Talk:Tourism on the Moon

Protection of historical lunar landing sites

There is something this article totally fails to take into account. Existing lunar landing sites are considered by many to be historical sites which need to be protected and preserved; this means not allowing "tourists" to tramp around in spacesuits, disturbing them. Check this out, from the Tranquility Base page:

Interest in according the site some formal protection grew in the early 21st century with the announcement of the Google Lunar X Prize for private corporations to successfully build spacecraft and reach the Moon; a $1 million bonus was offered for any competitor that visited a historic site on the Moon. One team, led by Astrobotic Technology, announced it would attempt to land a craft at Tranquility Base. Although it canceled those plans, the ensuing controversy led NASA to request that any other missions to the Moon, private or governmental, human or robotic, keep a distance of at least 75 meters (246 ft) from the site.

Also, consider how NASA was scandalized by the commercialization of the Fallen Astronaut sculpture. Do you really think the same agency will be willing to endorse tourist trips to see this (and trample the Apollo 15 landing site?) JustinTime55 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: Thanks for your concern, this article is very new, it is in development process, you are welcomed to improve this article in positive way as you also seem to be interested in WikiProject Spaceflight. You said, " Existing lunar landing sites are considered by many to be historical sites which need to be protected and preserved; this means not allowing "tourists" [to tramp around in spacesuits, disturbing them." -- include my complete quote, please JustinTime55 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)] Ok. One can see hundreds of "protected" sites on Earth, isn't they are "tourist" sites? "Protectet sites" doesn't mean that "tourists" are not allowed there. "Protected sites" means "no other construction is allowed there or no other spaceship can land there" etc. Tourists can see that from some distance. Do you think that when tourists will visit Moon they will come back to Eath without seeing "historic Moon landing sites", "remains of old missions"? Tourists from USA would obviously like to see that flag of USA on Moon, tourists from India will like to see Moon Impact Probe which first time discovered water on Moon and it also has print of flag of India on it. Same applies to Chinese rover and missions of other nations. They will obviously watch it.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  03:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You have basically avoided the point of my post by diverting it in another direction. The subject of government protection of the sites certainly has to be noted in this article. The fact remains, the US government won't be very happy if some private company lands people there with no prior restrictions, allowing them to trample all over the Apollo landing sites. (No, it doesn't just mean "no other construction is allowed there or no other spaceship can land there" etc.; it means no one should walk within 75 meters. And this was for the smallest landing site, Apollo 11. Where would you define the barrier for Apollo 15, which was much larger because of the car the astronauts drove on the Moon?) Barriers would certainly have to be set up. And imagine paying three quarters of a billion dollars ($750 million) to look through a telescope at a three-inch (8.5 centimeter) metal Lego figure and a sign with some names on it; who in his right mind would do this, when he can just click on the pictures in Wikipedia? JustinTime55 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

References

@JustinTime55: Just to reply this. US government or any other individual government can't make laws for Moon. US government can't restrict someone from entering on any site on Moon. Read Common heritage of mankind. Moon and other solar bodies are common property of Mankind. It is just in good faith that no one will destroy historic sites on Moon. Otherwise no nation can restrict other nation for doing any research on Moon at any site. Laws of individual nations are not applied on Moon, Mars, Asteroids etc. It should be global decision to protect sites on Moon, one individual country can't decide laws of Moon, all this is according to UN conventions.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  22:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Categorizing Fallen Astronaut as a lunar tourist site

Off-topic discussion of Categorizing Fallen Astronaut as "Tourism on Moon."
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
This subtopic was created as a diversion of the previous one to an issue relevant to another page, not this one. It was moved to Talk:Fallen Astronaut#Categorizing Fallen Astronaut as a lunar tourist site. Please continue any discussion there, not here. @JustinTime55: You should have not removed category Tourism on Moon from Fallen Astronaut [1]. It doesn't come under WP:CRYSTAL. "Crystal" says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future." Tourism on Moon is not "speculation", it is something certainly going to happen in very near future for which we have sources too. Space companies have decided price of tickets too, booking is already started even for Mars tour. Read Mars One. --Human3015Send WikiLove  03:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC) I did not say that tourism on the Moon is "crystal ball"; the reason it is not appropriate to categorize Fallen Astronaut as lunar tourism, is because of the speculation that these tourism companies (assuming they pan out) will be taking people to the Fallen Astronaut site. That is also unverified, and constitutes original research, (unless you can cite sources saying that is what the companies intend. The only "attractions" you have sourced so far is the far side and Earthrise.) The same can be said for all of your assumptions about the prior landing sites. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC) @JustinTime55: I want to make you clear. It doesn't matters any space agency will take tourists to "F A"or not. Only question is does F A is possible tourist site or not? If you visit any nation and your tourist company doesn't show you some Caves then according to you those caves are not tourist sites. As per common knowledge every cave, memorial, temple, waterfall etc are tourists sites, it doesn't matters tourist companies visit it or not. So these memorials on Moon are "obvious" tourist sites, it doesn't matters if any company mention it or not. Still they clearly mention that they will visit Moon. --Human3015Send WikiLove  19:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC) First of all, you are misusing this page to discuss the Fallen Astronaut categorization; that article has its own talk page where this discussion is appropriate. I want to "make you clear." Possible tourist site does not count; it certainly does matter whether any company will take tourists there or not. Our no original research policy states that if it is not verified by a reliable published source, then it does not belong in the Wikipedia. You also don't seem to understand WP:CRYSTAL very well; once again: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future." You say: "Tourism on Moon is not "speculation", it is something certainly going to happen in very near future for which we have sources too." You have a strange definition of "very near future": it is now 2015, and the companies predict 2020 to 2043; that's five to twenty-eight years away. When John F. Kennedy started NASA on its Apollo program in 1961, it was by no means considered certain that we would achieve the goal in eight years. And companies which claim they are going to do something, for profit, in 5 to 28 years, with no real proof of the means by which they intend to do it (rocket and spacecraft hardware, tracking and control capabilities, etc.), are hardly reliable sources that justify stating that something is "certainly going to happen"; that by consensus is considered the very essence of WP:CRYSTAL. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC) @JustinTime55: I don't know what OR you are seeing? Should I give you source that "memorials" are known as "tourist sites"? Does "memorials" in US are not "tourist sites"? Here nothing is OR. And it is your OR that such kind of tourism will not happen. Why you are predicting future that such kind of tourism will not happen? We are going by sources, and sources says that it will happen in between 2020-2043 which is very near future. (one source in article even claims 2018). If you think that such kind of tourism will not happen then it is just your personal opinion or personal perception of the facts.--Human3015Send WikiLove  21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC) No, the burden of proof is on you; you are the one making the prediction. I am not predicting it won't happen (or anything else). Demanding proof of a negative (saying something, then saying "prove it isn't true!" is never reasonable. And you also don't understand that the issue isn't whether tourism will happen or not; it is whether the companies will use these specific sites. Your "common sense" (which is neither common nor sensical) is not good enough for Wikipedia: Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See the essay, WP:Verifiability, not truth.] JustinTime55 (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC) "Moon tourism will happen somewhere between 2020-2043" is not my personal prediction, it is what I'm writing according to sources. While you are predicting that "it will not happen" is your "personal opinion" and you are yet to provide any source for that. Better you read this to clear your doubts. Thank you.--Human3015Send WikiLove  21:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC) You apparently are incapable of keeping one issue separate from another in your mind. Read what I just wrote again: I am not talking about whether or not lunar tourism will happen. I am not "predicting it will not happen." I am talking about categorizing Fallen Astronaut as lunar tourism. That is inappropriate; that is original research which you cannot verify, unless and until such time, if any, that one of the companies (say Golden Spike) comes out with a press release saying "We're going to take people to see the Fallen Astronaut." Also, since you have this trouble, I am moving this thread out of here and over to Talk:Fallen Astronaut where it belongs.JustinTime55 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK

@JustinTime55: Hi, I don't want unnecessary rift with you. We both work on WikiProject Spacefight and our thinking should be more sensible. We can't edit war for simple things. I want to nominate this article for "Did you Know". We can nominate our names as author. Tomorrow is last day to nominate it as tomorrow article will complete its 7 days. We just have to improve article to some more length, Thanks for your recent contribution. Are you interested in contributing more to this article? --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that I have enough time available to devote to Wikipedia to be able to find sources of good, verifiable information (that doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL about future events) to get a halfway decent article in the remaining 2 days. And even then, I'm not optimistic the result will be good enough for the DYK committee. Thanks for the offer; I wish you luck. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted "‎Possible attractions" section content

Recently User:JustinTime55 removed a large fraction of the "Possible attractions" section for WP:OR - below is the content of the section as of 22 September 2016 as I think it might be useful / reincluded later: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixuture (talk • contribs) 12:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"‎Possible attractions" section as of 22 September 2016

Possible attractions See also: List of artificial objects on the Moon Two natural attractions would be available by circumlunar flight or lunar orbit, without landing: View of the far side of the Moon View of the Earth rising and setting against the lunar horizon Other possible attractions include: Lunar craters Moon Impact Probe of India Chinese Lunar Rover Soviet Lunar Rovers Commemorations on the Moon Main article: List of extraterrestrial memorials There are remnants of several missions left on the Moon: Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 each left a commemorative plaque and US flag at their landing sites. The plaque left on Apollo 17 contains a special message commemorating the last human lunar exploration of the twentieth century. Fallen Astronaut is an 8.5-centimeter (3.3 in) aluminium sculpture, accompanied by a plaque listing American and Soviet lives lost in the advancement of space exploration, left near the Apollo 15 landing site at Hadley Rille. Pennants of the Soviet Union on the Luna 2 unmanned spacecraft, which impacted the Moon in September 1959 References

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 30 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tara.goolsby (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jkk12348966543.

— Assignment last updated by Kmdavis7 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Moon Laws

The Moon Agreement of 1979 is the last in the initial series of Space Law treaties. (Nelson, 2011) As the Legal Sub-committee explains and processes the treaty they made sure to emphasize preserving the environment. (Bogaert, 1981) The 1979 Moon Agreement enshrined the principle of the common heritage of humankind in space law. As of 2023, the Moon Agreement has been ratified by fewer than 20 countries. (de Azevedo, 2023) Now a brave new age is here, but the law is not ready. Outer space is rapidly becoming the domain for industrial-scale private-sector innovation and entrepreneurship. (Lee 2023) A commercialized Moon would require the United States to assert legislative jurisdiction (U.S. federal law taking effect), exercise adjudicatory jurisdiction (personal jurisdiction over persons and property and subject matter jurisdiction regarding controversies that arise), and install a governing body physically on the Moon. (Lee 2023) The new laws of the moon are not set in place but can be seen in the future.@

Nelson, T. G. (2011). Evaluating the 1979 Moon Agreement: THE MOON AGREEMENT AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISE: LESSONS FROM INVESTMENT LAW. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, 17, 393.

Van Bogaert, E. (1981). The Moon Treaty : Achievements and Future Problems. Studia Diplomatica, 34(6), 655–673.

de Azevedo, J. M. (2023). Regulating Space Resource Activities in a Fair and Equitable Manner: Understanding the Principle of Common Heritage of Humankind in Space Law. ERIS - European Review of International Studies, 10(3), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-10030006

Lee, A. Y. (2023). The Future of the Law on the Moon. Journal of Air Law & Commerce, 88(1), 3–103. https://doi-org.uno.idm.oclc.org/10.25172/jalc.88.1.2 ]

Hobe, S. (2023). Commentary for the Journal of Air Law and Commerce on the Article by Andrew Lee Entitled The Future of the Law on the Moon. Journal of Air Law & Commerce, 88(1), 223–226. https://doi.org/10.25172/jalc.88.1.7

Freeland, S. (2010). Fly Me to the Moon: How Will International Law Cope with Commercial Space Tourism? Melbourne Journal of International Law, 11(1), 90–118.

Harrington, A. J. (2023). From Geopolitics to Lunapolitics: A Response to Lee’s the Future of the Law on the Moon. Journal of Air Law & Commerce, 88(1), 211–221. https://doi-org.uno.idm.oclc.org/10.25172/jalc.88.1.6

Vasilevskaia, E. G. (1972). The Development of the Moon: Some Prospects for Regulation By Law. Russian Politics & Law, 10(4), 362–376. https://doi-org.uno.idm.oclc.org/10.2753/rup1061-19401004362 Tara.goolsby (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)