Picked from Google news, TASS writes (TASS - Russian News Agency)
MOSCOW, October 27. /TASS/. The issue of the US intention to extract mineral resources on the Moon will be discussed at the 75th session of the UN General Assembly at Russia's request, the State Space Corporation Roscosmos told TASS on Tuesday
[...] "The corresponding item has been included in the session's agenda. The issue will be raised on behalf of the Russian Federation in line with the procedure accepted at the UN," Roscosmos specified.
Roscosmos Chief Dmitry Rogozin earlier stated that the Moon's privatization contradicted international law and Russia would not allow this.
Previous Reporting: NASA Says it Will Pay Private Companies to Gather Moon Rocks
Related Stories
Russia's space chief is hopping mad over most recent US restrictions
On Monday the US Commerce Department released a list of Chinese and Russian companies that it says have military ties. The list designates 58 Chinese and 43 Russian companies as "military end users" and requires exporters to obtain a license before selling them products. Such licenses are unlikely to be issued.
[...] The list includes several space companies in China and Russia, including the Progress Rocket Space Center in Samara, Russia. This company develops and manufactures the Soyuz rockets that have carried Russian and US astronauts to the International Space Station for the last decade after the US space shuttle retired.
The inclusion of the Soyuz manufacturer drew a swift rebuke from Dmitry Rogozin, the leader of Russia's space corporation, Roscosmos, on Tuesday. In his heated statement, Rogozin said the restrictions were "illegal," and he characterized them as "stupid."
"This Samara enterprise manufactures the legendary Soyuz-2 launch vehicles, with the help of which the Soyuz MS spacecraft has been taking American astronauts to the ISS for 10 years already," he said. "Now, it turns out that our American colleagues have their 'trampoline working' again, and the first thing they did is spit into the Samara well. Isn't it too early, colleagues, in case your 'trampoline' breaks again suddenly and you will have to satisfy your passion for space from our well again?"
Earlier, Rogozin had demonstrated yet again that SpaceX is on his mind:
NASA says it will pay private companies to gather Moon rocks:
NASA will only pay the bulk of the funds after lunar material is collected.
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced Thursday that the space agency will seek to purchase between 50 and 500 grams of lunar regolith from one or more commercial providers.
In its newly issued "request for quotations," NASA is asking private companies to submit bids for the work. As part of the competitive process, NASA may select one or more companies but will only pay the bulk of the contract price—80 percent—upon delivery of the materials.
NASA has made one important concession as part of its contract, allowing that "delivery" of the materials may take place on the Moon.
[...] Speaking at the Secure World Foundation's Summit for Space Sustainability on Thursday morning, Bridenstine said one goal of the proposal is to create a norm for this kind of commercial activity within the Outer Space Treaty. Like on Earth, he said, "You do not own the ocean, but you own the tuna."
[...] There has been much talk over the last decade of mining asteroids for rare metals or collecting water ice from the lunar poles. But these are big, hard, expensive things to do. What NASA's announcement has done is signal to companies that it is a potential customer for lunar resources.
It would seem SLS is the ideal launch vehicle for private companies to select for their various missions to collect lunar regolith.
Also at: CNBC.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday November 04 2020, @05:07AM (35 children)
Did Russia's actions in Ukraine obey international law?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Wednesday November 04 2020, @05:24AM (12 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Wednesday November 04 2020, @05:03PM (11 children)
No.
https://newrepublic.com/article/116819/international-law-russias-ukraine-intervention [newrepublic.com]
TL;DR
Russia is in breach of Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday November 04 2020, @10:23PM (10 children)
It's an arguable point, my flat "no" should be read tongue in cheek, but it's at least an arguable point. Unlike most of the stuff the USA is doing routinely at this point, so we just come off to the rest of the world as giant hypocrites by even trying to make this argument.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday November 05 2020, @09:01AM
Fine, thanks for clarification.
> we just come off to the rest of the world as giant hypocrites by even trying to make this argument.
I haven't seen Team America World Police for too long, and I am in the class of people who think Starship Troopers is a satire of the (1st) Iraq War - so yes, I agree.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 06 2020, @02:38PM (8 children)
Like what? Seriously, if you're going to play that game, state something credible first. This just looks like another case of whataboutism where we're excusing what Russia (China, etc) does because the US did something similar, but not as bad.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday November 06 2020, @09:45PM (7 children)
Syria, Iraq, Libya for just a few recent examples of illegal invasions just in the past few years. And we're routinely committing acts of war in or against many others, ranging from drone strikes on those pesky wedding parties to piracy on the high seas (with Iran being a recent target of that last crime.)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 07 2020, @05:27AM (6 children)
What laws were broken in each case? Syria is a particularly ridiculous case since those people invaded at least a third of Iraq, a current ally of the US. The response wasn't illegal and it wouldn't make sense to make it illegal.
Again, what makes those events illegal? Even weddings become valid military targets when enough military assets congregate there. And piracy has a legal meaning. And given that we're already in a shooting war with the intended targets, so what if it's an act of war. There's plenty of acts of war in an actual war.
And I find it interesting how so many of these arguments come out only to defend Putin. Whataboutism is classic Soviet-era propaganda. That works both ways. If it's ok for Russia to do these things, then that makes it ok for the US to do the same.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday November 07 2020, @07:41AM (5 children)
What on earth are you talking about? Syria certainly didn't invade Iraq. Daesh invaded Syria FROM Iraq, if that's who you're talking about - exactly the opposite of what you're implying. If that justified an invasion in response, it would have been an invasion FROM Syria, not TO Syria.
What's particularly ridiculous is for you to say this while simultaneously decrying the Russian presence in Crimea. Crimea exercised their right to self-determination to return to Russia, and the troops there were invited - first by the former government of Ukraine, then again by the new government of Crimea. Bad Russians, evil naught Russians 'invading' places that have asked them to come. While at the same time the US really invaded Syria, as in sent troops into a country that emphatically did NOT request us to come and clearly do not want us there, and just in case you thought there was some sort of lawful justification for it, Trump himself came on TV and told you exactly what he's doing. "We're taking the oil."
"Again, what makes those events illegal?"
What makes it illegal to commit acts of war against nations you are not at war with? You /really/ don't understand that?
Here's a real easy exercise for you khallow. Imagine that instead of the US sending murder bots around the world to kill whoever the President wants dead this week; it was China doing the same thing. You know, Chinese drones just pop up occasionally in the US, take out some Uyghur refugee in San Diego one day, a Tibetan group in Georgia the next day, a Falun Gong practitioner and some "Taiwanese officials" (those don't exist you know) in Utah the next week; and of course anyone near them at the time just gets caught in the blast too. It's not the intent though. The Chinese are just trying to get rid of bad guys, of course. Would you have a problem with that? Do you think you might be able to think of some international laws it would violate if the shoe was on the other foot, hmm?
"And piracy has a legal meaning."
Yep, and it fits the situation too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_piracy_law#UNCLOS_Definition_of_Piracy
"And given that we're already in a shooting war with the intended targets, so what if it's an act of war."
What on earth are you talking about? Or perhaps I should ask, which alternative Earth are you talking about? Because that's not what's happening on this one.
"And I find it interesting how so many of these arguments come out only to defend Putin. Whataboutism is classic Soviet-era propaganda. That works both ways. If it's ok for Russia to do these things, then that makes it ok for the US to do the same."
For Russia to do *what* things exactly? Russia didn't invade Syria or Iraq. The USSR, which at the time was the tyrant over Russia, /did/ invade Afghanistan though, and I don't see anyone around here defending /that./ If you're demanding that we treat the Russian "invasion" of Crimea the same as the US invasion of Syria, that doesn't make sense because they are NOT comparable situations. The government in Crimea requested the Russian presence. The government in Syria most emphatically has NOT requested any US presence. The case in Crimea is complicated by the issue of self-determination, which is a valid issue with some support in international law, while the case in Syria is very different as it lacks any such arguable justification (though enormous efforts were made to manufacture one, which shows mens rea.)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 13 2020, @05:40PM (4 children)
To continue that analogy, all of those groups would have in the recent past attacked Chinese interests while hiding in the US. If China really is trying to get rid of bad guys at war with China who are being harbored in the US, that makes the analogy pretty weak.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday November 13 2020, @09:50PM (2 children)
And that's actually completely accurate, from their perspective - all of those groups are involved in behavior they classify as attacking their state and which constitutes criminal behavior under their law.
We still don't let them fly drones in and execute people on our soil. Any such attempt would be dealt with as an act of war - and rightly so.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 14 2020, @01:43AM (1 child)
The key distinction here is that the people getting attacked by the US are engaged in war with the US, not committing criminal behavior. For example, it's routine, not merely possible, for someone to be at war with the US and not commit a crime. Meanwhile most criminal acts, even in a authoritarian state like China, aren't acts of war.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday November 14 2020, @02:33AM
Allegedly, and in the sole determination of the executive, under the Obama precedent. Which Trump has rolled with, of course.
No need to prove any of it; no need to even credibly allege it with a sworn affidavit. The king heard you were a bad guy, off with your head. Even the notorious king george never got close to that.
Hell, the chinese would have no problem staging a court proceeding and producing some paperwork. We don't even do that. Boom. Wedding party gone. Most of three generations of a family, gone. Maybe, possibly, one of them was a bad guy. Or at least thinking about being a bad guy in his spare time. Unless we made a mistake. We're humans, of course there is a (very low) percentage of mistakes.
You *really* think that foreigners will tolerate that for any period of time without developing a multi-generational grudge from it? You really think *we* would do that? Do you live in Hollywood?
"Meanwhile most criminal acts, even in a authoritarian state like China, aren't acts of war."
The statute prohibiting terrorism sedition and separatism.
There are no first amendment protections there. (Nor here, if you get on a drone list.) If you have a wrong opinion long enough for them to see it, anywhere, they could drone you, anywhere, anytime. You're clearly guilty of supporting terrorism, to use our term which they *immediately* adopted.
We could do so much good in the world. We have done so much good in the world. We earned a lot of goodwill.
Well our grandparents earned it or something.
But pressing for advantage in obviously hypocritical ways undermine that legacy. They sour our brand.
One day, we won't be able to outspend the rest of the planet on weapons. What happens then?
We'd like people to keep taking us, and the laws that we wrote, seriously, wouldn't we?
That will be based on our actions. And it's looking very bad, I'm afraid.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday November 14 2020, @01:48AM
If it's a free for all, then all that matters is force. And despite outspending everyone else, and having a demonstrated ability to bomb the hell out of anyone we don't like at any time, we just keep getting less popular. And we still don't really appear to be capable of fully suppressing more than a couple of small to medium-sized nations in rebellion at one time.
Now, if international law is something more than what we say it is, fundamentally, it applies the same to everyone. Which is what everyone else expected when they signed up for much of it.
If it applies to everyone, and we can drone anyone we designate an enemy and anyone unlucky enough to be near him at the time and that's just tough titty, then so can everyone else.
It won't be a violation of international law anymore, it'll just be tough titty.
The chinese have been getting real good at drones lately.
Think!
~~
Does international law exist? Does interpersonal law exist?
Please please please investigate customary law. Law is not something made by legislatures. Law is made when people agree to treat each other fairly and avoid further bloodshed. Legislatures make statute. Different beast.
The US position seems even more hypocritical if you look at it in context. The US created the League, the U.N. wrote the charter... and now we're sanctioning U.N. Officials simply for attempting to investigate war crimes allegations. Rules for thee, but not for me. Ben Dover, same as old king George.
//And when they saw it they fell on their faces in the dirt; but He picked them up, and said "didn't I warn you not to look into the Abyss?" He waved a hand and the Abyss again became invisible. //
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 04 2020, @07:05AM (19 children)
You might ask if the US' actions in Ukraine conform with international law. Let us not forget that the Koch brothers invested 14 billion dollars into overturning Ukraine's existing, legitimate government.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 04 2020, @10:01AM (18 children)
But what would be the point of the question except to excuse Russia's takeover of the Crimea?
According to who? That's a lot of money even for the Koch brothers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 04 2020, @10:17AM (17 children)
Yes, 14 billion is a lot of money. Among other things, they got Molex, along with a nice puppet government.
Oh, Crimea. That's kinda comparable to our own Gitmo. International law be damned, we have Gitmo, and we're not giving it up. Excuses? Who needs excuses, when you have guns to back up your decision? Yep, Gitmo and Crimea are very comparable, except Russia's claim to Crimea is at least marginally more legitimate than our claim to Gitmo. A lot of Russians live in Crimea after all.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday November 04 2020, @10:33AM (9 children)
Except that the former is about 200 times larger than the latter. Guantanamo is only 45 square miles (just the base itself) with few, if any civilians involved. The Crimea was 10,000 square miles roughly with over two million people.
Only by Russia's standard. They're not the only country in the world.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday November 04 2020, @06:02PM
They are both blatant violations of law. The respective parties, just don't care about the law. Which isn't a good sign for either countries' citizens.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday November 05 2020, @01:25AM (7 children)
My fathers family is half Ukrainian (grandfather) and half Russian Crimean (grandmother was Russian at least culturally, though like many Crimeans is very mixed and has Ukrainian, Egyptian, Crimean Tatar, German, Greek etc... blood). My grandparents met after escaping Nazi work/death camps and joining Polish partisans... but there's a LOT more to that story.
Unlike the USA vs Gitmo (+ Puerto Rico it should not be forgotten, with a larger population than Crimea and also held to bolster that same strategically important position) Russia has been invaded several times via Crimea, and Russias main breadbasket is adjacent, as well as the flat militarily indefensible Eurasian Steppe rolling out like a pool table to Moscow and beyond.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 05 2020, @02:03AM (6 children)
Why does Russia's military position matter more than the Ukraine's? The Ukraine has been invaded via the Crimea too.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday November 05 2020, @02:46AM (5 children)
Puerto Rico is a US colonial holding where the locals have fewer rights by design. Cuba is only related because of the strategic theatre and similar cultural makeup, and the fact Cuba had a successful revolution, the aftermath of which distanced it from the USA, while Puerto Rico didn't. It also seems Cubans are better off on almost every metric. Crimeans have full Russian citizenship by the way, with a lot of investment coming in from the Russian state - perhaps this is a sign of weakness though, and if Russia was in a more powerful situation they could let Crimea rot like Puerto Rico.
Neither Canada or Mexico posed the same military danger to the USA, but they're ripe to be annexed in the right circumstances as history proves. The USA probably would have kept the whole of Mexico and not just some chunks if it wasn't such a geographical nightmare that would cause more military problems than it solves, but probably would have kept Canada if any of the previous invasions had worked out... or if WWII hadn't happened, and Plan Red had been acted on successfully.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 06 2020, @02:04PM (4 children)
In other words, it's not related.
History over centuries. It's interesting how the Whatabouters have to go back more than a century for US-equivalent actions to what Russia does today.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Friday November 06 2020, @08:51PM (3 children)
Guantanamo Bay was captured from the same power in the same war and kept to help defend the same naval bottleneck (just from the Atlantic side) as Puerto Rico, but yes in your world it's completely utterly unrelated? If Puerto Rico ever sank below the waves Cuba would be annexed in total sooner rather than later - just looking at a map makes that obvious.
Sure... Mexico was over a century ago, but of course it was. The US wouldn't have more modern designs on the place after actually holding Mexico City and realising what a terrible hairball Mexico would be to actually swallow and then defend in perpituity. Canada on the other hand? Plan Red had a post-WWII timeframe, but world events (WWII itself, its aftermath, and the cold war) complicated the politics and achieved some of the war aims anyway.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 07 2020, @05:11AM (2 children)
Absolutely. Events more than 120 years ago don't establish relations today.
Again.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Saturday November 07 2020, @05:43AM (1 child)
...and your argument is made water-tight by the US never invading nations for cynical geopolitical reasons in the last decades using false pretenses.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 08 2020, @02:55PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2020, @12:46PM (4 children)
You are making about as much sense as the head cheetos is.
By your logic, parts of USA shoud be given to Mexico and Canada and Finland and Norway and China and Ireland etc.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 04 2020, @03:17PM (3 children)
If you say so, Professor AC.
Hey, can you tell the class when, and how, Ukraine came to possess Crimea? Can you tell us when and how Russia came to possess Crimea before that? Do you know which people might have been displaced from Crimea, before the Russians took over? They weren't Ukrainian, were they?
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2020, @07:17PM (1 child)
We'll leave that up to you Russians
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 04 2020, @08:12PM
I take that to be a sideways admission that your education is somewhat lacking, in regards to Russia, the Soviet, and Eastern Europe, before, during, and after the days of the Soviet Union.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 07 2020, @05:29AM
While it was part of the USSR. Let us note that Russia recognized this possession after the dissolution of the USSR. It was only when their puppet lost control of the Ukraine that they invaded the Crimea.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Wednesday November 04 2020, @05:06PM
There is no such thing as a legitimate claim, any foreign conquest is morally indefensible.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 06 2020, @02:40PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2020, @04:03PM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 06 2020, @02:40PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2020, @05:37AM (2 children)
Whatever you can extract from moon (and transport it down), Russia with her siberian territories, pockmaked with all kinds of asteroids through geological times, will be able to undercut it.
This is a non-story.
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Wednesday November 04 2020, @07:16AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 04 2020, @10:51AM
Unless, of course, whoever is on the Moon can extract or produce it for less from the Moon. Then Russia won't be able to undercut it. The universe won't stay the way it presently is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2020, @05:39AM (4 children)
Getting to the moon depends on the Space Launch System which is coming along about as fast as fusion power
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2020, @05:42AM (3 children)
Starship will be flying long before SLS actually makes it to the pad, and that thing is rated for Mars. The moon is a side trip for it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 04 2020, @07:07AM (1 child)
This ^ exactly. Badmouth Musk all you like, he is making stuff happen. He is ahead of all the competition. We don't need the overhyped, overpriced SLS.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2020, @07:15AM
Yes, we do. You Russian shill, Runaway! Oh, for the good alt days when the Ruskies were commies, and rednecks knew their place!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday November 04 2020, @12:13PM
Falcon 9 + Heavy can be used to accomplish any lunar objectives that would "require" SLS. The lunar variant of Starship is just a bonus, and better for the long term.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 04 2020, @10:47AM (8 children)
E-Prime Aerospace [eprimeaerospace.com] in the 1990s was trying to take Peacekeeper missiles that had been removed from military service and use them for for profit orbital launch. I think START I [wikipedia.org] destroyed that business with the Russians making scrapping those Peacekeeper missiles a condition of the treaty.
I don't mention this to shame Russia of the past - the aerospace industry is pretty dirty as a whole when it comes to using regulation and law to harm competitors, but as an example of a serious threat to humanity's future - that someone can use regulation and laws to deliberately shutdown human progress in space. Russia doesn't have enough pull on its own, but with most of the world not having an interest in space, they might find enough allies. The Moon Treaty, for example, came straight from countries that had no space capabilities.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 04 2020, @11:44AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday November 04 2020, @12:39PM (6 children)
If there exists laws that both sides have already accepted - why shouldn't someone use the law to right a grievance? You can't pick and choose which days you comply with a law and which days you don't have to.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 04 2020, @01:02PM (4 children)
That is correct on a local level, but we're talking about international law. There is no world government enforcing international law. There are strong countries, and weak countries, which means the strong ones tend to get their way. If one of the strong countries decides they don't want to cooperate with an international law they feel is adverse to their interests, they simply won't obey it and nobody can make them short of going to war.
So, in a sense, countries can pick and choose which days they comply with a law and which days they don't have to.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday November 04 2020, @01:21PM (3 children)
Having now fully read the link that khallow provided it is obvious that neither party has signed up to the agreement and thus it has no standing.
However, it does make me wonder about consistency of approach. For example (and it is no means the only example but in this instance it does include both Russia and the US) prior to the US-led coalition assault on Iraq the US made great effort to garner UN support so that it couldn't be accused of unilateral action. This included the presentation of 'evidence' proving Iraq's potential use of weapons of mass destruction, which was subsequently proven to be false. However, the US claimed that it was important that the role of the UN, and in particular the UN Security Council, should be recognised. At that time it was in US interests to do so. Russia of course supported Iraq and continued to provide covert support during the conflict. It couldn't provide additional support to its ally because that would put it in breach of various UN resolutions.
However, in the current matter, they appear to be saying that the UN General Assembly, while different from the Security Council but still an element of the UN, have no say in what should or should not happen in space. Again, I can understand the US position (and I am not supporting it nor arguing against it) but the inconsistency in the way the US regards the UN does lead to confusion at best. Furthermore, the US will from time to time provide armed forces to the UN (e.g. the Balkans) to enforce UN actions yet scoffs at the same idea at other times.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2020, @04:08PM
You are not entertaining the expectation of logical consistency in foreign relations (or in any matter, for that matter) from the current US administration, are you?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 05 2020, @10:33AM
I don't have any personal feelings on the question, just to get that out there. As an intellectual exercise, what is the jurisdictional remit of the UN? Is it Earth, or Humanity? Does the UN own every human no matter where they are, even if they're on Alpha Centauri? Do environmental treaties between nations on Earth meant to mitigate environmental damage bind all activities off-world? And what about the lifeforms that may exist on other bodies in the Solar System, have we the right to impose human law upon them?
In other words, it's not necessarily inconsistent to say that the UN has no say about what should happen in space if you understand the scope, the jurisdiction, to be Earth, not all Humanity everywhere in the universe. As a further wrinkle, when it comes to space we might not even be fully talking about Earth nations competing for territory but mega-corporations (such as has been explored as a concept by many science fiction writers) that get there first, and best.
What international bodies like the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and other similar are really about is a different, and much longer and detailed discussion.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 06 2020, @02:44PM
And yet the reductions in nuclear forces happened as well as E-Prime's loss of business. Only recently has Orbital Sciences taken up reuse of Peacekeeper missiles with the Minotaur-C [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 04 2020, @03:48PM
What grievance is being righted here? If my business uses the laws to prevent a large group from speaking at/on a public debate, that does the opposite of righting a grievance.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 04 2020, @01:10PM (2 children)
As the polar ice cap has shrunk, Russia has had no compunction racing to exploit resources in the Arctic where there are similar covenants to those covering the moon. On the moon, if China sets up to mine its resources first they will not hesitate. America likewise. Many nations would, and have done similar things in the past (ie. colonialism). Get there first, get the gold, let others weep tears of regret. For better or worse, it's how the story goes.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2020, @05:09PM (1 child)
What a beautiful story. I'll read it to my kids at night.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 05 2020, @10:37AM
Did you ever read Little House on the Prairie at night to them? You're basically reading them part of that story. If you ever read Robin Hood to them, you're reading part of that story.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2020, @03:43PM (2 children)
let's just hope that when whatever kind of governance wins on the moon that the helium-3 exploitation business on the moon is itself not powered by helium-3.
(*) the story never told 'cause no ones around to write, copyright and read it ^_^
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2020, @03:56PM
also stories that have a broken moon: aldnoah (anime), o.wells time machine, cowboy bebop (duh) ...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 06 2020, @02:47PM
To the contrary, I hope they eat their own dogfood. A fusion reactor on the Moon would be a huge sign of human progress.