Neil Armstrong's bootprint on the moon is now protected by U.S. law(astronomy.com)
astronomy.com
Neil Armstrong's bootprint on the moon is now protected by U.S. law
https://astronomy.com/news/2021/01/neil-armstrongs-bootprint-and-other-lunar-artifacts-are-now-protected-by-us-law
57 comments
It's just a CB fabrication since their spy network built up to 60 for "instigate trade conflict." The US needs a reason to pad it's pockets when times get tough.
A couple of reasons.
1. Your nationals can be expected to follow your laws.
2. You can use this as a stepping stone to asking other countries to normalize their laws to be similar to yours, or for a treaty negotiation, or for a UN decision.
The principle of this law isn't a bad one, and it should be extended to other early artifacts of lunar exploration.
1. Your nationals can be expected to follow your laws.
2. You can use this as a stepping stone to asking other countries to normalize their laws to be similar to yours, or for a treaty negotiation, or for a UN decision.
The principle of this law isn't a bad one, and it should be extended to other early artifacts of lunar exploration.
> You can use this as a stepping stone to asking other countries to normalize their laws to be similar to yours
You are certainly correct, if maybe only in theory. At the rate things are going, good luck with any country freely harmonizing anything with the USA. The USA is more likely on a steady course of becoming increasingly less relevant to anyone but themselves.
A different president is not going to change that. The country's international policies (current and past), in particular its use of their relative economical and military power imbalance, have been abusive for way longer than just this last president. Ordinary citizens around the globe have become increasingly more aware of this, often from experiencing its unpleasant consequences. It already has become harder for many foreign politicians to keep giving in to US power play, to how it essentially treats the rest of the globe as its own territory. Expect things to get a lot harder for the USA.
Meanwhile, a growing group of people looks at the USA's internal affairs, wondering why on earth anyone would take any guidance or example from such a nation. I guess that plenty of US citizens will blame that all on the last president (certainly in part for very valid reasons), but the problem extends way beyond that. Regretfully, the USA just can't stop itself, for what it does internationally (mostly unknown to its own citizens).
Feel free to shoot the messenger .. it won't matter.
You are certainly correct, if maybe only in theory. At the rate things are going, good luck with any country freely harmonizing anything with the USA. The USA is more likely on a steady course of becoming increasingly less relevant to anyone but themselves.
A different president is not going to change that. The country's international policies (current and past), in particular its use of their relative economical and military power imbalance, have been abusive for way longer than just this last president. Ordinary citizens around the globe have become increasingly more aware of this, often from experiencing its unpleasant consequences. It already has become harder for many foreign politicians to keep giving in to US power play, to how it essentially treats the rest of the globe as its own territory. Expect things to get a lot harder for the USA.
Meanwhile, a growing group of people looks at the USA's internal affairs, wondering why on earth anyone would take any guidance or example from such a nation. I guess that plenty of US citizens will blame that all on the last president (certainly in part for very valid reasons), but the problem extends way beyond that. Regretfully, the USA just can't stop itself, for what it does internationally (mostly unknown to its own citizens).
Feel free to shoot the messenger .. it won't matter.
> The USA is more likely on a steady course of becoming increasingly less relevant to anyone but themselves.
While it is certainly true that the USA is loosing it's status as the world's only superpower, it is still very much the most powerfull country and will probably stay, if not number 1, at least in the top 3 for at least the rest of our lifetime. I wouldn't call that irrelevant.
While it is certainly true that the USA is loosing it's status as the world's only superpower, it is still very much the most powerfull country and will probably stay, if not number 1, at least in the top 3 for at least the rest of our lifetime. I wouldn't call that irrelevant.
However, the US has about entirely lost their status as a model. As-is, following US legislation would require some amount of apologetic discourse anywhere outside of North America. (That the US have left the international community for the most, or, at least, have proposed to do so – especially, when it comes to treaties and jurisdiction – doesn't especially help either.)
I tend to think of the US isolationist stance as a temporary consequence of their loss of total control. Like pouty child who would prefer to pass entirely on cake than to have to share it with their siblings. The frustration to not have the final say anymore is real but reality has purchase and in the end I expect the US to sit at the conference table like everyone else. After all, with it's still mighty power, it's in a good position to negociate.
Now I might be wrong, maybe the isolasionist mentality is more profound than that. An historical argument to show how this is stance is not new is the refusal for the US to enter WWII until Japan basically forced their hand on the issue.
Now I might be wrong, maybe the isolasionist mentality is more profound than that. An historical argument to show how this is stance is not new is the refusal for the US to enter WWII until Japan basically forced their hand on the issue.
The US stumbled into becoming a model only due to the behavior of European nations constantly fighting each other every century.
Especially post Vietnam, it should never have been regarded as the model, humanity needs competing systems to better allocate risk.
Especially post Vietnam, it should never have been regarded as the model, humanity needs competing systems to better allocate risk.
On the other hand, it was exactly this loss of power, which allowed European states to overcome their long-lasting contest and to unite… Realistically, immediate post-Vietnam would have been too soon for this.
> it is still very much the most powerfull country and will probably stay, if not number 1, at least in the top 3 for at least the rest of our lifetime.
That's funny. What do you really know, about where that power/wealth mostly comes from? Because last time I checked, it actually depends in almost every aspect on what the rest of the world thinks of the USA (including, not in the least important part, it's currency).
I'm even pretty sure that you would be surprised (probably even shocked) if you know how much business the USA does mostly covertly (if not clandestine) abroad, and what amounts of money are involved in that.
This is what I can tell you with a pretty good degree of certainty: during the last decade or so, plenty of the less-than-savory project, run by the USA abroad, have either dried up or been exposed/dismantled/destroyed. I have personally seen several of those go bust.
Less clear, and also with ant causation would be hard to prove, it did "miraculously" coincide with the USA ramping up their anti-Russia rhetoric.
Even a bigger step into speculative territory, one might even suspect that at least some of the turmoil at home in the USA, may have something to do with their most criminal elite no longer being as capable of getting their "fix" abroad, having to resort to exploiting the local population.
Either way though, I'm pretty convinced that most Americans overestimate how their economy has much intrinsic value .. if anything, I'd say it's more or less already bankrupt. Which is probably why we see all these wars, in order to prevent some key players from ditching the Dollar as trade/reserve currency. But that's all borrowed time.
That's funny. What do you really know, about where that power/wealth mostly comes from? Because last time I checked, it actually depends in almost every aspect on what the rest of the world thinks of the USA (including, not in the least important part, it's currency).
I'm even pretty sure that you would be surprised (probably even shocked) if you know how much business the USA does mostly covertly (if not clandestine) abroad, and what amounts of money are involved in that.
This is what I can tell you with a pretty good degree of certainty: during the last decade or so, plenty of the less-than-savory project, run by the USA abroad, have either dried up or been exposed/dismantled/destroyed. I have personally seen several of those go bust.
Less clear, and also with ant causation would be hard to prove, it did "miraculously" coincide with the USA ramping up their anti-Russia rhetoric.
Even a bigger step into speculative territory, one might even suspect that at least some of the turmoil at home in the USA, may have something to do with their most criminal elite no longer being as capable of getting their "fix" abroad, having to resort to exploiting the local population.
Either way though, I'm pretty convinced that most Americans overestimate how their economy has much intrinsic value .. if anything, I'd say it's more or less already bankrupt. Which is probably why we see all these wars, in order to prevent some key players from ditching the Dollar as trade/reserve currency. But that's all borrowed time.
Just reading the headline leads me to the immediate reaction:
Who cares about a U.S. law outside of US jurisdiction?
If the U.S. wants other countries to follow the same rules they need to make international treaties like the outer space treaty from 1967. That requires actual diplomacy of course.
Who cares about a U.S. law outside of US jurisdiction?
If the U.S. wants other countries to follow the same rules they need to make international treaties like the outer space treaty from 1967. That requires actual diplomacy of course.
> Who cares about a U.S. law outside of US jurisdiction?
Alas, Julian Assange for one, as an Australian citizen, indicted for breaking a US law while not in the US. The recent UK court decision not to extradite him to the US nevertheless in no way disputes US standing nor jurisdiction, and he remains in custody while the US appeals. So, we're all living in America.
Alas, Julian Assange for one, as an Australian citizen, indicted for breaking a US law while not in the US. The recent UK court decision not to extradite him to the US nevertheless in no way disputes US standing nor jurisdiction, and he remains in custody while the US appeals. So, we're all living in America.
Hew Raymond Griffiths is an even better example. He actually got extradited and convicted.
Australian court agreed to treat his activity as having taken place within US jurisdiction despite him never leaving Australia.
Australian court agreed to treat his activity as having taken place within US jurisdiction despite him never leaving Australia.
There's nothing unusual about this. Obviously you don't have to physically be in a country to commit a crime in that country.
If I'm a German citizen residing in France hacking UK hospitals, the UK very obviously would want brought to justice, which both France and Germany would happily agree to in this case, I'd imagine.
If I'm a German citizen residing in France hacking UK hospitals, the UK very obviously would want brought to justice, which both France and Germany would happily agree to in this case, I'd imagine.
An unfortunate set of choices you made for the countries there, replace the UK with another EU country and it would stand.
> As things stand at the time of writing, following the UK’s departure from the EU [...], the UK will no longer be part of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system. This means that, unless and until other arrangements are agreed, future extradition requests with European states will be governed, as with many countries outside the EU, by the 1957 Convention on Extradition, leading to increased costs, delay and complexity in extradition proceedings. Certain EU states already do not extradite their citizens to countries outside the EU. Three EU states – Germany, Austria and Slovenia – have already announced that they may even refuse to surrender their respective nationals to the UK pursuant to an EAW during the transition period.
> As things stand at the time of writing, following the UK’s departure from the EU [...], the UK will no longer be part of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system. This means that, unless and until other arrangements are agreed, future extradition requests with European states will be governed, as with many countries outside the EU, by the 1957 Convention on Extradition, leading to increased costs, delay and complexity in extradition proceedings. Certain EU states already do not extradite their citizens to countries outside the EU. Three EU states – Germany, Austria and Slovenia – have already announced that they may even refuse to surrender their respective nationals to the UK pursuant to an EAW during the transition period.
Well, if the defense is that Assange simply received and published information, then that analogy doesn't exactly fit.
they even use copyright law to hunt and extradite you if they can, Kim Schmitz (aka dotkom) is a good example of what they can do even if you've never set foot in their country. Not to mention those imprisoned and tortured on a US black site or Gitmo (or your friendly neighborhood concentration camp run by ICE).
The UK should just get it over with and become a US state.
Please don’t say things like that. Someone might get the bright idea to put it on a referendum...
If I had to guess, I’d expect such a referendum to return a “join America” result and then for almost everyone to be surprised that doing so means (1) losing the Queen, (2) losing the Pound, and (3) losing essentially all gun restrictions.
... (4) Not actually becoming a US state
Not being flippant here - there are territories already within the USA that for various reasons cannot become a "US state".
Not being flippant here - there are territories already within the USA that for various reasons cannot become a "US state".
No, obviously our Queen would still supersede the President, and that privilege would be graciously extended to the other states again.
>losing the Queen
Might be the only good thing to come of it.
Might be the only good thing to come of it.
Wouldn't becoming part of Canada technically fulfil the "join America" goal and allow the Queen to be kept?
The article points this out. This particular law only relates to companies working with NASA on lunar projects to protect American landing sites.
It can be seen as a "small step" (pun intended) to creating something larger like the World Heritage Convention, via diplomacy as you say.
It can be seen as a "small step" (pun intended) to creating something larger like the World Heritage Convention, via diplomacy as you say.
On the contrary, this is a small step towards putting the moon surface under US control. It is pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that the end goal is to disregard the entire "common heritage of humanity" narative. That was all fine and dandy when we all knew the moon was too remote to do anything about it. Now that technology allows to at least entertain the idea of exploiting the moon as a ressource, it is time for empires to drip their toes to test the waters…
I cannnot believe that those types of claim and the advance of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program is entirely a coincidence.
Of course, the situation will slowing evolve for decades before anything concrete comes out of it. And I do think the "common heritage" claim, even if doomed to fail eventually, tend to slow down the conquest by national powers. The situation in Antarctica is illuminating in this regard.
I cannnot believe that those types of claim and the advance of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program is entirely a coincidence.
Of course, the situation will slowing evolve for decades before anything concrete comes out of it. And I do think the "common heritage" claim, even if doomed to fail eventually, tend to slow down the conquest by national powers. The situation in Antarctica is illuminating in this regard.
No one cares, but US is probably closest to landing on the moon. In 20 years we might have private companies flying to the moon, this type of law will prohibit someone from taking the footprint to bring it back to Earth.
Any party that wants to coöperate with U.S.A. companies on extraterrastial activities must agree to not tarnish those footsteps, and U.S.A. companies are required by law to require those agreements. — that is how they enforce it.
You should care.
Many countries exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction laws and go after people who break them, this includes the US. If they can reach you, they will prosecute you if they want.
Normally this applies to the states own citizens but they will target foreign citizens who have hurt the state (see Assange).
Spying, poaching, abuse of children and war crimes are where some of these extraterritorial laws are exercised.
Many countries exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction laws and go after people who break them, this includes the US. If they can reach you, they will prosecute you if they want.
Normally this applies to the states own citizens but they will target foreign citizens who have hurt the state (see Assange).
Spying, poaching, abuse of children and war crimes are where some of these extraterritorial laws are exercised.
This is hardly an unusual concept on earth. You are still subject to the laws of your flag nation when sailing in international waters. Antarctica is not officially owned by anyone but researchers may still be subject to laws at home.
Better still, it applies only to companies and only to companies working with Nasa.
So what would be the penalty if someone does something happens to it? Not flippant question as I am genuinely interested.
That wouldn't be cricket https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj-7SPf8_Qk
Cricket on the moon would sure be interesting.
Cricket on the moon would sure be interesting.
how utterly arrogant and entitled this headline sounds. A case of "US superiority" which makes me want the Russians or the Chinese to nuke the ruddy thing just so they have some additional thing to whine about.
Your anger is making you illogical.
This is a treasure of humanity’s achievement; and since there is no global governance body, it makes sense to start here.
This is a treasure of humanity’s achievement; and since there is no global governance body, it makes sense to start here.
logic has nothing to do with it, there is obviously 0 logic in wanting to nuke the moon just because Americans have set foot on it and 50+ years still keep talking about it. seriously who cares. It was just another spectacle and fuel for Reagan's wet StarWars dream: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
apologies if I don't participate in this empire-building dream of US superiority.
it was the culmination and outcome from decades of measuring dicks between 2 super powers where one arrived quicker than the other. how is this not the same as when the DPRK is displaying their ICBM's and idiots in uniform goose stepping?
this kind of nostalgia is 50ies 60ies wishful thinking and no different than waving flags or rooting ones ego in nationality or religion. utterly backward but not unexpected for a country that values military achievements higher than the need for an affordable health care system etc.
Yeah they've been to the moon x years ago but these days they got thousands dying literally every day and 30% of the populace looks and acts like this: https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/
apologies if I don't participate in this empire-building dream of US superiority.
it was the culmination and outcome from decades of measuring dicks between 2 super powers where one arrived quicker than the other. how is this not the same as when the DPRK is displaying their ICBM's and idiots in uniform goose stepping?
this kind of nostalgia is 50ies 60ies wishful thinking and no different than waving flags or rooting ones ego in nationality or religion. utterly backward but not unexpected for a country that values military achievements higher than the need for an affordable health care system etc.
Yeah they've been to the moon x years ago but these days they got thousands dying literally every day and 30% of the populace looks and acts like this: https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/
Most space programs are just taking military dick measuring contests to a new level. I find it hard to get invested because of this. We deserve an international space coalition that pursues open scientific and civilian goals, not this.
And it's really hard to justify the expense sometimes when there are so many problems much closer to the ground that could use the funding.
And it's really hard to justify the expense sometimes when there are so many problems much closer to the ground that could use the funding.
Exactly, government has a hard time justifying space because people point to poverty happening somewhere in the world.
Meanwhile, global internet is an exciting concept, especially if it can fund small backup civilizations (that will eventually be needed due to the heat death of the sun).
Meanwhile, global internet is an exciting concept, especially if it can fund small backup civilizations (that will eventually be needed due to the heat death of the sun).
I am SHOCKED at the ignorance of some comments here on how the timing and passing of legislation works in Congress. This was enacted on Dec. 31, 2020 but passed earlier, being introduced with bipartisan support the spring/summer (for house and senate, respectively) of 2019! Does anyone read before commenting? Talk about assumptions. Perhaps this is why the ills some are complaining about seem ubiquitous in their worldview.
US taking their we have jurisdiction over everything to a whole new level
Not that the US has a long history of caring a great deal about jurisdiction, but the US ratified the Outer Space Treaty which denies specific jurisdiction over parts of the moon to countries on earth. They can likely make laws concerning the LM landing stages they left up there---which probably remain US property---but the footprints would be considered either for the benefit of all mankind or possibly vandalism that the US may be required to clean up by other signatories.
wow we had time to pass that law what with the revolution?
So is Buzz Aldrin gonna be posthumously indicted?
What, he’s still alive. I was convinced he died a few years ago.
Buzz Aldrin and Mike Collins are still alive.
Not a problem, I guess, at least not until arrogance becomes illegal.
Please ... the first group of Space-tourists, on a weekend bender trip to the moon, will render that boot print as dust in minutes.
And in the meantime, the country is suffering on earth.
well done, US long-arm jurisdiction on the moon!
Good to know people are spending their time working on such important issues.
Just kidding. But what's the point of legislating things beyond our control?