When you go and live there, all the area you have put to use is yours. You have a right to expand it as long as others can locate elsewhere. The first to land has first right to claim what they can put into use until all of the territory is claimed. Laws be damned. If you aren't there to claim it, it isn't yours. Nobody has the right to claim or sell what they do not first possess. I can just see politicians lining their pockets selling phony rights to the surface of the moon and elsewhere.

Whoever is first to develop antigravity technology, and a vehicle based on it, will find the Moon about as close as the local parking lot. It will be easy to literally stake out lots of territory quickly. I call THAT a real RACE!

And there are indications that it can be done too. See:

scripturalphysics.org/4v4a/ADVPROP.html#MotionCancellers
scripturalphysics.org/4v4a/ADVPROP.html#GeometrySpaceTimeMotion

Only way I see this being accepted by the rest of the world is if it's the UN that gets put in charge of the allotments of land, not the US.

I own Risa,

What happens on Risa, Stays on Risa!

Well, I can see that we're all having a lot of fun with this and it is interesting, but folks this could become a very serious issue before you know it.

Just let the next moon lander or mars lander find something really valuable like the aforementioned rare earth minerals which China has the lock on right now and WHAM! you're going to have private industry and even whole governments racing to stake their claim.

You'd be amazed at how fast a consortium of companies could be put together and a mission launched to colonize the moon. Ten years? Try 3-5 years from right now! It can be done when the profit potential is large enough.

Geez, "manifest destiny" in space. I can't begin to list all the reasons this is so wrong and why it will eventually happen. Then you'll have to have private armies to protect your mineral rights. That will draw the various nations of the world into the conflict to "protect their citizens" and the snowball will roll completely out of control.

I think this may be the most chilling article I've read in months.

There needs to be a treaty, NOW, that will stop this craziness before it starts.

NOW, I understand what 'Moon Unit Gingrich' is all about.

I think "moon unit" might aptly describe you.

Space colonization is the one thing that will save humanity from a variety of natural or man-made calamities, but you anti-free marketeers, who have always had disdain for the concept of ownership, in your blind allegiance to your ideology will prevent humanity from achieving this. Instead you're forcing all space exploration, research and development through governments, which waste billions of dollars for mere politics.

Kehvan, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I have talked with Skip on many occasions (heya Skip!) and the person or people you describe in your comment are nothing like him.

And further more, when you talk about your "blind allegiance to your ideology" you better just look in the mirror because you are also speaking in absolutes.

Skip is right to be apprehensive about this. We all should be VERY apprehensive about this. Why? Because this is legislation aimed only at providing COMPANIES with a route towards owning land off Earth. That's the problem. This is NOT a land rush like in the American frontier. That was families and groups of people pioneering new lives for themselves and their children, ultimately starting communities which led to an expansion of American culture itself.

This legislation is much different. It is all about big business getting even bigger. And even if it helps expand the culture of us Earthlings to places beyond the Earth, it will not be a good kind of expansion.

This is not about being anti-free market. I am a greedy capitalist and I actually do want to colonize the Moon. But there are more responsible ways to do it. We should not hand over sizable plots of land to corporations simply because they were there first. I tend to agree with Softdude, you should only own land that you use. And I don't think corporations should be excluded from this. Under this legislation that the article is talking about Corporations would be the only ones with opportunity and THAT'S what I have a problem with. Opportunity should be in the hands of the people. And through THOSE means is the ONLY way corporations should play ANY role.

As the human race expands into space to exploit the resources we find there we must move outward as Good Stewards of the cosmic landscape. We must not continue our reckless abandon that has cleared mountain tops to get at the finite minerals below. We can be greedy capitalists without destroying the Earth and all the other cosmic bodies we find useful resources on. It is in our best interests to find a better way.

I agree. There needs to be a path for private ownership, not just for corporations.

The heck with the moon and stars, I'm claiming galaxies!!

As "Supreme Emperor of the Universe" and "Master of Time and Space" I already own all that can be seen and will be seen. I will be willing to rent out any assessable land for a nominal fee plus security deposit.

Bizarre concept, as if! Really.

Hey Mob, thanks for the shout-out and for watching my six!

Kehvan, I don't know what your problem is. I didn't call anybody any names, well, other than "Moon unit Gingrich" but he's in the public domain and fair game.

I don't come here for an argument. I come here to make a point and the point I have made is valid. Private companies are going to leap into space travel and colonization as soon as they can make a profit doing so. Just let something precious and valuable be found on some rock in space and there will be a stampede to get there that will put the California Gold Rush to shame.

Before that happens there need to be laws, procedures, and some guidelines so it won't be "winner take all" and start an armed conflict.

We are a greedy, short-sighted and self-delusional species and we need a "ten commandments of space exploration and colonization" before this race really takes off in the next 10-25 years.

The fact that we have no iron-clad agreement in place is chilling and folks like you, are the very reason it is so dangerous.

You need to educate yourself about the early exploration and colonization of the remote parts of THIS world to understand the issue. We've been there, done that and frankly it didn't work out so well. Read THE FATAL IMPACT or THE SCRAMBLE FOR AFRICA or KING LEOPOLD'S GHOST if you want to understand what I'm talking about. Or, you could just look at American history and the way we've treated the indigenous people of this continent.

Take care Mob, and always a pleasure to read your name and words of wisdom.

Skip -- Say it ain't so! ; )

When we landed on the moon in 1969 ALL US citizens at that time should be given an equal portion of the moon.

7 acres each

If no country can claim sovereignty over the moon, we dont need and congress CANT create a legal framework for private ventures. They dont have jurisdiction. Nobody does. The days of claiming "this" land for God and Country are over.

I don't know about any "loophole" but common sense tells me that in order to enforce any land claim, you must have a presence to defend the claim. Does that not make sense?

'Fraid so, DC. There, I said it.

Where does Gingrich stand on this?

The name was available...no one else had it...mars is all mine :D

America has my back Hal, put a rover on mars to act as (among other things) defense and security.

But seriously, the way the laws are written now couldn't a private organization already build a base, and essentially move there? Claim it's their new "home". I mean...surely there area few out there with the resources to do that already...and as stated earlier, the second we find something useful in space (like moon oil or something) big business will be there. What is stopping them from taking over out there? My rover?

I think we should take a different approach to this than the dark ages method we've been using since...well...since way before the dark ages.

Maybe the old space agreement could be extended to say that thee matters can only be decided by anonymous votes held by those occupying the celestial body. I think it's called democracy. That way, private people, organizations, and countries all have incentive to go into space should it become profitable, but in doing so do not immediately own all of space itself just because their penis touched it first.

The point of the entire debate seems to me to be the economic motive. If extremely expensive space exploration is to ever be undertaken by corporate profit driven ventures, then there must be some guarantee of return on investment. If there is no legal structure by which to secure an extraterrestrial claim, whether on the Moon or Mars or elsewhere, then there is no reason any company and it's stockholders would risk their capital resources to explore and develop such claims.

Some kind of binding legal terms and precedents need to be established. The suggestion of arbitration by the United Nations makes sense to me, it would at least give them something to do since they don't seem to be able to exert much genuine impact here on Earth.

As a model, for this legal framework, look to the functioning of the East India Company and other shipping and transport ventures in the colonial era, and also the exploration and settlement of what became the western United States. Just because Lewis and Clarke were the first to make their way all the way from the Mississippi to the west coast didn't give them the right to claim it all, either for themselves or for the U.S.

Obviously, disputes should be avoided as costs are so extreme. The First Come First Entitled scenario described in the article does make a certain amount of sense, but I'm not sure where they're coming up with the numbers... 15% of what remains for each go 'round?

mike

that is what the moon treaty was supposed to do, with the actual enforcement mechanism left to be created at a point where such an endeavour was being proposed (instead of just contemplated).

...and here we are, at precisely that juncture...

no we aren't. We have no companies that are seriously consider it, largely because there is no viable business model that supports it at this time.

"What is stopping them from taking over out there? My rover?"

Marsisallmine, define 'taking over.'

You won't have a lock on all the world's commercial spaceship technology. Whoever sold you the ride, will sell to others. If it's practical for you to get there, it's practical for others to get there. It'll be hard enough for you to protect, say, a few tens of square miles of desirable Lunar surface from 'claim jumpers.' The notion that you can have a private military to enforce a claim to the entire Moon (or any substantial part of it) is a fantasy. Even large governments would have a very difficult time doing that. (see the Martin Cadin 1967 novel 'No Man's World' for a similar scenario)

Oh, and as a US citizen (I'm assuming, but fill in the blank with whatever your nationality may be), you still have corporate assets down here, and a need for support from down here, that can easily be controlled or seized. If there's a serious problem, you'll never be allowed to sell an ounce of whatever resource you recover...and there's no other planet but Earth (for a long time, anyway) that you might sell to, instead.

No man (and his work crew, who just want to make some money and spend it back home, not play Lunar empire games) is an island, even on the Moon.

And if it's not practical to get there, if we take forever for Lunar transportation to get beyond the Apollo-like stage of a massive launch to get just 2-3 people there for a few days and back, then all this is a theoretical exercise. (but necessary, because sooner or later, everyone will be able to get there economically enough to matter.)

Do not spread the /corporate/capitalist disease into space.

All you have to do is look at the economic state of affairs on Earth to realize it's a failed concept. What they are asking for is just the old "plant the flag in the name of _______" BS that had the old world nations coming to the places they wanted colonize and granting exclusive ownership to themselves by way of divine right of their gods or king, irrespective of who might already live there.

Real estate/private property rights is the oldest economic ruse in the book and is the worst possible motive for exploring space. Do you really believe that a corporation is going to care about what destruction or pollution they might create on virgin planets when you take look about how they care about such things on Earth?

There is no way private ownership in space should even be considered until it can be shown to be ethically responsible here.

Humans should be considered a virus infection until they can demonstrate the intelligence of self restraint.

culheath: First, define 'better.' Then show me a system that actually works better. We've seen how well Communism has done. Russia and to a large extent China gave it up. Capitalism is like what Churchill said of democracy, it's the worst system...except for all the others.

Then please proceede to disabuse yourself of the notion that all spaceflight is and must be space exploration. Once you've 'explored,' you're going to do something with these places, if it's practical to do so. Or did you forget that the Earthly 'age of exploration' typically had some practical goal underlying it?

"Do you really believe that a corporation is going to care about what destruction or pollution they might create on virgin planets when you take look about how they care about such things on Earth?"

Let's see...rocks that have no life, no atmosphere, no protection from solar and galactic radiation (and never did), extremely hot, extremely cold, or alternates of both. Go ahead, show me how anyonne is going to 'pollute' that?

"Humans should be considered a virus infection until they can demonstrate the intelligence of self restraint."

As to be judged by whom? Extraterrestrials of unknown values? Yourself?

I agree Frank, Culheath is trying to hug a tree where there is none.:)--S--

When has the United States ever honored a treaty when big money was at stake?

barlow

Because the US relies on other nations for logistical support. If the US withdraws from the treaty (which is its right), then other nations that remain as members of the treaty are no longer allowed to work with the US in any matter.

The issue of getting into space isn't just a matter of setting up a launch pad, there are MANY MANY issues that transcend national boundaries.

The best real estate gets the most solar energy. Development without that will only occur by purchasing the materials and energy from the first to arrive. It is a race which will have few winners.

The craters on the moon with all the ice will also be very valuable.

I'm OK with Mons Pubis.

I claim Uranus.

Me and my pal Marvin are going to blow up the moon, we invented the PU-38 space modulator and we're going to use it. Bugs Bunny will not be able to stop us this time.

John, just tell him when he has the shot he needs to take it. That rabbit will not give you a second chance.

Agreed, And I'm all for the "de-nationalization " of space enterprises!! Who knows, maybe this will be the driving force to eventually unify the human race? In my dreams anyway!!--S--

the outer space treaty effectively denies Australia and any other small country from seriously getting into the space business by requiring any launching nation to assume all liability for the activities in space. With the extreme high costs associated with space, that basically takes any smaller countries out of the mix.

We could start simple - space colonists can claim as their own any volume that they have made habitable, along with the structures and equipment needed to make it habitable. Areas that are not habitable would not need to be claimed, at least not at first. Then comes the more difficult matter of "mineral rights", including any deposits of water or ice that might be found - some negotiations and claim registration might be needed there to prevent disputes.

Finally, if population gets high enough, transportation corridors would have to be established, owned either by "the public" or by the transportation company.

Any land remaining, uninhabited, with no valuable minerals and not needed for transportation, would remain unclaimed.

Hmm. How much will it cost me to 'buy' a representative, especially from a little country that has absolutely no capacity to do any extraterrestrial resource recovery itself, and so, nothing to lose...?

You know, a whole lot of really smart people have already thought through a bunch of scenarios that fit here. We can just hop on to Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or even Gutenberg for some!

Did you even read the article?

No, Ad'M just hates anything and everything to do with space and is incapable of doing research into the vast amount of economic and technologic benefits NASA has given us over the year, quite a bit thanks to manned space flight.

Although, it's a strange admission on Ad'm's part calling himself a "hapless brainwashed taxpayer"...

CM - Actually space X has stated that if they can make their entire Falcon 9 rocket reusable, they would then essentially only have to pay for minor maintenance and fuel, dropping launch costs from $60 million down to approx $500,000 according to Elon Musk.

Like I said in an above post, it makes more sense for the UN to be the government to keep track of the land grabs and such instead of any one country. As for enforcement... while we may have difficulty getting to their location to slap their wrist, we can quite easily stop any and all launches to their new territory from leaving Earth. Until a colony is fully self-sustaining, that will be a huge bargaining chip.

Also, as the article said a lot of these private companies will likely build settlement structures or offer them for building to others. Just like during the settling of the American frontier, it would not be unusual for individuals and families to sell all that they own and buy a piece of land on another world.

The business case is not there now for us to be concerned about this (much), but if progress in launch costs continue, we'll see increasingly serious discussion about property and mineral rights.

As the article mentions, this is indeed a long term goal.

You aint kidding, get back to me when they have invented a reusable vehicle that is capable of more than lower Earth orbit.

Falcon 9's first stage is reusable, as is the dragon capsule... soooo, close? If they can get the second stage to be reusable (they are working on it), the entire rocket would be reusable, and it is capable of GEO.

the second stage would go too high for it to be reusable, and at this point, the first stage isn't reusable, they are just looking at making it reusable.

Ah, you are correct, I must have just read something prior that stated they THOUGHT the first stage would be recoverable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Reusability

But, according to the above link, first stage should hopefully be recoverable by flight 6. Looking forward to what they learn from these flights :-)

not sure how they are going to do that, because it means they are going to include the fuel for the 'landing' on the lift off, and that is directly going to impact the payload mass.

The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.

Rocket sled catapult those mineral loads straight at Washington and Peking, Manny! Good as nukes any day.

Jon - Not sure either, will leave that to the astronautical engineers :-)

brokinarrow,

I am an engineer, and I am saying, I have no clue how they are going to be able to pull it off. Also, in order to make the vehicle worth reusing, they need to design it so that the actual rocket stage can be reused many times. Currently they are designed to be used only once (the External tank for the shuttle was designed to be pressurized 5 times in total as an example, after that, it needs to be disposed of, though I believe it never actually got to that point).

To make the rocket stage worth reusing, is going to increase the mass, further reducing the effective throw weight of the stage.

We have the technology ... NOT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjiGH9QNiU0

Jon - Oh ok, cool. What discipline of engineering are you in? I wish I could become an engineer, but math and I don't get along very well :-)

Anyway, it's definitely going to necessitate some creative thinking on the part of Space X's astronautical engineers, but I look forward to seeing what they come up with. Human ingenuity can overcome just about any obstacle it encounters.

I am a systems engineer but my educational background is mechanical.

The problem with the ingenuity is that currently, unlike in the past, we are approaching the physical limits of materials rather than the physical limits of our technology. The difference is that if your technology is lacking, you can improve it (take for example the efficiency and reliability of jet engines over the last 50 years), but once you hit the physical limits, there really isn't much room to maneuver. The engines that were on the space shuttle (the main ones, not the SRB's) where essentially about as close to 100% thermal efficiency as you could get, I believe about 97 or 98% efficient based on the stored energy potential in the fuel/oxidizer combination. So no matter what anyone says, those engines just are not going to get any better, either from a thrust, or an efficiency standpoint.

SpaceX is going to hit the same wall, so that means that instead of accomplishing their objective using a more efficient engine (meaning you can now carry the same payload with the same amount of fuel oxidizer), they are going to have to accomplish it by having a smaller payload.

Depending on how many hours (well most rocket engines have a life rating in minutes) those engines can be fired, the value statement in reusability is probably not even there, at least not in the forseeable future.

Well, even if the payload has to get a bit smaller, with a fully reusable rocket quoted at the prices Elon Musk has mentioned, it will still be cheaper to put up two or three launches of the same rocket vs one that has to be built from scratch each and every time.

Also, I'll direct your attention to the career section on Space X's webpage:

http://www.spacex.com/careers.php

Notice the section titled "Structures Engineering" with several positions for carbon and composite specialist engineers. It would appear they are searching for a stronger-lighter material to build rockets with :-)

Notice the section titled "Structures Engineering" with several positions for carbon and composite specialist engineers. It would appear they are searching for a stronger-lighter material to build rockets with :-)

That strategy would be a non-starter since you want to reduce the number of seams, interfaces, not increase. And definitively, not increase interfaces with different material on either side, poor stress flow and creates vibration modes.

I would think the best approach for materials is to strive for the ideal liquid that would be strong and stiff enough to contain the various pressures at operating conditions, including temperature, humidity, ambient pressure and mechanical induced forces. And the minimum interfaces as possible.

broken

The payload is already on order of less than 5% of the total lift off mass. It can't get much smaller before your throw weight becomes negligible.

Also, composites won't buy you much because you are dealing with two variables here. The increase in weight due to more fuel/oxidizer, and also if you are going to reuse the rocket stage, the increase in weight due to the design that is intended to be reused. Right now, rocket stages are generally not designed to be reused, so they are designed to be as light as possible, and the structural integrity is designed to only go through a few stress cycles (testing, launch pad refuel attempts) and that is it.

Either way, the falcon rocket would have to be completely redesigned, and the rocket motor technology would have to advance far beyond the current state of the art. Right now, rocket motors have a life cycle rated in minutes, whereas jet engines have life cycles rated in thousands of hours. If your rocket motor isn't reliably reusable (which the shuttle program painfully came to realize), then your most expensive component of your rocket stage (the motor) makes the economics of reusing the entire stage just not viable.

Let me know when these superior 'others' show up to share what they must already have...

You believe we are the only living beings in space ? There are planets billions of years younger & billions of years older then ours. I`m pretty sure that goes along with the living beings on them also.

We are here right ? They have been finding livable planets daily now with new tech.

And No , I don`t wear a tin foil hat .

Didn't suggest you did, and my assertion was serious. If someone's out there, and inclined to take it upon themselves to judge who else deserves to leave their planet because we don't meet their notions of behavior, then let them reveal themselves and presumably help us.

If 'sharing' is that important to them, then let them share what they know and have, and not simply judge. Otherwise, I'm not interested in a species that seems to be as arrogant as some say that we are.

But even accepting their existence, you do seem to assume knowledge of ET behavior and ethics without foundation, yes. I don't assume aliens are necessarily 'better' than us, whatever that may mean. I don't assume that the capacity for interstellar flight necessarily proves they are, either.

"Now we are talking about mass genocide of living species on other worlds to satisfy our lust for greed, conquest, colonization and resource strip mining of whole other planets and systems in the cosmos."

How off Earth did you derive that from anything in this article?

Because that is the complete history of Earth and Mankind down through our ENTIRE history - and JohnnyB-433715 is smart enough to recognize and anticipate that (and I agree with him 1,000%).

Look at what is this conversation about - "How Earth people can divide THEIR OWNERSHIP of the Entire rest of The Universe".

.

Klaatu - where are you when we need you??

If we're going to survive in the long term as a species, this NEEDS to happen, and I'm a firm believer that it is a matter of when, not if.

Apparently JohnnyB and MikeP are under the impression that

A) There are living species on other worlds

and

B) That we are able to conquer and strip mine other planets and systems in the cosmos.

Since the article is about claiming property on the Moon, Mars and asteroids, they appear to be well in advance of the data.

JohnnyB-433715 any human conflict on the Moon or Mars, if limited to those bodies, will effect no other species because there are non there to effect. I mean have you even read the article? It does not talk of travel to other star, but to other planets in this (our) solar system. Even if we do find life on Mars it is likely to be microbial and we will likely be of no threat to it. That being said, I can see a case where those futture human colonies become ether places with no law or fiefdoms of whatever company staked a claim. So I agree with those people that call for laws to be drafted to deal with this before it happens, but those laws should also protect the rights of the people that would work and live in the setelments.

Man will destroy themselves before anything like this is possible.

Keep your Moon deed with your confederate money, you know the worthless stuff.

And breaking the sound barrier is impossible too, eh?

"If we are smart enough to venture out. I'm certain there is already something out there which is smart enough to venture here. And do the exact same thing to us."

If that's true, then we're at risk, whether we go anywhere and do anything, or not, isn't it?

Unless you suggest someone will come all the way here across very many light-years, to smack our knuckles with a cosmic ruler, just because we dared go dig up and use a few rocks on already cold lifeless bodies, here in our (yes, our, not their) own solar system...

We may not be able to stop them, but I submit that a species that righteous and arrogant is not in a morally superior position to us.

I didn't say a virulent warring species would be in a morally superior position to us. I suggested they would be Like us. Just more advanced. And to those who say this is "our Solar System". I say who in the world told you that?! Most of us don't even own the homes we live in. Or the shirts on our backs (usually bought with credit). Arrogance is assuming that everything in the universe is yours to spoil & plunder. Just like we have spoiled the Earth. But not to worry. This is all moot. We aren't done blowing ourselves up here yet over goofy earth things like sex, skin color, oil, religion and money. And what if a more advanced species from out there somewhere have already claimed Mars? Our little treaties could precipitate a war to the death with them. And before you scorn the thought. I submit you don't even know whether it or they exist or not.

"And before you scorn the thought. I submit you don't even know whether it or they exist or not."

Nope, I don't. What I'm saying is that if there's something that is 'someone like us but more powerful' is out there, and if that's to be considered a risky thing, then it's a concern whether we go after extraterrestrial resources, or not. Such beings could conceivably show up tomorrow, next week, or at any time before we gain the ability to do this, and so it's a problem that's irrelevant to extraterrestrial property rights, it's a general First Contact problem. They may come here for reasons completely unrelated to our mining a few nearby rocks.

"And to those who say this is "our Solar System". I say who in the world told you that?!"

Conversely, who is to say that it is not? Hypothetical ETs of unknown values? Who would they be to say? (and if they can physically come here, it'll be in spacecraft made of stuff that was taken out of either the world on which they evolved...or another one. Does anything truly belong to anyone? The philosophical answer will not be the same as the legal one.)

"Most of us don't even own the homes we live in. Or the shirts on our backs (usually bought with credit)."

(shrug) I rent. I know this will never be my property in any legal sense, nor is it necessary that it become so. Nor have I ever bought clothing with credit, my shirts are indeed mine. But if you want things beyond your ability to pay cash for (and if saving first may take an unreasonable time, as in a car or home) then credit is necessary for economy as we know it. It's also irrelevant in many legal situations. If I cause an accident in a car that is only half paid off, the bank won't have legal liability, will they? As far as the courts will be concerned, it's registered in my name, I was driving, I am the owner. (indeed, I did once appear at proceedings for a friend who was ticketed for speeding in my car, though only to state for the record that they were driving it with my knowledge and permission) An argument like yours won't sway them.

"And what if a more advanced species from out there somewhere have already claimed Mars?"

As I said to someone else, if there's someone operating that close, then they must know there's spacefaring life (barely, but we are, and will only get better...presumably everyone starts somewhere) on the third planet, and they've had plenty of time to reveal themselves and announce any such claim. If they remain silent, stealthy and wait until we personally appear on Mars or wherever and start doing something...is that our fault?

But by your logic, would they have any more of a 'right' to do so than us? Are they also 'spoiling and plundering?' Especially (but not necessarily) if they're in any meaningful sense 'like us?'

Sorry, I don't buy the notion of one set of ethical rules for ETs, and another for humans.

which will work up until you realize all your food and supplies still come from Earth ;-) Now, once a colony is fully self-sustaining... I could see it thinking about declaring it's independence. But, I don't think that would occur with colonies on Mars, as people will want to return to visit relatives and such on Earth (as well as see some real vegetation for a change), among other things that would be nice for the colony, such as interplanetary trade, etc.

there is water on the moon and growing food is also an option ive designed telescoping structures that start at 10feet tall and then blows up a bag that stretches it till they are 7 feet tall they can go further for storage and stuff like that and since they are mainly solid you can just drop them on the surface and then pop them out using air pressure and since the moons gravity is so low they could even land on the telescoping point and stretch out then fall over and not be broken plus the water harvester can fit right in the tip of the module so there is your water and inside the bags there are rooms and growing areas already made as well as a solar power station and if you park on the spot nasa has picked out then you would have access to the sun all year round plus a giant water filled crater right next to you

Interesting concept. Growing plants and such up there is definitely doable, livestock for meat production on the other hand may be more difficult... although I think I remember an article about some artificial meat replacement that is supposed to be pretty close in both taste and texture to actual meat, so that could be a possibility as well.

i figured you could raise small animals like rabbits or something along those lines and feed them the parts of the vegetation you dont eat and use their poop and stuff for fertilizers and whatever

It will be interesting to see the progression of life in the colonies. First it will be small structures housing only people, then there will be small plant crops, then larger plant crops and some small livestock, and so on and on moving ever forward to a fully developed ecosystem. This progression could do wonders in terms of helping us realize just how fragile life is here on Earth, and we would learn volumes about best practices for the future.

Red Mars/Green Mars/Blue Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. Pretty solid layout of how you might make it work.

Chilly, thanks for mentioning those, started reading Red Mars today and I'm already hooked :-D

Wherever you go, there you are.

Or the men in white suits with the butterfly nets...

Holy crazy Batman!

I actually currently live in China, so the men in the red suits ...

Good answer..aside from the lower stages of 6 lunar modules, can you tell us of any other structures on the moon, BTW?

I'm sure you're capable of doing your own research.

Yes, well purely scientific research would show that aside from the lunar modules, there are no other artificial structures on the moon, and none on Mars aside from the rovers and landers.

As for the new settlements having their own laws... I think that could be perfectly doable. It would make sense for the colony to set up it's own rule of law that would work for it. And as I've said before, if a colony becomes fully self-sustaining, it could possibly declare independence from Earth.

I'm envisioning one penalty within this new law system called "Expulsion" and since physical resources are expensive to transport to and maintain on a lunar colony, we simply must insist that you aren't going to be able to take that space suit with you when you are expelled.

Come to think of it we might want to keep the water inside you too...

Maybe instead of expulsion, it could be Recycled....

Soylent Green is people!

And they taste much better than Soylent Yellow...

And for god's sakes, avoid the Soylent Brown...

Meh, they would probably be invertebrates. Bring on the spatulas!

http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/ezxyw2/futurama-moon-park

Not my first choice (and I give that scenario a virtually zero probability, anyway), but it's preferable to not having it happen at all...