Space Treaty: Who Owns the Moon?

Due to the Space Treaty, it is not possible for countries to take a piece of “real estate” in space, for example on the moon. But there may be a loophole, at least, according to the Americans. Private persons and companies do not fall under the Space Convention, according to them. Who is right?

The Space Treaty is outdated and currently hinders the development of humanity. In my opinion, some form of property rights will have to be arranged, or a UN agency should take care of this. Otherwise anarchy threatens. A space war between, for example, Virgin Galactic and Spaceship One is something I don't think anyone is waiting for.

Also read:
City on the moon

The Americans were the first to put their flag in the moon. But the Space Treaty prohibits property claims. Now what? Source: NASA

16 thoughts on “Ruimteverdrag: Van wie is de maan?”

  1. I don't see anarchy happening that easily. It will take many decades before even the first form of colonization will take place. When that time has come, it only makes sense to talk about a form of property rights. By then this will actually be done to protect the interests.

  2. Take the ONLY two photos that you have attached to this article;
    1. We see an earth that is photographed “from the moon”, but which is surrounded by a “black hole”, there where thousands of stars or points of light should have been seen, after all, on the moon there IS not a single atmosphere so that stars it should be 10 to 100 times as BRIGHT as seen from Earth on a crystal clear frosty night. However ?
    2. A “waving flag” on the moon. A BREEDING WAVING flag, YES!
    I mean, due to the lack of an atmosphere or atmosphere, there CANNOT be ANY "WIND" on the moon.
    are, so no flapping pennant altogether. This presupposes moving molecules in the “air”. And there IS no "air" on the breeding moon; just a molecular vacuum! ! !

  3. Bob Dylan already sang it forty years ago, but I want to repeat it for Visionary & followers:

    "The Answer is blowing (?) In the wind (??)"

    Jémig-de-péééémig say !!!

  4. Did you know that firefighters with their special temp-insulating suits after being in a burning building for 5 or 10 minutes when the SODEMIETER run outside again to be hosed down or cooled by their colleagues? Exactly, because with iso suits you only gain some time! But those Armstrong-esque LIERS would have spent hours on the moon (in full sun, that is) at temperatures of 120 ° C? ? ?

    I say WA-HAA-HAAAAA! ! ! ! !

    (that you still fall for that N (A) SA propaganda, say!)

  5. "... and you get to know the only limitations that nature has."


    What do you mean by “nature” anyway, dear Germen?

    I only see your fiction (= indoctrination) in this lunar article, instead of real “Nature” (- like Laws).

    Definitely dropped out after your propadeuse?


  6. I don't think you are well versed in science. Why doesn't an astronaut get warm in space / moon, but a firefighter does? I think you yourself may have been happy that you once got coffee from a thermos instead of an open jug (apparently this insulates?). According to your reasoning, you will not notice a difference in temperature, but this is completely incorrect. As you probably know too! Heat can be transferred in several ways, including convection, radiation and conduction. I hope I haven't lost you. But in space there is just a lack of two of these effects (convection and conduction). Sure, some energy will be transferred from the surface of the feet to the lunar surface, but this is relatively negligible given the space suit's insulation and small contact area. Radiation is not a negligible effect as you can see when you sit in front of a fire, but certainly not enough to cook an astronaut or to instantly freeze the other half (radiation from you as a source). The apparent surface of the sun compared to the tip of your thumb when you extend your arm is relatively small. Strangely enough, so is the effect of the radiation.

    I myself am trained as a fire brigade with regard to work requirements and I fully agree that even in a fire-resistant suit you cannot last long near a fire. But we are on the earth where 1 atmosphere of molecules continuously presses on you and transfers (or absorbs) heat to your body.

    Further answer to your doubts:
    1. Why not stars in photos taken from the moon? I don't know if you also believe in the international space station, but also in photos from this location you (often) don't see any stars. Reason: shutter speed should be slower. On Earth we also suffer from this and we have to continuously adjust the position of the camera to avoid streaks.
    2. I hope you learned something from Mr. Newton. Action = reaction. Again, due to the near absence of an atmosphere, there is no resistance to drag a flag that has just been raised to slow down beyond the flag and pole itself. This is an effect that is noticeable and has even been tested by the Mythbusters (Discovery).

    I recommend that you take a course in thermodynamics, this will answer a lot of questions for you. Do leave your alu hat at home.

  7. Too bad you haven't looked at my links, Daan Meeuw.

    Apparently you are quite stuck in your program… er… 'thinking'.

    I have seen that so many times, by the way, not of that.

    Look, those astronauts have been bobbing around on the moon for a few hours, and if I take coffee in a thermos it is also very lukewarm after a few hours.

    And once there is an object, there is ALSO a “terminal” for the INTENSE heat radiation from the sun (on the moon!), So that that object will heat up HUGE in minutes; After all, there is nothing that can cause cooling / transmit cold, right?

    Anyway, otherwise take the “divergent shadows” of moon objects, stones, hills, etc., as seen on the official N (A) SA images: HOW can it be that the shadows are NOT parallel at all , but have a big (and therefore clearly discernible) difference from “incidence”?
    Only the sun is the only (perfectly dominant) light source on the moon, right?
    And is it not at x billion kilometers?
    So that shadows (except for a millionth of a degree) should run parallel to PARALLEL?

    Or were they light sources at about 50 or 70 meters, such as in a large studio?

    And once you are done "answering" this question, I have about thirty more for you.

    No, friend Daan, you are desperately needed for Conversion to Reality ;-)

    May the link below help you with that hihi:

    ■ “NASA Moon Hoax; analyzes of the lunar photography ”:
    (ps: I do not degrade your person to an “alu hat”, although I do have All the Right to do so)

  8. Also beg (to Germen?) That my info could be here.

    Don't worry about my "attack" because it wasn't meant to be that way anyway.
    It was / is about objective truth-finding.
    I shit on the rest; preferably in liquid form.

    You should also know that I am a big supporter of the “straight leg technique” ;-)

  9. Oh shit, I only see NOW that my 2 blocks of resp. 7 and 4 links are still in “moderation”, so that they are invisible to the readers here.

    PFFF ...

    THIS tells me enough!


  10. Your first posts do not contain any source. I recommend that you search for a search term such as: Why is the moon landing not fake. I am not going to convince you, but only plummeting sources that illuminate only one side is not good. Read both stories carefully and form your opinion from them. Then come up with good arguments as to why the arguments from those articles are correct or not. I have to say that years ago I also had my doubts about the moon landing because of articles like the one you put up to me, because it sometimes sounds quite plausible without a counterpoint. In any case, I came to a different conclusion by studying the other side as well.

    To get you started with articles that highlight the other side (there are just a few that I quickly found ff):

Leave a Comment