House Democrats Propose National Park On the Moon 255
MarkWhittington writes "Two House Democrats, Reps. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), have proposed a bill called Apollo Lunar Landing Legacy Act, H.R. 2617 (PDF), that would establish the Apollo Lunar Landing Sites National Historical Park at all the Apollo lunar landing sites, according to a story in The Hill. 'The park would be comprised of all artifacts left on the surface of the moon from the Apollo 11 through 17 missions. The bill says these sites need to be protected because of the anticipated increase in commercial moon landings in the future.'"
A spacey idea... (Score:5, Funny)
This idea is absolutely nuts. But if they're hiring park rangers I'll be in line!
Re: (Score:3)
I just want a season pass.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the Congresspeople who proposed it should have to be the first to staff it.
(What do you mean there's no oxygen?)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Congresspeople who proposed it should have to be the first to staff it.
(What do you mean there's no oxygen?)
We tried this in the 80's. We thought we were gods.
As it turns out when the second rocket was sent back to collect the corpses^H^H^H^H^H^H^H erm... important experimental apparatus, they were still alive. Our leading theory is that they had produced enough gas to allow them to survive an extended period in vacuum. What we cant explain is how the didn't rupture with the pressure differential.
Re: (Score:2)
But if they're hiring park rangers I'll be in line!
Oh, I know what you are really after: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_on_the_moon [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One problem... (Score:2, Funny)
We don't own it so they don't have the jurisdiction to pass laws on the moon. How about a zoo for these moon bats?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are assuming space tourism will eventually lead to moon excursions and they don't want people removing the items.
Funding details? (Score:2)
(I need to believe that the government didn't have the ability to lie to us about that (at least not that long ago)).
Of all the stupid... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of all the stupid, hare-brained ideas we've seen, this one has to be the stupidest so far.
We're close to exponential runaway on government spending (borrowing more, and more often). The economy is barely moving despite drenching it in money, jobs are part-time with no benefits, we jail more people than China, the government plainly tramples over all our civil rights, oil is running out, tax law is a joke, IP law is a joke, immigration law is a joke, H1B visas are a joke...
I'm half inclined to start a new political movement: the "Boot" party.
Let's give these people "the boot" - vote the incumbents out! Keep turnover high until we get good people who can accomplish something worthwhile.
Re:Of all the stupid... (Score:4, Funny)
This is equivalent to "no matter how much gasoline I pour on it, this fire just won't go out"
Re:Of all the stupid... (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress can't do anything else, on account of the gridlock, so why not spend a few minutes voting on this?
And by the way, if you just indiscriminately vote out incumbents every cycle, you'll never get anyone good in office. You'll just get wave after wave of naive freshmen, easily exploited by lobbyists.
Re: (Score:3)
So, how about revising the Boot a bit? We don't need to keep recycling people in and out of office to have a workable system, in that respect you're absolutely right.
How about outlawing lobbying altogether, and demand that incumbents be left alone to do their job? That sounds like a good idea. Oh, even better, how about, when you hold a public office, you're expected to do that job, and it is expected to be a full time job - so we could mandate that while in office, you may not have any other for-profit act
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to add that politicians should be monitored whether the laws they create "accidentally" aid companies where they go after they leave office to get comfy jobs where they don't do jack for a few millions a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, we can arbitrarily tighten the noose until they comply or stop running for office, whichever is fine with me - the end result just has to be that unbiased-good-for-all-of-us decision has to become the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't *put* a national park *anywhere*. You *declare* an area a national park, because it has some particular quality or value that needs to be protected. Sometimes, as a result of this, you set up information stations and things to assist tourists, but that's entirely secondary.
You think that when they created the Northeast Greenland National Park they went around putting up a fence and souvenir stands?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that whole part about the moon not being part of the united states...
and that bit about jailing more people than China.... actually we jail a larger percentage of our population than any government in the history of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
and that bit about jailing more people than China.... actually we jail a larger percentage of our population than any government in the history of the world.
Also don't forget that we don't get enough exercise either!
(Unless they were proposing a national prison on the moon, your point isn't exactly relevant to this discussion)
Re: (Score:2)
The economy is barely moving because we're clawing our way back from the worst recession in generations, and the governmen
Bill passes and .... (Score:5, Funny)
Tell you what though; I will be first in line to apply for the position of park ranger for this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Only privatization can fix that problem.
Comment removed (Score:3)
I certainly hope (Score:4, Insightful)
That they come up with an original name [nps.gov]...
Fantastic (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There's 435 voting representatives and 100 senators. Despite Congress's ability to get any real meaningful work done in Washington as a whole due to partisan politics, it's still entirely possible for individual members to multitask and work on multiple works of legislation at the same time.
Somehow the effort required to setup a lunar national park that most likely would have minimal if any opposition to as well as likely unenforceable (at least outside the US and maybe inside as well) is significantly easi
Becaue all other problems have been solved (Score:2)
Yes, let's spend time in the House of Representatives debating a bill establishing an international landmark on the moon because we got nothing better to do.
We have not seen a federal budget passed in how long? Ten years I recall. We got federal agents selling guns to drug dealers. These drug dealers then shoot federal agents. The economy is crap. We've seen an ambassador and his security detail get murdered. Government employees are openly lying to Congress and keep their jobs instead of ending up in
Re: (Score:2)
It will take at least a generation for the "old guard" to die off. After you and your friends have all died off Congress will come together and be able to act in unison.
From the lookout-for-the-landmines dept (Score:3)
The park would be comprised of all artifacts left on the surface of the moon from the Apollo 11 through 17 missions.
Including bags of astronaut shit? [youtube.com] Yeah, it just wouldn't be the same if someone cleaned those up...
Re: (Score:2)
The park would be comprised of all artifacts left on the surface of the moon from the Apollo 11 through 17 missions.
Including bags of astronaut shit? [youtube.com] Yeah, it just wouldn't be the same if someone cleaned those up...
At least they bagged it, I'm sick of having to avoid naked dog turds on the footpath.
Re: (Score:3)
If we return those, we could bring back the original Astronauts with advanced cloning techniques, and let them roam free in the park. Apollo Park.
The real reason... (Score:2, Troll)
Passport Stamp (Score:2)
moon landings in the future (Score:3)
Yeah, that is a thing that is going to happen. Any day now.
NRHP (Score:3)
The United States Department of the Interior listed a location outside the nation on the National Register of Historic Places: the oldest American embassy [wikipedia.org]. The Apollo sites are certainly as worthy of preservation. They should be listed as historic landmarks.
I want my camera! (Score:4, Interesting)
Hasselblad, who made some of NASA's photographic equipment, used to run adverts offering free cameras to anyone who was prepared to go and pick them up. These were, of course, the Hasselblads left behind by the astronauts on the lunar surface. And now this bunch of do-gooders wants to put all the Apollo artefacts off-limits! Has the camera offer been cancelled? I feel betrayed!
Proposal (Score:2)
I propose Newt Gingrich as Chief Ranger.
Sounds absurd but (Score:2)
The lunar landing sites are historically significant. At the very least there should be a policy in place that all space agencies, private and public, should recognize these sites and possibly protect them. At least make it so the lander base, flags, experiments and vehicles must not be disturbed, moved or vandalized. In the future if there are regular commercial visits people will try to take artifacts back for collection.
As for a national park: NO. The USA nor any other country or agency owns the moon.
Our government at work (Score:2)
Apollo artifacts are still US property (Score:2)
Aren't all artifacts left by the Apollo missions still considered US property and therefore still protected by federal law? As far as I know, the US government never relinquished ownership, and therefore no additional protection is needed.
All this does is add unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative costs. Once this "park" is set up, the artifacts will have to be catalogued, regulations drafted, lawyers proficient in space law consulted -all this will be non-trivial expenses for little benefit.
who owns the moon? (Score:2)
It's dumb for Americans to claim the moon as ours.
Re: (Score:3)
The trick is to (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
One of these days, AC. Bam! Pow! Straight to the moon.
Re:how about (Score:5, Informative)
they go fuck themselves since the moon isn't America's
From TFA:
“The government would also have to submit the Apollo 11 lunar landing site to the United Nations for designation as a World Heritage site.”
I'd think they've got a legitimate case for that being accepted. Terminology gets a little interesting though, with "World" referring to the moon as well.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:how about (Score:5, Insightful)
But how is anything the UN says gonna affect private enterprise?
Countries are subject to national laws. Countries are all part of the UN, and even the ones that aren't can be more or less forced to go along with it by the ones that are.
do all countries obey UN mandates
Insofar as anyone obeys the laws they themselves have agreed to follow (which, I take your point, is not as often as one might hope).
sooner or later SOMEBODY is gonna grab 'em.
So... making an effort towards later rather than sooner is probably worthwhile.
Certainly the UN is only as capable as its member states, who are only so capable, and eventually I'm sure law and order will break down enough for whatever reason that anyone who feels like it can go pillage historical artefacts from everyone else. But for the moment we try and avoid that.
There isn't an infinite time horizon solution. We could simply say 'free for all, first come first serve' and let the artefacts get sold, but eventually notions of private property will break down long enough for someone to steal them from their owner of the day and if they have bigger weapons than the other guy, I guess that makes it legal. But for as long as there is lawful authority (insofar as such a thing exists at all) we can make laws to try and do the best possible for now, and when we're dead the next group of people can deal with whatever their problem of the day is. Lets face it, if they find the 25th century equivalent of oil under the apollo landing sights, they're getting moved to museums, and I wouldn't begrudge my greatx20 grand children whatever choice they think is best. For the moment 'don't touch' seems like the best bet.
Re:how about (Score:5, Interesting)
If a private space entrepreneur does the job of flying to the moon, collecting the artifacts, and returning them before the US government gets its act together, perhaps ending up in his private collection is a fitting outcome.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be cool to do a sort of "street view" simulation based on high resolution scanning and photography. For example, you could have a small vehicle that would "hop" over the site at low altitude, making multiple passes from various angles, downloading the data to earth between hops. You would want to repeat the whole process a few times to catch the scene from different lighting angles, etc., but eventually you'd have enough data to reconstruct the whole area in fine detail. It would be a lot of fun to
Re: (Score:2)
Re:how about (Score:4, Informative)
Remember We do these things because they are hard?
Not particularly, and that was never the case anyway. It was always a space race, an attempt to beat Cold War enemies. With that rationale gone, NASA lost much of its support.
Re: (Score:2)
Not particularly, and that was never the case anyway. It was always a space race, an attempt to beat Cold War enemies
Yes, and that goal was set because it was achievable, but a difficult (ie hard) goal to achieve.
The motivating force might have been to ultimate-one-up the Soviets, but for it to be a true 'win' that goal had to be hard. Otherwise, it wouldn't be as significant as it was.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember We do these things because they are hard?
Not particularly, and that was never the case anyway. It was always a space race, an attempt to beat Cold War enemies. With that rationale gone, NASA lost much of its support.
This is an important detail that seems to be glossed over. NASA's development prior to the 80's was a way of developing technology the military needed that was too "big" to be kept classified. Big rockets were needed for big nukes. Putting spacecraft into orbit and being able to control those orbits was necessary for spy satellites. Skylab was about countering concerns of manned space spy stations from the Soviets. The moon shot was half cold-war PR and half critical military technology development.
Post-Apo
Re: (Score:3)
"Big rockets were needed for big nukes." -- at least this was factually incorrect by the time NASA came around in 1958. The military originally developed the Saturn I, predecessor to Apollo's Saturn IB and Saturn V in the late 50's/early 60's but gave it up to NASA when they determined that they had no military use for a rocket that big -- the nukes were coming down nicely in size. When the military later needed boosters bigger than their biggest ICBM (Titan II) they independently developed the Titan III
Re:how about (Score:4, Informative)
Never mind that all this was only possible in the first place thanks to public research and public implementation...
And thanks to the German V2 program that was lifted lock stock and barrel in Operation Paperclip. (or at least the parts that weren't taken by the Soviets)
Re: (Score:3)
You are right, UN mandates are only as strong as the guns that support them. And, since most of the world believes as you do that private ownership supersedes public, you can rest assured that those "grab them" claims to ownership will be defended. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just get along?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The same way all international agreements are held, with threat of sanction and war.
Theft of those relics would be prosecuted just like any other crime.
Re: (Score:3)
they go fuck themselves since the moon isn't America's
From TFA:
“The government would also have to submit the Apollo 11 lunar landing site to the United Nations for designation as a World Heritage site.”
I'd think they've got a legitimate case for that being accepted. Terminology gets a little interesting though, with "World" referring to the moon as well.
I'm not sure the attempt to be designated as a World Heritage site is an acknowledgement of the fact that the Moon isn't American property, I'm willing to bet that most UN World Heritage sites exist in some country's territory.
I'm looking at this with a very sympathetic eye, but at best this is a naive, but good hearted attempt to establish some precedence for protecting the Apollo landing sites before a serious commercial interest gets involved, an attempt that doesn't realize you can't declare a national
Re: (Score:3)
You can declare a national park any place you want. Preventing access to others is another thing.
In this case if a private company tries to steal this stuff you can either prosecute or declare the Apollo 11 Site has become the Lunar Atomic Range. I doubt anyone would risk a swift nuking to steal some artifacts.
Re: (Score:2)
How about the UN go fuck itself because the moon isn't theirs, either.
In your view, does anyone have legal authority to dictate what happens on the moon? Is there a proper legal authority for this at all?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:how about (Score:5, Funny)
Well, the moon landings WERE faked, but they were filmed on the moon.
We've had a base up there since 1958. It's just on the far side so you can't see it from Earth.
Re:how about (Score:5, Funny)
Nonsense. That's where the Nazis are hiding out. Didn't you see the documentary [wikipedia.org] about it?
Re:how about (Score:5, Funny)
they go fuck themselves since the moon isn't America's
Oh but it is! Here, this terrifying truth was uncovered right here on slashdot, but since the Democrats have been trying to cover it up, many haven't heard. The current generation needs to read this, so I'll repost it now.
The Moon - A Ridiculous Liberal Myth
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
Re: (Score:2)
That one was actually humorous.
No mention before 1950?? lol
Good job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The lesser light reference was introduced in 1953, six years after the Roswell aliens gave the Democrats time travel technology and fertilizer. All editions of the Bible were retrofitted to make this new satellite agreeable to proper God fearing Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure, but this might actually be a contradiction of Poe's Law.
Re:how about (Score:5, Informative)
Re:how about (Score:5, Funny)
It only counts when somebody licks the surface with their bare tongue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When I was a kid, I got my Frisbee stuck on the roof. That doesn't mean that I got onto the roof.
In my house it did.
I remember climbing up on the roof by time I was 6 or 7, and probably sooner. After all, I was the youngest, therefor the smallest and lightest to lift up.
By time I was 7 or 8, we actually had an upper porch that had direct access to the roof, so we were up there whenever we wanted.
Re: (Score:3)
We got there first. We claimed it. What more do you want?
Speaking of which, the Nacotchtank [wikipedia.org] want to know when they can move back into the whitehouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of which, the Nacotchtank [wikipedia.org] want to know when they can move back into the whitehouse.
Did they have a flag [youtube.com]?
Re:how about (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. But the Brits did. So pack your crap and move out, the redcoats wanna move in again. You can pack your third amendment too, while you're at it.
Snide comments aside, when will humanity learn that "but I was here first" means exactly jack when it comes to land claims. How far back do you want to reach to determine who owns it? Should Europe belong to Austria, for they pretty much held a sizable portion of it in the 18th century? Or maybe the Germans, after all the Holy Roman Empire, which contained pretty much all of central Europe, was ruled by German Emperors for most of its existence? Maybe the French would be more fitting, after all Emperor Charlemagne ruled nearly all of Europe in 800. Or the Mongols? I mean, considering how much of it was conquered by Attila before? Or Italy, owning it to the Roman Empire? Maybe Greece would be fitting, considering they settled almost all over those parts of Europe that border the Mediterranean Sea. Or ... who is the legal successor of the Celts again?
Forget "I was here first" as a claims to land. You might find out that someone can say that to you, too.
Re:how about (Score:4, Insightful)
Snide comments aside, when will humanity learn that "but I was here first" means exactly jack when it comes to land claims.
Fun quote from The Lion in Winter:
Henry II: The Vexin's mine.
Philip II: By what authority?
Henry II: It's got my troops all over it; that makes it mine.
Re: (Score:3)
We Europeans did that all the time during the great exploring days. No matter if there were other people living there, if we found it it was usually ours.
Re: (Score:3)
We also stuck a flag on it. So finders keepers.
The UK stuck its flag on what is now the USA, and look how that turned out.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it will be a while before our moon territory revolts. One of the main things missing for this to happen is a population.
Re:No one has territory on the moon (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the folks proposing this didn't think too hard about how the word 'national' will be read outside the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the US has some rather "straightforward" laws about National Parks - which are also places like the Lincoln Memorial (I think they file those under National Heritage) and places that are important to the military.
And while I totally agree that they can't really enforce it outside the US, it does actually go a long way to defining what can and can't be done there by US companies. So, actually, I think that this is a great idea. It probably takes next to no time to propose in parliament, will likely
Re: (Score:2)
So you are okay with China and all other non-US companies doing whatever they will while limiting US companies ability to compete universally?
Re: (Score:3)
If the US has it as a national park, the others will likely be polite enough to avoid trashing it. That's the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you cite references that support your assertion that others will not trash a US national park simply because it is a US national park? What benefit do they receive from preserving it?
Re: (Score:2)
You might be allowed to keep your oil. Or at least sell it instead of having it taken from you.
Re: (Score:2)
If the US has it as a national park, the others will likely be polite enough to avoid trashing it.
How naive...
This is how America falls... via people so disconnected from reality..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You say that like shooting murderers and junkies on the moon is a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they didn't care how that would be read outside the US.
That's kinda encompassed in not thinking to hard about it, yeah.
I know I don't.
Perhaps there's a future for you as a House Democrat then.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they didn't care how that would be read outside the US.
That's kinda encompassed in not thinking to hard about it, yeah.
Not necessarily. It could be more like the difference between negligence and willful negligence.
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily. It could be more like the difference between negligence and willful negligence.
You are arguing that "willful negligence" is not negligence at all.
Not thinking too hard about something necessarily encompasses not caring about it enough to think about it. Which is not to say that not thinking about it equates with not caring about it. If you are going to split hairs for no good reason at least try to be correct.
You've misidentified the hairs I've split.
Let's look at it from the POV of a political candidate for office. I have two different speeches in front of me. One has broad appeal, but really won't motivate my base, and I'm fairly confident that even though I'm saying the right things I won't persuade many registered X voters to vote for me because I'm the Y party candidate.
The other speech is a little irritating to the other side, but will get my base out of their houses and into the voting booths. Ultimate
Re: (Score:2)
Gotcha.
Re: (Score:2)
Simpsons reference, anyone? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
always insisting the US must do things to make everybody like us no matter whether the actions will have long term negative effects
The opposite of that is what spawns the terrorist boogeyman. You're deluding yourself if you think anything is done, that does not directly or indirectly put money in the pockets of those in power. Whatever people feel about the Americans as a nation, it is completely of your own doing, and invoking long term negative consequences as a boogeyman works both ways. The only significant difference in either school of thought is when the negative consequences manifest themselves, stop doing shit for profit all t
Re: (Score:2)
They do not intend to mark off a couple hundred acres worth of moon surface and label it a US national park...
Re: (Score:2)
And a Communist government is somehow better? Fuck off.