U.S. National Historical Parks - on the Moon

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07...storical_park/

rick jones
--
portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On 7/10/2013 9:15 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07...storical_park/

rick jones


OTOH a quick read of the comments at the end of the article clearly
points out that the US as a signatory and (I presume) ratifier of the
the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space" also prohibits the US from staking
any territorial claims on the lunar surface thus making Apollo landing
site designations as US National Parks moot.

A better draft bill would have just asked/petitioned that those sites be
considered by UNESCO as World Heritage Sites.

Dave

"David Spain" wrote in message
...

On 7/10/2013 9:15 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07...storical_park/

rick jones


OTOH a quick read of the comments at the end of the article clearly points
out that the US as a signatory and (I presume) ratifier of the the "Treaty
on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use
of Outer Space" also prohibits the US from staking any territorial claims
on the lunar surface thus making Apollo landing site designations as US
National Parks moot.


My understanding (from another article) is this would be sort of a legal
fictions where the ITEMS would be a historical park, but the Moon
surrounding them would not be, for the very reason you mention.


A better draft bill would have just asked/petitioned that those sites be
considered by UNESCO as World Heritage Sites.



Dave



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net