3 ms·

Yeah, but the rover itself was in possesion of russia and is now in posession of Garriot. That is undisputed. What is rightfully disputed, is whether he also o

by lukan 3y ago

Yeah, but the rover itself was in possesion of russia and is now in posession of Garriot. That is undisputed. What is rightfully disputed, is whether he also owns the land under the rover. He would like to, but not possible with current laws.

adastra22 3y ago
> What is rightfully disputed, is whether he also owns the land under the rover. He would like to, but not possible with current laws. Actually, contrary to the opinion of Ms. Gabrynowicz, current case law and government/agency positions represented by the Artemis Accords reflect Mr. Garriot's claim. It may have been an untested hypothetical at the time, but in the current political climate it is finding support by all the relevant players. In fact they go even further in asserting exclusions zones much larger than just the regolith undermining a lander or rover.
- lukan 3y ago
  "In fact they go even further in asserting exclusions zones much larger than just the regolith undermining a lander or rover." I really hope this won't become reality in the mind of confrontation and being first to claim land, because this will mean, spamming the moon surface with cheap "scientific" equipment to claim lots of land. I mean, what is the bar here for lander? Is it enough to have a flag with it? Then you can have a flag inside a steel cannon ball and shoot many of them across the lunar landscape.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    And then we’d have a functioning property market with resellable claims suitable for building a speculative futures market over accessible near-surface resources and other land rights, sufficient to bootstrap a cis-lunar economy without government subsidies? GREAT, mission accomplished! IMHO Richard Garriot should go a step further and sell his rover for scrap. Use that to bootstrap a commodities market.

3 ms·

Yeah, but the rover itself was in possesion of russia and is now in posession of Garriot. That is undisputed. What is rightfully disputed, is whether he also o

by lukan 3y ago

adastra22 3y ago
> What is rightfully disputed, is whether he also owns the land under the rover. He would like to, but not possible with current laws. Actually, contrary to the opinion of Ms. Gabrynowicz, current case law and government/agency positions represented by the Artemis Accords reflect Mr. Garriot's claim. It may have been an untested hypothetical at the time, but in the current political climate it is finding support by all the relevant players. In fact they go even further in asserting exclusions zones much larger than just the regolith undermining a lander or rover.
- lukan 3y ago
  "In fact they go even further in asserting exclusions zones much larger than just the regolith undermining a lander or rover." I really hope this won't become reality in the mind of confrontation and being first to claim land, because this will mean, spamming the moon surface with cheap "scientific" equipment to claim lots of land. I mean, what is the bar here for lander? Is it enough to have a flag with it? Then you can have a flag inside a steel cannon ball and shoot many of them across the lunar landscape.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    And then we’d have a functioning property market with resellable claims suitable for building a speculative futures market over accessible near-surface resources and other land rights, sufficient to bootstrap a cis-lunar economy without government subsidies? GREAT, mission accomplished! IMHO Richard Garriot should go a step further and sell his rover for scrap. Use that to bootstrap a commodities market.