How To Avoid a Scramble For the Moon and Its Resources 365
MarkWhittington writes "With the Chang'e 3 and its rover Jade Rabbit safely ensconced on the lunar surface, the question arises: is it time to start dividing up the moon and its resources? It may well be an issue by the middle of the current century. With China expressing interest in exploiting lunar resources and a number of private companies, such Moon Express, working for the same goal, a mechanism for who gets what is something that needs looking into. Moon Daily quotes a Russian official as suggesting that it can all be done in a civilized manner, through international agreements. On the other hand, law professor and purveyor of Instapundit Glenn Reynolds suggests that China might spark a moon race by having a private company claim at least parts of the moon. 'International cooperation will certainly rule supreme while there are no economic interests, while it is not clear where commercial profits lie. Scientists can't help communicating with each other and sharing ideas.'"
Enforcement (Score:2, Insightful)
Property rights might come into play some day, when the moon is crowded or scarce materials are identified in limited places, but until then, good luck writing things down on paper on Earth and expecting anybody to care about that. Property on The Moon will belong to whoever gets there and defends their claim.
If any Earth Nation expects to shoot down transit flights to or from the moon to enforce their paper claim, the ramifications will be far more severe than if they simply did nothing. Perhaps the politicians will mumble and gurgle about it, but then do nothing, as is their typical pattern.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're so jaded you just come off as ignorant. Bridges standing, roads open, clean water, electricity: those are all *major* problems that China and India actively struggle with. We don't.
Moot point (Score:4, Insightful)
He who gets there fustest with the mostest (Score:4, Insightful)
Some badguy once said that the way to win a battle was "He who gets there fustest with the mostest". That typically works pretty well for most human endeavors. We should want a scramble to get to the moon. Human innovation, powered by greed, has typically been the best catalyst for moving forward. I fail to see why this would be any different.
The UN would undoubtedly screw it up, as would any other controlling agency. So for the time being, leave it uncontrolled. It causes no harm and may do good.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. We're so backwards we can't even land the most complex lander ever devised on Mars. Or put satellites in orbit and Jupiter and Saturn.
And keep a manned spacecraft up and running for years. Or pay for the Hubble (several times).
Awful. Awful. Awful.
Yeah China - they manage to take mostly Russian technology and do something that both the US and the USSR did 40 years ago.
The Chinese are to be congratulated - no matter where the tech came from, it's a significant accomplishment. And FSM knows we need some competition here (it's the American way, right?). But quit the angst.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
No one can get to the Moon and no one has the resources to do so. Realistically this is something we'll have to figure out in a hundred years, not every time someone lands a rover on the moon.
We went from the Wright brothers flight to landing a couple dudes on the Moon in less than 60 years. Because we had a reason.
Never underestimate the drive and ability of human beings with a purpose.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, we have two active rovers on Mars - one that has been roving around for 10 years. In addition, two of the orbiters we sent there are still operational, with another en route. The ESA has had an orbiter for 10 years. Even India has an orbiter en route to Mars. Do you really think we don't have the capability to land a rover on the moon?
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't.
Yet.
How to avoid a scramble? (Score:5, Insightful)
First place the moon far away.
Next introduce a large gravity well around earth. Then make sure there is a vacuum on the moon and the only source of power is the sun.
That will avoid a scramble for a long time.
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (Score:2, Insightful)
If we mine a shitload of material out of the moon, won't that affect it's gravitational effect on the planet?
I haven't seen a failure of perspective (or even expending a minute effort to think) of this magnitude in quite some time. You're a fucking retard.
Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and when technology supports shipping quintillions of tons, we'll worry about that.
Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (Score:5, Insightful)
If we mine a shitload of material out of the moon, won't that affect it's gravitational effect on the planet?
Mass of moon: 7 x 10^22 kg
World annual steel production: 1 x 10^12 kg
World annual concrete production: 2 x 10^13 kg
Not an imminent problem to solve!
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not ignorant. I'm just paying attention. It's like the character Hari Seldon's observations in Asimov's Foundation series. You start noticing problems with the little things -- a burned out light here or there; a pothole that never gets repaired; road signs that get knocked down and are not replaced; etc, etc. Individually, they don't amount to much, but they are indicative of poor planning, bad management, and indifference.
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
The folks killed by the I-35W bridge collapse [wikipedia.org] beg to differ.
And before you object that anecdotes are not data, the ASCE thinks that America is barely passing [infrastruc...rtcard.org] overall.
Re:nothing of any us to us on moon (Score:5, Insightful)
So unless the idea is to produce stuff that goes further out and not back to Earth,
mining the Moon is just an insanely difficult way to get resources we have plenty
of down here.
Duh. The whole point of mining on the moon is that it is IN SPACE. It is at the bottom of a shallow gravity well, with no atmosphere, so a simple mass driver [wikipedia.org] (way more efficient that chemical rockets) can be used to launch materials into orbit. Other than maybe the Helium-3, no one is going to bring these materials back to earth.
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
While China and India are sending spacecraft there, our government can't even build a working website
"Truthiness" much? Do you have any idea how fucking many perfectly functional web sites the US Government has? Starting with NASA's? Ever register a copyright? copyright.gov. Want to see how many people live in your town? Census.gov. And guess what? Even the Obamacare site is working now.
How the hell did that completely inaccurate comment get modded up? Twice! I'm glad they were overruled by smarter moderators.
our finest minds are squandered on ways to get people to click links
Jeff Bezos is our finest mind? I think you'll find that the "finest minds" aren't greedsters, but scientists working at universities and yes, at NASA.