SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Moon Now has Hundreds of Artifacts. How Much Should they be Protected?:
All told, the Moon has about a hundred sites where people have left their mark, according to For All Moonkind, a non-profit that seeks to preserve human heritage in space.
[...] Legally, "the sites themselves aren't protected at all," said Michelle Hanlon, a law professor at the University of Mississippi who co-founded For All Moonkind in 2017 after the head of the European Space Agency Jan Worner joked that he wanted to bring back the American flag.
"So the boot prints, the rover tracks, where items are on the site, which is so important, from an archaeological standpoint, they have no protection," she added.
[...] NASA has adopted recommendations, for example, that future expeditions should not land within two kilometers (1.2 miles) of Apollo sites.
In the US Congress, senators have introduced a "One Small Step to Protect Human Heritage in Space" bill.
But the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 is very explicit: "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
"Once you start making exclusionary zones, and stopping other countries from their free use and exploration of space, you're running up against the basic premise of the Outer Space Treaty," Jack Beard, a space law professor from the University of Nebraska, told AFP.
To be sure, the treaty says each space object must be registered by its country, a safeguard against irresponsible behavior by private entities.
These artifacts also remain the property of the entity which placed them, effectively barring theft.
But its loopholes concern lawyers, space agencies and the UN, and not only over the issue of protecting heritage.
Moon traffic is likely to grow in the coming decades and the vague principles of cooperation enshrined in the treaty are not seen as sufficient to regulate it.
[...Tanja Masson, a professor of space law at Leiden University in The Netherlands] suggests the creation of an international body to distribute priority rights, without granting sovereignty, as is done to manage satellites in geostationary orbit.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Username on Thursday July 11 2019, @10:38PM (11 children)
Around the first moon landing site. That is the only real important one.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11 2019, @10:41PM (10 children)
What's so important about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 11 2019, @10:42PM
Occupation is most the way there to 'come and take it if you can'. You can claim whatever you want. But might makes right.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday July 11 2019, @11:00PM
Exceptionalism?
Nationalistic focus?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 11 2019, @11:20PM
Potential tourism monies.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @12:49AM
It's the first. Duh !
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Spamalope on Friday July 12 2019, @12:50AM (1 child)
It's a site of historical significance, especially given the hurdles that were crossed.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 12 2019, @01:32AM
More historical significance than Roanoke Colony [wikipedia.org]?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @12:03PM (1 child)
We need to protect it from Space Pirates [cnet.com].
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 12 2019, @12:09PM
Ohhh, Ghhoood!
Reality beats imagination quite often these days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday July 12 2019, @04:45PM
Doesn't matter. We just need to have a national emergency unilaterally declared by the Commander in Chief, which will mean that he can get that wall built!
BUILD THAT WALL!
BUILD THAT WALL!
BUILD THAT WALL!
We'll get back to the Moon in record time this way!
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 13 2019, @07:07PM
There are many who claim the first landing was a hoax. Go figure.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 11 2019, @11:22PM (1 child)
In other words, lawyers can't believe in a system that doesn't involve hundreds of lawyers running the system and regulating what everybody else does. A system based on "vague principles of cooperation" is infeasible, to a lawyer.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 12 2019, @06:44PM
And also everybody with a passing knowledge of history.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @12:18AM
The obvious model for the moon.
Btw, what's this "sailor moon" shit?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday July 12 2019, @12:21AM (3 children)
Wikipedia Archaeology, or archeology, is the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture.
Now, you have access to more information about the human activity on the Moon than anything you could recover by just "analysis of material culture". Why would one need to approach the issue by applying archeology?
Even assuming there's no hidden-agenda to get around the Outer Space Treaty, isn't this sought-after protection pertaining more to "museography" than "archeology"?
If there's a real need to analyze those items "of material culture", then take them out, preserve them at your leisure and let the location to be used for other purposes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday July 12 2019, @12:56AM (2 children)
the empty Coke cans, the cigarette butts, the plastic bags, the old tires, the discarded McDonalds cartons... I can see that preserving genuine historic artefacts like the Apollo LMs is worthwhile, but at what point do you stop?
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Friday July 12 2019, @01:28AM
Also, preserve whatever they like, why does it have to be in-situ?
Has the site of Roanoke Colony [wikipedia.org] been preserved untouched? It certainly does not appear so [wikipedia.org]!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Friday July 12 2019, @01:51AM
Not the baked beans cans, tough, baked beans are not for astronauts [youtube.com].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @12:28AM (1 child)
They are just mad that the Chinese are going to be driving circles and popping wheelies and leaving beer cans around the first landing site with their rovers.
If you wanted to protect it, you should have built a tourist center or something around it by now. It would be like the first American settlers landed on Plymouth Rock, planted a flag, then turned around and went back to england while still claiming the continent was theirs.
I'd be happy if there was just some way to prevent them from building a huge billboard on the moon. You know they will!
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday July 12 2019, @02:56AM
At least space suits should prevent them from pissing on anything..
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @12:44AM (13 children)
You can bet on the americans to break any and all treaties. 'Murricans think of themselves as exceptional and can begin and end any treaties whenever they like. By the way, they also like to bypass POW laws by calling the opposing force Enemy Combatants and torture them to death. Also, invading other countries for their resources is an american hobby. Still the barbarians, rather Exceptional Barbarians.
If this treaty is signed by the americans, expect it to be broken when it is convenient for them.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Spamalope on Friday July 12 2019, @12:56AM (2 children)
That's about claiming territory, not about protecting a site of historical significance and you know it.
Given the era of the treaty, it has curtailed things like trying to claim prime orbital positions. (potentially via destroying competitors satellites)
So AC, what can you tell us about how France, England and Spain have behaved around the world? Or are you just telling us that might makes right when sociopaths are in power, because that's up there with other insight like pointing out that water is wet. (or, wait until the dog actually does something bad to whack it with the rolled up magazine)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @02:24AM
Hint: get rid of your sociopaths in power, most of the civilized world did it already.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday July 12 2019, @03:13AM
I don't know about AC, but I can tell you that these countries have clearly seen the error of their ways and have moved on from their colonial behaviour (witness the UK's gradual handback of its empire post WW2 and their comfort with Commonwealth countries making their own decisions about whether to go independent or not (Northern Ireland notwithstanding)). I will concede it took France a bit longer to come around to this way of thinking.
Just because these countries were once dicks, doesn't mean that makes it right for others to do the same thing today. Right now, it appears that there are still a few colonial powers left - Russia (Crimea, Ukraine), China (Taiwan, South-China Sea) and the US (Iraq). We should not encourage that behaviour.
As for the moon landing site, I don't care which country landed there first - it's a historic site and should be protected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @01:28AM
Well said, sir. A true prophecy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Friday July 12 2019, @01:43AM (8 children)
I agree that this part of our conduct in the war on terror was fundamentally and unquestionably wrong. I cannot defend it and wholly condemn it.
That said, it is difficult to convey the protections of the Geneva convention to fighters not wearing a uniform. There was a choice made to fight and hide in civilian populations. That is also fundamentally and unquestionably wrong.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday July 12 2019, @02:28AM (2 children)
Why is so difficult? Does a certain type of clothing suddenly alter the human underneath it?
Or is 'wearing a uniform' a metaphor for something else that you actually intended as the meaning? If so, what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @05:22AM
By no uniform, he means those damn brown people that keep shooting back at us while we invade their country. Those brown bastards should show some respect and buy themselves some matching clothing so we know who to shoot at.
It's a farce when a bunch of jack booted commandos are forced to burst into someone's house in the middle of the night, and those inconsiderate non-uniformed combatants don't have the decency to have had easily recognisable uniforms (and slept in them). It's a double farce that the 8 year old girl the lead commando had to shoot dead wasn't wearing her combat issued pyjamas. It's a pity she was a 'non uniformed enemy combatant', otherwise we could have demanded surrender or whatever we do differently when someone is wearing their combat uniform. Should have just called in a drone strike on their house. Pretty sure someone there was the enemy, but no one was wearing uniforms, so our troops had no choice but to assume they were all bad guys.
It really is such a pain in the ass that those brown pricks don't have the decency to give everyone combat uniforms and let us peacefully invade their country, cities, and homes.
Can't wait for the transition to energy weapons. That way we can tell who's a good guy or bad guy by the color of their lasers. We can change the Geneva convention to ban kinetic weapons, then blast everyone with our red lasers that can't afford a green laser. We can allow a color exception for light sabres.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @09:24PM
They say something like uniformed services but it's more along the lines with a military ID with your name, rank, and id#.
Obviously you need to be part of a real military and I have no idea how that's decided.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday July 12 2019, @03:07AM (1 child)
Uniforms represent money and infrastructure.
By making the rules around something being recognizably a uniform, you effectively allow anyone poor, or from a poor country, to be killed without consequence, simply because being poor makes you illegitimate.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @09:17PM
It's not just uniforms. All national militaries with an actual country have uniforms. Getting your military to put on a dog and pony show is one of the easiest ways to "win" without spending assloads of money or getting a bunch of people killed. Governments have been known to even dress militaries and give them fake or broken weapons.
Plus if you're friends with the US and you're poor they'll dump a bunch of old shit in your lap so that you can defend yourself with photos of your big and equipped military instead of becoming our next problem zone. The greedheads in washington are happy they get consumers for their crap.
If you're an enemy of the US then one of our wealthier enemies will be happy to help you get dressed.
You'll be pleased to know that mercs get zero protections no matter how much tacticool shit and patches they plaster to their bodies.
Jumping into a fight without officially joining a military is a horrible idea, I am sure many people don't have a choice and I'm not at all happy with the US hoovering up randos who happened to be in the wrong place.
It's our shame that we're making special prison systems so that we can dodge rules set in place by our ancestors after experiencing the horrors of war. If I were cheney or rumsfield I'd tell my kids that I want to be cremated so that my grave isn't desecrated. I'm sure they're already gobbling down fistfuls of pubes when they eat out.
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Friday July 12 2019, @05:39AM (2 children)
The choice to fight in civilian population centres was a choice made by the USA, not so much the people of the country being invaded.
What you seem to want is for everyone that doesn't like the idea of being overrun by a foreign power to all convene in a nicely designated 'war zone', preferably somewhere out in the desert or countryside, and wear an easily recognisable 'bad guy' uniform. Should they line up old school style like the British army did back in the 18th century?
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Saturday July 13 2019, @01:11PM (1 child)
You're 100% right. The USA made the choice to fight in a civilian population center. We chose to fight in 1 World Trade Center New York, 2 World Trade Center New York, and Washington DC.
I believe we had no business invading Iraq. It was wrong, and I have no justification for it. Our fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan was completely justified.
Asking soldiers to wear a uniform is not an unreasonable expectation even for irregulars and militia. It prevents civilian casualties, but the fighters in this war wanted civilian casualties. Every dead body they could show on television was a win. You tell me how to fight that, and I'll hang on your every word.
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Saturday July 13 2019, @10:05PM
Ok, then let's ignore Iraq. It's like this:
1) A bunch of non state sponsored guys from Saudi Arabia are convinced by Osama Bin Laden (another Saudi Arabian guy with CIA cooperation and training from earlier times) to damage some buildings/kill some people in the USA for reasons attributed to capitalism gone amok.
2) USA Invades Afghanistan where Bin Laden is supposedly hiding out, kills lots of civilians, complains about non uniformed combatants. Creates a new generation of people that hate the USA.
3) Eventually dude is found in Pakistan. No need for a full on invasion there, but go in anyway as it's a simple operation.
4) USA subsequently maintains invasion stance in Afghanistan with a dozen excuses why they need to keep killing people there - even though the non-Afghan guy they went in for is no longer there (if he ever was), has not been there for years, and no longer alive after being assassinated in Pakistan (after not being in Afghanistan for years).
The proper way to deal with this is to look at these problems like criminal actions, not 'acts of war by a foreign power'. Dealing with the cause not the symptom would go a long way to mitigating the problems. War is at best for dealing with the reality or threat of state sponsored violence.