Planetarion Forums

Dace · 12 Nov 2003, 21:45

I was wondering how legal this was.

Would ownership (granted by certificate) stand up say if somebody else went and built a house on the property and said it was their land?

I'm just interested is all.

Proteus · 12 Nov 2003, 21:48

It has no legal basis. It seems to rely completely on the claim that US law can apply to the moon, which is nonsense.

Nodrog · 12 Nov 2003, 21:49

Laws are upheld by governments. Do you honestly think that if NASA or a similar organisation wanted to use 'your' moon land, your claim would have a chance of standing up?

Dace · 12 Nov 2003, 21:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proteus

It has no legal basis. It seems to rely completely on the claim that US law can apply to the moon, which is nonsense.

That's what i kinda thought.

How would you go about getting a piece of moon land tho?

Obviously it would be expensive as **** but is it possible (in a "if i build a house on the preoperty does that make the land mine" kind of way).

MrL_JaKiri · 12 Nov 2003, 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dace

How would you go about getting a piece of moon land tho?

Buy it off whoever owns the moon.

Dante Hicks · 12 Nov 2003, 21:51

All land law is stupid. But anyway, Nod is right.

What would probably happen is an element of reasonableness would be applied to each case. If you had built a moon house on your moon land and that land needed to be redeveloped by someone or other, you'd probably get compensation or something.

Presuming the liberal model of law is still in place, and we don't all praise Allah 5 times a day then.

Dace · 12 Nov 2003, 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Laws are upheld by governments. Do you honestly think that if NASA or a similar organisation wanted to use 'your' moon land, your claim would have a chance of standing up?

What if you say hypothetically owned a multi-national company which was very, VERY big?

MrL_JaKiri · 12 Nov 2003, 21:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dace

What if you say hypothetically owned a multi-national company which was very, VERY big?

I'd play Duck Hunt all day!

IncubusGod · 12 Nov 2003, 21:53

erm
Looked into this before,since everyone except the US and the UK(I think) havent signed the act proclaiming the moon belonging to everyone then companies in these countries are offering privately sold chunks of the moon.

Its pretty much useless,more of a funny gift and talking point.

cnaw · 12 Nov 2003, 22:40

u know can name a star as well? ;-)

mmmmmmmmm easy money

ParraCida · 13 Nov 2003, 02:03

Wasn't there a thread about this a while ago?

There were some interesting links on that thread, in any case the 'moon' or any celestial body cannot be owned by anyone.

W · 13 Nov 2003, 02:30

Whether you can own pieces of the moon or not, this is obviously just a scam. What you're really buying is a piece of paper.

13 Nov 2003, 02:32

you would have to pay the owner of the land rates, of course the certificate of ownership would be legitimately issued from the land registry

Dace · 13 Nov 2003, 02:56

Kinda on the same topic ...

Could anyone link me to the NASA annual budget.

With details on what they spend the money on.

All i can seem to find (by googling) is the Annual budget amount.

AINT I JUST FULL OF QUESTIONS TODAY :)

Dace · 13 Nov 2003, 03:18

BTW whilst looking at some budget type things i saw that NASA reckons they'll have a man on mars in 20 years (according to how they are budgeting anyways).

To get some discussion going ...

"How likely do you think this is?"

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Nov 2003, 03:19

NASA is underfunded, overmanaged, and unsuccessful.

0.

Dace · 13 Nov 2003, 03:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

NASA is underfunded

$14 billion a year makes it underfunded?

From the website(s) i've been reading NASA seems to have plenty of money and not much sense.

And still i cant find any real Budget details :(

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Nov 2003, 03:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dace

$14 billion a year makes it underfunded?

Yep.

Whilst £10 may be plenty for a Mars Bar, it's not enough for a car.

Dace · 13 Nov 2003, 03:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Whilst £10 may be plenty for a Mars Bar, it's not enough for a car.

It might be (2nd hand etc).

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Nov 2003, 03:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dace

It might be (2nd hand etc).

A crap one though.

Like the crap stuff NASA has been putting out.

IncubusGod · 13 Nov 2003, 04:02

It's all a part of the NASA culture,you can find $1,000 toilets and $500 hammers if you examine the spending enough.

They are a hole for money :P

Dace · 13 Nov 2003, 04:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Like the crap stuff NASA has been putting out.

Go here for "FUN" info.

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Nov 2003, 04:05

The motto of the chairman that oversaw such disasters as the mars polar probey thing (the one that burnt up because they couldn't tell the difference between meters and feet) was 'Cheaper, faster, better'.

Nasa has been underfunded for years, the military overfunded (look at the costs of the NMD). An example of this is the lack of funding for the ISS; currently, it's a $20 billion (or however much it was) white elephant. However, they neglected to finish it to its original specifications (which would have been at a fraction of the overall price), and it is useless. Utterly, utterly useless.

Nodrog · 13 Nov 2003, 05:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dace

What if you say hypothetically owned a multi-national company which was very, VERY big?

Im not that optimistic about the future.

Nodrog · 13 Nov 2003, 05:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

NASA is underfunded, overmanaged, and unsuccessful.

0.

This is a good thing, however they are overfunded since they shouldnt be receiving anything.

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Nov 2003, 05:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This is a good thing, however they are overfunded since they shouldnt be receiving anything.

I like your evidence!

Nodrog · 13 Nov 2003, 05:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I like your evidence!

Explain to me how playing about with moon rockets and funding junkets to mars comes under the proper role of government.

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Nov 2003, 05:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Explain to me how playing about with moon rockets and funding junkets to mars comes under the proper role of government.

What do you define as the 'proper role' of government? Why do you define it such? Are your beliefs shared?

In addition, do you think that the funding of science by governments is outside their jurisdiction?

Nodrog · 13 Nov 2003, 06:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

What do you define as the 'proper role' of government? Why do you define it such? Are your beliefs shared?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ion.table.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

In addition, do you think that the funding of science by governments is outside their jurisdiction?

Yeah, sort of

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Nov 2003, 06:47

In which case, how should we get funding for science that does not directly result in a profitable result?

We'd just get more 'how to make the perfect cup of tea' and 'The best way to dunk a biscuit' crap.

Nodrog · 13 Nov 2003, 07:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

In which case, how should we get funding for science that does not directly result in a profitable result?

Private financing

Aryn · 13 Nov 2003, 07:29

sell girl guide cookes!

Tis · 13 Nov 2003, 08:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

It's all a part of the NASA culture,you can find $1,000 toilets and $500 hammers if you examine the spending enough.

Since you speak with such authority, I assume you have done the examining you refer to? If so, show me. If not, you cant really make a claim like.

(Erm, on the other hand, id be stunned if you could make a Zero G toilet for under $1000)

As per the original question. My understanding is that it is possible for different people to own the property and the building on it, tho normally this means that the building owner is renting the property. Also, US law makes it fairly easy for the government to get private land that it needs, though I forget the name of the law. This is used most often for clearing new routes for roads.

Tis · 13 Nov 2003, 08:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Explain to me how playing about with moon rockets and funding junkets to mars comes under the proper role of government.

I assume you also oppose government funding of the arts?

Nodrog · 13 Nov 2003, 08:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tis

I assume you also oppose government funding of the arts?

Of course.

Radical Edward · 13 Nov 2003, 08:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tis

I assume you also oppose government funding of the arts?

definitely

government sponsoring of the sciences is cool though.

Nodrog · 13 Nov 2003, 08:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

definitely

government sponsoring of the sciences is cool though.

they are both equally justifiable

Tis · 13 Nov 2003, 08:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

definitely

government sponsoring of the sciences is cool though.

That makes little sense.

While I dont agree with Nod at all on the role of government in funding 'non-practical' science and the arts, he is right that is a both or nothing proposition.

Nodrog · 13 Nov 2003, 08:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tis

That makes little sense

While I dont agree with Nod at all on the role of government in funding 'non-practical' science and the arts, he is right that is a both or nothing proposition.

I think it was just a long-winded way of saying that he studies science.

Tis · 13 Nov 2003, 08:42

heh

Radical Edward · 13 Nov 2003, 08:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tis

That makes little sense.

While I dont agree with Nod at all on the role of government in funding 'non-practical' science and the arts, he is right that is a both or nothing proposition.

it wouldn't. do you think I actually read the threads before I post on them?

to clarify. I agree that arts should not be funded, however science should. there should however be a stupidity committee to stop €20k (because this keyboard does not have a pound sign) of public money being spent on biscuit dunking.

Radical Edward · 13 Nov 2003, 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I think it was just a long-winded way of saying that he studies science.

see, Nodrog is sharp.

is taxpayer funding of science ok if it is someone elses tax?

Nodrog · 13 Nov 2003, 08:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

it wouldn't. do you think I actually read the threads before I post on them?

to clarify. I agree that arts should not be funded, however science should. there should however be a stupidity committee to stop €20k (because this keyboard does not have a pound sign) of public money being spent on biscuit dunking.

I think they should only fund research projects that contain 14 'm's in the project description, because having completely arbitrary criteria for funding is highly rational and an all-round good idea.

Radical Edward · 13 Nov 2003, 08:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I think they should only fund research projects that contain 14 'm's in the project description, because having completely arbitrary criteria for funding is highly rational and an all-round good idea.

well you would of course have to pass that through the comittee for facetious comments first, but thanks for suggesting it.

Tis · 13 Nov 2003, 08:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I think they should only fund research projects that contain 14 'm's in the project description, because having completely arbitrary criteria for funding is highly rational and an all-round good idea.

Suddenly people who stutter badly would be in high demand as project proposal writers.

"M-m-m-m-m-mr. Ch-chairm-m-man s-s-sir....."

Radical Edward · 13 Nov 2003, 08:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tis

Suddenly people who stutter badly would be in high demand as project proposal writers.

"M-m-m-m-m-mr. Ch-chairm-m-man s-s-sir....."

how many people actually type out a stutter? where did you learn that? the castle of AAaaaaaargh?

Tis · 13 Nov 2003, 08:57

"necessity is the mother of invention"

Nodrog · 13 Nov 2003, 08:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

how many people actually type out a stutter? where did you learn that? the castle of AAaaaaaargh?

voice recognition software

Radical Edward · 13 Nov 2003, 09:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

voice recognition software

turn off the spellchecker and we have a winner. if your stutter is specific enough.

Dante Hicks · 13 Nov 2003, 09:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tis

While I dont agree with Nod at all on the role of government in funding 'non-practical' science and the arts, he is right that is a both or nothing proposition.

The argument is that in the long term, "unprofitable" science can always be used to produce profit (or utility) whereas art is just a big pile of shit.

To give a fairly obvious example, a lot of the early internet stuff was unprofitable science/tech stuff which the government indulged in. I think now you can say the money spent (in terms of economic growth) was probably a shrewd investment. Obviously if taxation is extortion, it's kind of irrelevent what utility government spending brings.