Exposing PseudoAstronomy

July 10, 2013

Apollo Lunar Landing Sites to Be National Parks?


Um … huh? I’ve seen this article now in at least three different places, so I thought it was worth a quick post. (And here’s one that goes into more detail.)

Basically, two Representatives to the US House, one from Maryland and the other from Texas, have filed a bill that would designate each Apollo landing site (yes, the ones on the moon) to be National Parks, putting the US National Park Service in charge of them. And that the Apollo 11 site be submitted to the UN organization to be designated a World Heritage site. Both representatives are Democrats.

This is stupid.

Okay, I understand the idea, and why the Apollo sites should be preserved. And it’ll happen — after all, it was on an episode of Futurama, though they weren’t exactly sure where the sites were on the moon.

But the US has zero jurisdiction. I’ve covered this a few times, like back in 2008 in my post on why you shouldn’t “buy a star,” or my podcast episode 37 on space law. As far as I can tell, the same thing still applies.

Basically, the US has signed a treaty that states that no nation can claim an extraterrestrial object in ownership. Like, the US planted a flag on the Moon but that doesn’t mean we can now claim it’s US territory. You can probably see where this is going … since we can’t claim the Moon as US territory, how can we possibly designate it a US National Park, and then put it under the jurisdiction of the National Parks Service, a part of the US government?

As for the US designating it a “world heritage site,” sure … except it’s not part of Earth, the “world.”

As I said, I understand the intent, and it’s too far away from an election for this to be voter-playing, but I suggest these two reps take a 10-minute course in space law. What they are proposing violates at least one international treaty.

4 Comments »

  1. It would similar to making the South Pole a National Park site, or the Tower of London. I don’t think the Congressmen’s Legislative Direction research international law. Yeah. It’s stupid.

    Comment by Nigel — July 10, 2013 @ 7:16 pm | Reply

    • Thanks for the confirmation, Friendly Lawyer!

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — July 10, 2013 @ 9:00 pm | Reply

  2. And since when has the US cared about international treaties, when members of its government want to do something that violates one or more of them?

    Okay, snarkiness is done. I agree with you those two representatives need to go back to law school and study a bit more. Making such stupid statements just proves they’re woefully undereducated. They should be disbarred until they’ve completed refresher courses on international law.

    Personally, I think they should’ve proposed a resolution to push the UN into declaring the places World Heritage sites.

    Comment by Rick K. — July 11, 2013 @ 8:38 am | Reply

  3. It’s not that far away from election season — Representatives campaign the entire 2 years they’re in office, and they’re due for reelection next year. I wonder if these two are from districts that have NASA facilities or maybe one of the private space companies present?

    Comment by Rick K. — July 11, 2013 @ 8:45 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: