, so for their offspring?

I still think it's stupid though.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:59AM
ozoneocean at 12:52PM, March 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,091
joined: 1-2-2004
Certainly it'll facilitate further colonisation, certainly! But setting up on somewhere like Mars is chucking yourself into the bottom of another gravity well. You better have a lot of resources, man-power and technology behind you or it's going to be tough to leave Mars once you get there. Maybe that's fine for a few people, but harder for bigger populations. Until we solve the massive energy drain that leaving planets costs us we're better off just throwing people out there to set themselves up in space stations, the moon and asteroids and then keep going until they have a critical mass of tech, raw materials, know-how and manpower to tackle other problems. Because Earth can only send a trickle which can't possibly supply popper expansion.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
Glarg at 1:23PM, March 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,646
joined: 11-11-2006
Wasn't the moon unclaimed territory that the USA claimed once they landed on it?
So then they CAN sell the moon, can't they?
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:37PM
subcultured at 1:27PM, March 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
hell no, that stupid if that's thier legal loophole for owning the moon

there would be war agianst china since they are planning on colonizing it in coming years

damn! we need another space race! it was cool back in the 50's when all these nations started to produce technology really fast to get up in space
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
Glarg at 1:42PM, March 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,646
joined: 11-11-2006
Maybe China and the USA are going to combine into one nation on the moon, you know make a whole new nation up there.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:37PM
ozoneocean at 1:52PM, March 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,091
joined: 1-2-2004
Have you been reading Robert Heinlein books Glarg?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
Glarg at 1:57PM, March 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,646
joined: 11-11-2006
ozoneocean
Have you been reading Robert Heinlein books Glarg?
Who?

BAH anyways if we do establish a base on the moon thing of the ships we could make, think of the sizes of them, Al that land mass it literally A large rocket structure base!

We could launch plutonium/nuclear/uranium fueld rockets without endagering earths habitat and explore farther reaches of the universe ALOT quicker!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:37PM
Jillers at 6:01PM, March 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 236
joined: 3-7-2006
Glarg
Maybe China and the USA are going to combine into one nation on the moon, you know make a whole new nation up there.

Like Firefly!


So…. I have some property on Mercury I'm willing to sell to anyone in the market.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:08PM
Red Slayer at 7:21PM, March 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,873
joined: 3-1-2006
subcultured
why are there people buying land on the moon?

Because they are gullible and they have lots of money.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
Alexis at 7:35PM, March 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 314
joined: 1-15-2007
How can someone sell the moon if no one owns it to begin with? If you believe that then I have the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM
subcultured at 7:38PM, March 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
oh yea, i forgot about that brooklyn bridge scam lol
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
reconjsh at 11:00PM, March 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
I find it interesting that we haven't been to the moon for 35 years… since 1972. How can we sell something that we don't frequent?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
CorruptComics at 3:59PM, March 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 191
joined: 1-16-2007
I heard about this years ago and legally, it holds. The moon was declared, years ago, by most nations to be neutral territory. It has no goverment ownership.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:46AM
ozoneocean at 3:44AM, March 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,091
joined: 1-2-2004
Legally it's irrelevant until something can actually be done.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
CorruptComics at 11:47AM, March 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 191
joined: 1-16-2007
Someday…

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:46AM
rengori at 4:47PM, March 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 196
joined: 3-10-2006
I bet someone will make a theme park on the moon. With blackjack, and hookers. Actually, forget the theme park.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:05PM
CorruptComics at 12:20PM, March 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 191
joined: 1-16-2007
and the blackjack
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:46AM
ozoneocean at 1:21PM, March 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,091
joined: 1-2-2004
This is the debate and discussion thread, please read the rules guys, ok?
This isn't a forum for inane attempts at humour… Please try a bit harder when you have something to say about the topic or you'll end up ruining it and I'll either delete your posts of lock the whole thread. No one wants that, it spoils the fun.

Just to let you know. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved