Talk:Office for Lunar Affairs

This is not an article. This is false advertising. --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. T.Neo 07:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

James, Mike, What are your opinions? - 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. -- 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". 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? - Jarogers2001 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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.

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. -- Strangelv 01:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

James, please alter the template to your satisfaction. I really don't have any idea how to do a scale that wouldn't consist of me talking out of my tailpipe. I am not familiar enough with the issue to pull it off. - Jarogers2001 06:18, 14 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" T.Neo 07:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)