News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by kharms on Sunday October 22, 2017 @03:05PM (#15528356)
When such discoveries are made who "owns" that real estate?
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by dangpzanco on Sunday October 22, 2017 @03:13PM (#15528397)
"Who Owns the Moon? | Space Law & Outer Space Treaties" - https://www.space.com/33440-space-law.html
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by BurningFrog on Sunday October 22, 2017 @03:27PM (#15528455)
We'll see how much those words on papers mean when real value is to be had up there.
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by jawbone3 on Monday October 23, 2017 @03:10AM (#15531288)
About the same as human rights in similar cicumstances I would imagine
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by samstave on Sunday October 22, 2017 @03:23PM (#15528443)
I'm only familiar with Bird Law, and as there are no birds on the moon, I am sure that "rock law" will predominate in that if I hit you over the head with a big enough rock, I then obviously own the moon.
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by IncRnd on Sunday October 22, 2017 @08:33PM (#15529866)
Treaties on Earth have very little meaning. They have zero meaning on the Moon.
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by Turing_Machine on Sunday October 22, 2017 @08:54PM (#15529937)
On the contrary...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas

Look at that line, and note which non-European countries speak Spanish and which ones speak Portuguese.

For instance, Brazil wound up being Portuguese (a rarity in South America) because it stuck over the line into Portuguese turf.

Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by IncRnd on Monday October 23, 2017 @02:14AM (#15531069)
The point is that since treaties are regularly ignored on Earth, they are mere artifices and have no meaning on the Moon.

Do you really dispute that?

Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by jawbone3 on Monday October 23, 2017 @03:13AM (#15531299)
Treatis aren’t ignored without cost, they are artifices in the same sense that the obligation to treat you and what you say decently is an artifice.
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by Turing_Machine on Monday October 23, 2017 @05:21PM (#15537034)
Err.... I just gave an example of one that wasn't "ignored". The world was divided up between Portugal and Spain by the Pope, never mind that most of it was largely unknown to Europeans at the time, and never mind that it was already populated by millions of people with their own countries and rules of land ownership. And the treaty was effective, to a very large degree. South America is almost entirely Spanish-speaking (except for Brazil, which wound up on the Portuguese side of the line). Many African and Asian countries (former colonies) speak Portuguese.

Not only was it not "ignored", but it's still effective 500 years later.

If such a treaty can be applied to inhabited lands, what makes you think one can't be applied to the lifeless terra nullius of the Moon?

Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by IncRnd on Monday October 23, 2017 @11:17PM (#15538931)
Your very link shows a number of times the treaty was ignored.

The treaty you point out found its inception from a treaty that wasn't followed from less than a decade prior! This is even explained in your link.

And for the treaty itself, this is mentioned, "It was superseded by the 1750 Treaty of Madrid which granted Portugal control of the lands it occupied in South America. However, the latter treaty was immediately repudiated by the Catholic Monarch. The First Treaty of San Ildefonso settled the problem, with Spain acquiring territories east of the Uruguay River and Portugal acquiring territories in the Amazon Basin. Emerging Protestant maritime powers, particularly England and The Netherlands, and other third parties such as Roman Catholic France, did not recognize the division of the world between only two Roman Catholic nations brokered by the pope."

There is also this very important point about how this treaty was followed, "It did not specify the line in degrees, nor did it identify the specific island or the specific length of its league. Instead, the treaty stated that these matters were to be settled by a joint voyage which never occurred."

You are confusing the self-interest of countries with a non-existent requirement to follow words on paper. Countries follow treaties to the extent of alignment with their own interests. If treaties were always followed by countries, then this world would be a far different place than it is today. There would also have been far fewer agreed upon treaties.

Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by Turing_Machine on Tuesday October 24, 2017 @05:22AM (#15540301)
"Your very link shows a number of times the treaty was ignored."

And yet it largely remains effective. Despite all the things you mention, people still speak Spanish in the Spanish half. Ask the Aztecs, Incas, Mayas... how pragmatically effective the Pope's grant was.

I'm really not sure what your argument is here.

"The power goes out once in a while, therefore electricity is useless"? "Doctors can't always save the patient, therefore medicine is useless"? "People sometimes murder, therefore we should not have laws against murder"?

Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by IncRnd on Tuesday October 24, 2017 @07:34PM (#15546126)
> I'm really not sure what your argument is here.

My argument is what I originally wrote, "Treaties on Earth have very little meaning. They have zero meaning on the Moon." That argument is supported by the contents of your link.

You posted a link to show a treaty that has been in force. However, your link shows the exact opposite of that. The treaty has never been in force, was started because an earlier treaty wasn't followed, and has been superseded multiple times by other treaties.

Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by cabaalis on Sunday October 22, 2017 @03:18PM (#15528423)
Whoever wins the inevitable conflict if anything of value is found.
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by ericjang on Sunday October 22, 2017 @07:10PM (#15529543)
This is a very wise answer! This reminds me of the movie "Iron Sky" which involves Nazis on the Moon. I found the film surprisingly intelligent (at least more than I expected) and had some visually nice political commentary.
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by ballenf on Sunday October 22, 2017 @03:45PM (#15528553)
Are there any figures on the minimum $/gram of minerals that would justify a mining mission (presumably unmanned)? Just can't imagine that gold, platinum or any stable metal would be worth it. Maybe high grade diamonds that don't need to be extracted from other rock. The surveys would have likely identified the presence of such a high density substance and we haven't seen any mention of it.

I know you probably meant in terms rights to the "best" cave on the moon, but I'm just wondering what happens if the cave turns out to filled with frozen water, for example, that would be worth its weight in antimatter (not quite) on the moon.

Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by DougWebb on Sunday October 22, 2017 @05:28PM (#15529040)
The most common elements on the moon are quite common on the earth too; I don't think the value in mining them will ever come from bringing the mined materials back to earth. The value is going to come from having and maintaining an established base on the moon. The moon is a high point in the earth's gravity well that's full of raw materials that can be used to build things that can go further out. Mining on the moon is going to be about building and supplying interplanetary (and maybe interstellar) spaceships, not selling jewelry back on earth.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon#Elemental_...

Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by kobeya on Sunday October 22, 2017 @11:30PM (#15530505)
The most common elements, sure. It's the rare elements that are more interesting. Many of these are rare on both Earth and the Moon because they are iron soluble and sank to the core. On Earth they get replenished from either asteroid impact or volcanism, then plate tectonics and hydration cycles slowly move the material back into the mantle or away from the site of deposit. Those processes don't exist on the Moon, so there's been ~3.5bn years of bombardment leaving precious-metal rich deposits on the surface of the Moon, where they remain until someone comes by to pick them up. You'll find that most of the Moon is boring rocks only a geologist could love, and then a bunch of super highly concentrated ores at deposit sites. And these deposit sites are not hard to find either. Just look for craters...
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by yeukhon on Sunday October 22, 2017 @06:40PM (#15529417)
Though a jewelry made from Moon elements would probably have a ten-fold price tag than the Earth’s counterpart, because it’s from the Moon.
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by DougWebb on Sunday October 22, 2017 @06:55PM (#15529491)
Maybe at first, but not once they're mass-produced on the kind of scale that would be needed to justify the cost of moon-based mining.
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by jccooper on Sunday October 22, 2017 @03:12PM (#15528385)
Whomever can occupy it. Outer Space Treaty prohibits national claims but not use for peaceful purposes. So if you sit on it, you own it.
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by r00fus on Sunday October 22, 2017 @03:23PM (#15528445)
According to link above the treaty prohibits all sovereign claims.

However, getting there can be made into a reasonable barrier to competition. Sure you can also exploit the moon, but how are you going to get there?

Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by wongarsu on Sunday October 22, 2017 @08:17PM (#15529814)
Given enough potential profit, getting there shouldn't be a big problem. You already have a bunch of nations currently selling orbital launches, and various private companies didn't seem to have big problems designing their own engines and rockets.
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by kobeya on Sunday October 22, 2017 @11:33PM (#15530519)
If you think getting to the Moon is hard, where many resources are surface extractable, look into what it takes to mine certain ores on Earth kilometers below ground in remote regions.
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by jawbone3 on Monday October 23, 2017 @03:16AM (#15531312)
One of the things it takes is piracy being severely restricted, but by the usual interpretations of the space traty, thatsfine in space.
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by r00fus on Monday October 23, 2017 @01:55PM (#15535314)
Are you saying piracy is fine in space? It's not the way I read the treaty - sounds like it'd be not ok - therefore potentially opening up options for "defense" based armament.
Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by kobeya on Tuesday October 24, 2017 @03:08PM (#15544328)
The treaty explicitly says that piracy is not okay. In fact, because of the way outer space is in many cases treated as international waters, the same laws governing piracy on the seas govern space activities as well, just with some differences regarding how ships are assigned to nations ("what flag they fly").

However the real outstanding issue with the OST is how to handle mining claims. Claim jumping is a real issue, since you could spend a ton of money prospecting a resource, only to have your competition to rush over and build a hut on top of it and legally claim it as their own.

There needs to be some sort of mechanism, perhaps even not governmental if renegotiating the OST is too dangerous or unlikely to happen soon, by which a company can claim a mining claim over a resource they have prospected and have that claim be legally protected from claim jumpers for a period of time.

Re:A newly discovered moon tunnel by galaxyLogic on Sunday October 22, 2017 @03:36PM (#15528503)
If you break it, you own it