'Harvest Moon' takes on another meaning, as Terran "Moonrushers" point to fortunes to be made exploiting the vast deposits of madly valuable lunar ores containing helium-3 (He-3) that are now asserted to exist in easily mineable and transportable commercial quantities of the material.
Others, noting an increased propensity by the planet's nation-states to extraterritorially lay claim to the hitherto sacrosanct polar regions of Antarctica and Arctica, warn that Chinese planning for lunar colonization is well underway,
But do they have a claim? The host of mining interests and rocketeers that hope to stripmine Helium-3 rich moondust from the lunar "seas" have no more claim than any other earthlings. The Chinese nation however, could invoke their historic claim to already possessing the entire moon as their exclusive economic zone under the Shang Dynasty Son of Heaven declaration asserting China's extraplanetary hegemony as the ruler of "All under heaven".
With even a conservative definition of the outer rim of "heaven" encompassing the entire suite of planets and suns perceptible from Terra, Chinese claims to the moon could be seen as a small expression of the ancient claim.
In recent centuries competing groups of Terrans have used such ancient ownership claims as the aforenoted Chinese one to justify struggle for control over regions of their planet from which they may have departed millenia earlier.
(It is of course doubtful in the extreme that the People's Republic would ever advance the Shang Dynasty's space claims. But China has sent historic exploratory voyages before; Zheng He's explorations of the Indian Ocean are renowned.)
Moon-struck fight back.
Luna-huggers have also appeared, demanding protection of their planet's sole moon from the visible-from-earth scarring that would be the outcome of the application of industrial mining operations on a profitable scale to the nearly entirely pristine lunar surface environment.
Concerned about presently unforeseeable consequences, such opponents of lunar commercial exploitation may call for development and of a precautionary Lunar Impact Study Protocol requiring consideration of likely extralunar impacts of such mining, including degradation of the Moon's aesthetic resources.
Is is widely believed that large quantities of He-3 brought to Terra could power suffient fusion energy to allow for significant reduction in the use of carboniferous fossil fuels useful in s0lve the planet's global warming/energy source challenges
For the record, the Harvest Moon is the full moon nearest to Terra's autumnal equinox.
Others, noting an increased propensity by the planet's nation-states to extraterritorially lay claim to the hitherto sacrosanct polar regions of Antarctica and Arctica, warn that Chinese planning for lunar colonization is well underway,But do they have a claim? The host of mining interests and rocketeers that hope to stripmine Helium-3 rich moondust from the lunar "seas" have no more claim than any other earthlings. The Chinese nation however, could invoke their historic claim to already possessing the entire moon as their exclusive economic zone under the Shang Dynasty Son of Heaven declaration asserting China's extraplanetary hegemony as the ruler of "All under heaven".
With even a conservative definition of the outer rim of "heaven" encompassing the entire suite of planets and suns perceptible from Terra, Chinese claims to the moon could be seen as a small expression of the ancient claim.
In recent centuries competing groups of Terrans have used such ancient ownership claims as the aforenoted Chinese one to justify struggle for control over regions of their planet from which they may have departed millenia earlier.
(It is of course doubtful in the extreme that the People's Republic would ever advance the Shang Dynasty's space claims. But China has sent historic exploratory voyages before; Zheng He's explorations of the Indian Ocean are renowned.)
Moon-struck fight back.
Luna-huggers have also appeared, demanding protection of their planet's sole moon from the visible-from-earth scarring that would be the outcome of the application of industrial mining operations on a profitable scale to the nearly entirely pristine lunar surface environment.
Concerned about presently unforeseeable consequences, such opponents of lunar commercial exploitation may call for development and of a precautionary Lunar Impact Study Protocol requiring consideration of likely extralunar impacts of such mining, including degradation of the Moon's aesthetic resources.
Is is widely believed that large quantities of He-3 brought to Terra could power suffient fusion energy to allow for significant reduction in the use of carboniferous fossil fuels useful in s0lve the planet's global warming/energy source challenges
10 comments:
Moondust. Who'd'a thought?
Some 2.5 million people have bought lunar real estate from investment schemes similar to the one Heinlein's space entrepreneur Delos Harriman proposed in the 1949 novelette 'The Man Who Sold the Moon. According to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, no government can claim ownership of property beyond the Earth and although some might interpret this as providing a loophole for individuals to establish ownership, as Harriman said, “It’s not enough to just set foot on the moon and claim it; we’ve got to validate that claim in terrestrial courts” (Heinlein, 1949; p. 155). Indeed, Harriman intended that his first moon ship would be owned and operated by a non-profit corporation chartered by the United Nations. After landing on the moon, the corporation would ask its parent body, the UN, to declare the fledgling moon ‘colony’ a de-facto autonomous state under UN protection, with full title to the moon and its resources. Thus, under Heinlein’s 1949 fictional arrangement, no one government would own the moon, which is consistent with the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. However, while other UN treaties, including the Moon Agreement of 1972, provide the right to use but not own outer space, such treaties may have little substance given that nations such as the USA and Russia refuse to sign it.
Thus, ‘who owns the moon’ is still a matter of debate… although Heinlein’s fictional proposal was, essentially, logical.
But have the Chinese read Heinlein?
This is the era of superpower treaty-busting, regretfully. Lèse majesté is loose upon the world.
Certainly China and other industrial powers will brush aside moon protecting treaties once lunar exploitation becomes profitable.
I have no doubt that staking a claim on the moon has been considered by more than just the Chinese government. This certainly is a double edged sword. Clarke has all but said that the only way man is going to succeed in space is to commercialize it....I suspect that isn't so totally far from saying the same thing about the moon. However is it really feasible in the short or even mid term? There are barely inroads into the northern arctic regions for diamonds and oil, and the treaties of much the same vein in place for the antarctic. I would think it much more possible for a motivated country to co-opt part of the southern pole with much more ease than forays to the moon....Is it a fact of ease of enforcement or difficulty in mounting and maintaining an operation on the pole that is keeping the wolves at bay?
Paul, you've made some good points...the logistics and cost of mining helium 3, for example, would be immense. (there'd be a better return on investing in alternative energy supplies here on earth, now).
My thought is that in the short term, it will be tourism that brings in the bucks, and at least one private company is looking to send well-heeled tourists on a circumnavigation of the moon (2 crew plus one tourist in a modified Soyuz?)
But as Ron said, once the practical/logistical kinks are ironed out, I suspect that treaties will vaporize...perhaps we'll see a new generation of greenies: moonies?
As a lifelong tree hugger and fish hugger, I find it hard in the extreme to conjure up a great deal of concern for the preumably lifeless lunar environment. Though I did help fend off a development project once based on its aesthetic impacts to a coastal view (along with the planned yacht pier robbing local lobster fishers of fishing grounds.
"View pollution" is indeed held as a roblem by the US' National Environmental Policy Act, hence my reference on the blog to a lunar environmental impact statement.
HI Ron,
The aesthetic impact on the moon was raised a few days ago (for eg) by Aussie astronaut Andy Thomas in a 60 min interview (but it has been raised elsewhere).
For me (and I just went greenpower, as I told you in our interview), lifeless or not, there is still a haunting beauty in the lunar landscape. However, having said that, I see no reason why mining cannot proceed...so long as the moon is not trashed the way many are trying to here on earth.
Shaun, and there in lies the rub I would suspect. Nike might not have the where with all to mount an expedition to the moon for the sole sake of adverts...however whats to say that they could not partner with a mining concern and all they ask for their support is that the mining take place on the "bright side" and kept within proscrbed limits....oh say...a really fine looking swoosh?!! Then we are stuck with a moon sized Nike commercial every full moon....
Paul - so true!
In 'Return To Mallcity' the moon is trashed in a similar fashion by Fabcola...
See, why am I not surprised that you got there before I did! Exactly....I have no doubt that if something isn't done now, we have the real potential of seeing FabCola every full moon. At first, I was of the opinion that off Earth mining was the best way to go...still think that way, however as in state or National parks the resource IS the view and recreation. I hope we never become so jaded as to not care how our environment looks here and there appear.
Post a Comment