Talk:Office for Lunar Affairs - Revision history

Jarogers2001 at 06:18, 14 October 2008

2008-10-14T06:18:58Z

T.Neo at 07:53, 13 October 2008

2008-10-13T07:53:36Z

T.Neo at 07:52, 13 October 2008

2008-10-13T07:52:23Z

Strangelv at 02:13, 13 October 2008

2008-10-13T02:13:20Z

Strangelv: Not quite what I meant

2008-10-13T01:25:53Z

Not quite what I meant

Jarogers2001 at 22:14, 12 October 2008

2008-10-12T22:14:55Z

T.Neo at 21:11, 12 October 2008

2008-10-12T21:11:50Z

Strangelv: Off of the top of my head about what we might want to do about these things

2008-10-12T19:36:20Z

Off of the top of my head about what we might want to do about these things

Jarogers2001: James, Mike, What are your opinions?

2008-10-11T03:37:10Z

James, Mike, What are your opinions?

T.Neo at 07:12, 7 October 2008

2008-10-07T07:12:04Z

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 ::That we do not endorse what is here needs to be a global statement applying to everything here equally.  -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 01:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 If you have a permanantly or semi-permanantly occupied base, a certain radius of land around that base is land that you control and own. The Moon, and every other celestial body in space, and certain "valuble" orbits (i.e. GEO) should be available to everyone, like international waters.
 "Use them togther, use them in peace" [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:53, 13 October 2008
Line 21:		Line 21:

	If you have a permanantly or semi-permanantly occupied base, a certain radius of land around that base is land that you control and own. The Moon, and every other celestial body in space, and certain "valuble" orbits (i.e. GEO) should be available to everyone, like international waters.		If you have a permanantly or semi-permanantly occupied base, a certain radius of land around that base is land that you control and own. The Moon, and every other celestial body in space, and certain "valuble" orbits (i.e. GEO) should be available to everyone, like international waters.
−	"~~use~~ them togther, use them in peace" [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 07:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)	+	"Use them togther, use them in peace" [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 07:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:52, 13 October 2008
Line 19:		Line 19:

	::That we do not endorse what is here needs to be a global statement applying to everything here equally. -- [[User:Strangelv\|Strangelv]] 01:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)		::That we do not endorse what is here needs to be a global statement applying to everything here equally. -- [[User:Strangelv\|Strangelv]] 01:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	If you have a permanantly or semi-permanantly occupied base, a certain radius of land around that base is land that you control and own. The Moon, and every other celestial body in space, and certain "valuble" orbits (i.e. GEO) should be available to everyone, like international waters.
		+	"use them togther, use them in peace" [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 07:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 :"We should probably clarify somewhere that the existence of content on Lunarpedia does not equate to an endorsement of either that organization or the content posted here." Any recommendations on the template I just added to the article? - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
-::An alarm like isn't a good idea IMO.  Intent to occupy should belong in the same grouping as teh others, by the way.  Possibly have a scale of enforceability from low to high, with each type of land claim's enforceability rating explained?  How many types do we have?  intent to occupy, sold parcels, different locations for claims, claims backed up by having landed things, separately for both not voided (I can think of only one arguable claim presently existing, although some or all of the money was NASA's) and voided by the Outer Space Treaty (it appears that US and CCCP both effectively established and respected each other's staked out territories on the visible Lunar surface, although the OST effectively voided these apparent claims -- and [[Angus Bay]], BTW, is in what was CCCP territory...)?
+::An alarm like this isn't a good idea IMO.  Intent to occupy should belong in the same grouping as the others, by the way.  Possibly have a scale of enforceability from low to high, with each type of land claim's enforceability rating explained?  How many types do we have?  intent to occupy, sold parcels, different locations for claims, claims backed up by having landed things, separately for both not voided (I can think of only one arguable claim presently existing, although some or all of the money was NASA's) and voided by the Outer Space Treaty (it appears that US and CCCP both effectively established and respected each other's staked out territories on the visible Lunar surface, although the OST effectively voided these apparent claims -- and [[Angus Bay]], BTW, is in what was CCCP territory...)?
 ::Actually, there's at least one other claim category: claim made and then something by a government that's signed the OST has landed something on one's claim.  While the court that heard the case threw it out (and the world in question was Eros, not Luna), there is the possibility of this coming up again sometime.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:25, 13 October 2008
Line 11:		Line 11:
	I hate all this land claims stuff. In the real world, we have something called "intent to occupy". [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)		I hate all this land claims stuff. In the real world, we have something called "intent to occupy". [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
	:"We should probably clarify somewhere that the existence of content on Lunarpedia does not equate to an endorsement of either that organization or the content posted here." Any recommendations on the template I just added to the article? - [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)		:"We should probably clarify somewhere that the existence of content on Lunarpedia does not equate to an endorsement of either that organization or the content posted here." Any recommendations on the template I just added to the article? - [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	::An alarm like isn't a good idea IMO. Intent to occupy should belong in the same grouping as teh others, by the way. Possibly have a scale of enforceability from low to high, with each type of land claim's enforceability rating explained? How many types do we have? intent to occupy, sold parcels, different locations for claims, claims backed up by having landed things, separately for both not voided (I can think of only one arguable claim presently existing, although some or all of the money was NASA's) and voided by the Outer Space Treaty (it appears that US and CCCP both effectively established and respected each other's staked out territories on the visible Lunar surface, although the OST effectively voided these apparent claims -- and [[Angus Bay]], BTW, is in what was CCCP territory...)?
		+
		+	::Actually, there's at least one other claim category: claim made and then something by a government that's signed the OST has landed something on one's claim. While the court that heard the case threw it out (and the world in question was Eros, not Luna), there is the possibility of this coming up again sometime.
		+
		+	::What does, does not, may, or may not constitute an enforceable or at least respected claim is very arguably up in the air right now. We ought to try to be objective here. If we show a clear POV bias, our analysis will not be taken as seriously as it will be if we carefully weigh the pros and cons of every approach. That some approaches will be found rather wanting under such an analysis should clearly be due to their own lack of merits rather than our own gut reactions to these things.
		+
		+	::That we do not endorse what is here needs to be a global statement applying to everything here equally. -- [[User:Strangelv\|Strangelv]] 01:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 12 October 2008
Line 10:		Line 10:

	I hate all this land claims stuff. In the real world, we have something called "intent to occupy". [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)		I hate all this land claims stuff. In the real world, we have something called "intent to occupy". [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
		+	:"We should probably clarify somewhere that the existence of content on Lunarpedia does not equate to an endorsement of either that organization or the content posted here." Any recommendations on the template I just added to the article? - [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:11, 12 October 2008
Line 8:		Line 8:

	::We probably need a category for land claims and related activities, as that's only going to increase as time progresses, and someone may come here in an attempt to make sense of the overlapping and mutually exclusive claims running around. -- [[User:Strangelv\|Strangelv]] 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)		::We probably need a category for land claims and related activities, as that's only going to increase as time progresses, and someone may come here in an attempt to make sense of the overlapping and mutually exclusive claims running around. -- [[User:Strangelv\|Strangelv]] 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	I hate all this land claims stuff. In the real world, we have something called "intent to occupy". [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:36, 12 October 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:

	:James, Mike, What are your opinions? - [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)		:James, Mike, What are your opinions? - [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	::We should probably clarify somewhere that the existence of content on Lunarpedia does not equate to an endorsement of either that organization or the content posted here. It would be good to counterbalance claims in articles about dubious business, organizations, et c. with problems with their models. OTOH, if the information about said organization or business is demonstrably false, it could be removed, or mentioned that the organization claims X, but this is provably false because of Y, as long as it's obvious and not merely seeming to be pushing a point-of-view.
		+
		+	::We probably need a category for land claims and related activities, as that's only going to increase as time progresses, and someone may come here in an attempt to make sense of the overlapping and mutually exclusive claims running around. -- [[User:Strangelv\|Strangelv]] 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:37, 11 October 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	I am under the impression that it is. Maybe the "lunar land claims thingy" article that claims to be based in mojave spaceport is as well. [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 07:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)		I am under the impression that it is. Maybe the "lunar land claims thingy" article that claims to be based in mojave spaceport is as well. [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 07:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	:James, Mike, What are your opinions? - [[User:Jarogers2001\|Jarogers2001]] 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:12, 7 October 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This is not an article. This is false advertising. --[[User:Farred\|Farred]] 19:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)		This is not an article. This is false advertising. --[[User:Farred\|Farred]] 19:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	I am under the impression that it is. Maybe the "lunar land claims thingy" article that claims to be based in mojave spaceport is as well. [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 07:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)