National park proposed for the moon

So, in an age of budget cutbacks and sequestrations that adversely affect the National Park System, two members of Congress have an interesting proposal. Let's put a national park on the moon, where we need no facilities, no park rangers and nothing else that need be cut.

With private companies starting space missions and eying destinations beyond Earth orbit, NASA has already been looking into how to protect American lunar artifacts.

The Apollo Lunar Landing Legacy Act would preserve the Apollo 11 through 17 landing sites (excepting, of course, Apollo 13, which didn't touch down on the moon), and call on the Secretary of the Interior and NASA apply to make the Apollo 11 landing site a United Nations World Heritage Site. (Source)

Now, to a certain extent, that makes a bit of sense -- according to the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, no state can claim sovereignty over any territory of celestial bodies, so if the Chinese or Russians get up there before we do, they can do whatever they like to the Apollo landing site, but... come on...

A National Park on the moon?

Doesn't seem like that's too far off from "As God is my witness, we will build casinos on the moon!"

You know, only our government would think building a national
park on the moon would save us money, this ladies and gentlemen
is exactly what is wrong with our elected officials, their idea to save
money is to spend 100x what they would save lol

On the other hand i would so dig a world park on the moon, not
a national one though, it should belong to humans not just one
nation.

We don't have enough money for gas, oh wait i know, buy a space
shuttle! we wont need gasoline if we have a space shuttle to fly
to work and back! genius!

reply to post by bloodreviara


Our "national parks" have all been given to the UN under agenda 21 and biodiversity - maybe that's what they are really aiming to do.

Maybe there really are plans to start building - or mining - on the moon, and they have to do this first.

reply to post by adjensen

A National Park on the moon?

What National Park? The proposal has nothing to do with the National Park system.

The World Heritage List includes 981 properties forming part of the cultural and natural heritage which the World Heritage Committee considers as having outstanding universal value.

whc.unesco.org...

whc.unesco.org...

I would rather agree to Newt Gingrich's campaign promise ( for his 2nd term as President) that there would be a base on the moon..

I would agree to that only if ALL CURRENT ELECTED US politicians were the first inhabitants, and their intergalatic passports were revoked upon landing..

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by adjensen

 

A National Park on the moon?

What National Park? The proposal has nothing to do with the National Park system.

Ouch. Faulted by Phage, one of the people I most respect on ATS.

However, yes, the proposal does have something to do with the National Park system:

To establish the Apollo Lunar Landing Sites National Historical Park on the Moon, and for other purposes. (Source)

National Historical Parks, generally managed by the National Park Service.

reply to post by Phage


Phage there you go again ruining a perfectly good thread by interjecting reading comprehension into it.


Well you saved me from having to delve deeper into the article so thanks. It is getting harder and harder to find threads here hat aren't hyperbole at best and complete BS at worst some of them do make me laugh so it is fine.

reply to post by Phage


That would be this national park

HR 2617

'To establish the Apollo Lunar Landing Sites NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK on the Moon, and for other purposes.'.

Sounds like a park to me the commute is a killer though no ride presently or in the near future.

That would be this thread from yesterday.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is a reason for this...

www.googlelunarxprize.org...


Commercial interest in the moon is someday going to be big business. These democrats are just thinking ahead and trying to preserve a piece of history so that it can be enjoyed by generations to come. Instead of having some dip space tourist plant his fat boot right in Neil Armstrong's boot print destroying it forever.

I think they are thinking CONSERVATIVELY if you ask me.

You know who started the National Park service? Theodore Roosevelt. A Republican, and one major bad ass American.

This only means one thing.

Eventually they will fine you for trespassing on the moon.

They're getting the legislation in early. That's all.

Space hobos and planetless people will forever be under the thumb of unscrupulous legislators..

I am so tired of being Mr. Confusion, but I can't seem to shake it.

The OP tells us that under a 1979 agreement, no nation can claim sovereignity over the Moon. Wouldn't declaring a portion of it to be an American National Park, violate that agreement? If, as an extreme example, we could do that, why not declare the entire Moon a US National Park?

My suspicions, not based on any evidence?

1) Democrats, the sponsors of this bill, like the idea of the government controlling things, any things. The Moon is not currently controlled by the government, so action must be taken to seize it. "It's for the Kids!"

2.) Commercial space flight is getting more and more easy. This looks like a push to control the Moon before any businessman does something there which the government doesn't approve of.

reply to post by charles1952


I think that, ultimately, the bill is being proposed by people who didn't think it out very well.

I have no problem with officially naming the Moon a National Park/National Monument. Sure, it's only symbolic, but it costs nothing to maintain....unlike House Republicans trying to repeal Obamacare for the 45th time; similarly it is symbolic but, in the case of repealing Obamacare, it does cost us money.

Symbolic + Free = I'm fine with it
Symbolic + Costs taxpayer money =

reply to post by LeatherNLace

I'm going to have to take some anti-confusion pills. What do you mean by "symbolic" when you say:

I have no problem with officially naming the Moon a National Park/National Monument. Sure, it's only symbolic, but it costs nothing to maintain....

Do you think this bill would give the government or the park system any rights or control over that piece of the Moon? Or do you think it's "symbolic" in the sense of a (fictional) Wisconsin bill proclaiming that the moon is made of cheese?

If the first, I don't think we have the right to do it. If the second, sure, why not? It's a frivolous waste of time, but I'd rather the legislature pass bills we can all smile about, rather than what they have been passing.

I can see it now...

reply to post by CranialSponge

Fixed it for ya

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by LeatherNLace

Do you think this bill would give the government or the park system any rights or control over that piece of the Moon? Or do you think it's "symbolic" in the sense of a (fictional) Wisconsin bill proclaiming that the moon is made of cheese?

Neither. The Moon landing was an unprecedented, historic event that has not been repeated by any other nation. That alone is something to be proud of and something worthy of declaring a National Monument, if only for posterity's sake.

It's a frivolous waste of time, but I'd rather the legislature pass bills we can all smile about, rather than what they have been passing.

Agreed! I'll tell my representatives to get with your representatives....

This really isn't that big a deal, all they are trying to do is make sure that no one plunders the Apollo landing sites. They are up there as a testament to what human kind can achieve.

Is it so wrong or odd to try and conserve those sites so that future space tourists can enjoy them?

reply to post by HauntWok

What I don't understand, and what nobody has yet made clear to me, is the answer to the question "Are we proposing to exert any form of national control over part of the Moon?"

If we are, under what authority ar we exerting that control? Didn't the 1979 agreement say that no individual nation has control over the Moon?

What am I missing here?