Talk:Extraterrestrial real estate

message: what does everyone think of this?
:It's an apparently real auction, but I have several reasons not to bid:
:#It's not clear whether space can be privately owned in the first place,
:#The auction doesn't tell me where the space is,
:#I can't actually travel to that space,
:#At the moment I can't spare AU$ 1000. — JIP | Talk 15:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Auction Discussion

message: Well you never know when you might need to store a large object, eh?! THE KING 15:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storage of large objects 

message: A few points.  First, the title is rather clumsy and informal; any suggestions?  Secondly, there was very ephemeral link to an ebay auction; better would be a link to a rather more permanent page.  Thirdly (and related to the first point), the article deals with selling parts of space and plots on planets and satellites.  Fourthly, it's rather vague; more detail is needed. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 17:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article 

message: *How about Selling land on space? --cesarb 16:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thansk for reminding me — it's done. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 13:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: We read: The controvertial [sic] issue of whether it is legal, ethical or even possible to sell land and space in outer space has now arisen.
Where, other than on some deleted auction at eBay, has it arisen? 
I don't say that it hasn't arisen, and certainly not that it won't arise. I have an open mind on this. Please educate me.
In the absence such an assurance that this has arisen, I'm inclined to think of this as merely a way in which the greatest fools might be deprived of their money. It's more ludicrous than talk of selling the Brooklyn Bridge, as it's plausible that some entity might own and be able to sell a bridge.  -- Hoary 12:21, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
:The eBay sale is irrelevant, I think; anyone can stick anything on eBay (someone recently put my College up for sale), so I've deleted that reference.  There are organisations that sell land on the Moon, though, and I believe that they've extended this to other planets; I've added a link to what I think is the first (or, at least, the main) organisation of this kind. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 08:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the "purportedly" is needed in the links section; if, for example, what they're doing is thought to be illegal, it's because they're selling what isn't theirs — I'm not sure that there's a law against purportedly selling what isn't yours. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but what about its fantastical nature? When you (my better-off friend) and I are both in the pub and drunk, and I offer to sell you Pluto (complete with Charon) for another pint of Brakspear, you take me up on it and I write out a paper stating your ownership, have I sold you Pluto? -- Hoary 11:09, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
If I hand over the money, then yes — and you're guilty of selling me what doesn't belong to you.  I realise that this is largely a matter of terminology, but I think that it complicates and obscures matters to scatter qualifications throughout the article as though we're on Have I Got News for You and trying to avoid law-suits...  The extra links that you find do the job, I think (not to mention the text of the article). Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What "issue"? 

message: I suggest Moon for sale being merged in this article Virgiliu - they deal with exactly the same topic.
:Support but I'm leery that the revert wars recently experienced in the Moon for sale article will spill over into the new article.  This article appears to be more well-written than the Moon for sale article but there are some good sections that could be added from the Moon for sale article, particularly some of the sources/references.  --ElKevbo 01:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with Moon for sale 

message: Hello.
Having followed this and other discussions on the subject with much interest as we have been studying the subject of property rights in space and on the Moon for now more than 15 years, we are in high gratefulness and agreement that this article has been placed in the "under dispute" category.
We would like to make several suggestions for improvements.
1. The first paragraph says:
Current:
Such sales are not legally recognised by any nation, and are therefore often fraudulent.
The second part of the sentence is incorrect. The second part of the sentence is not implied by the first. 
Will you *please* refrain from calling something fraudulent until it has been shown to be the case? It is incorrect to call something fraudulent given the fact that it is not against the law and there is no law against it. 
Many legal space experts agree that in this case, this is so. 
Just because nations have decided not to recognize something does not make it fraudulent. 
"Absence of the law" is not equal to "illegal". 
Law does not work on the premise that something is illegal if it is not mentioned. International law is based on quite the opposite: that actions are legal until declared illegal. 
If everything we do would have to be declared legal first, we think we would end up not doing much in life...never mind reproduce.. :)
Proposal change to:
Such sales are not legally recognised by any nation, however many nations and Nasa have recognised the need for regulation of property rights in space due to the absence of such law. 
Note:
The Outer Space Treaty has done nothing to establish who owns the Moon or the other planets. All it did do is establish who does not own it, i.e. all the governments of this planet, as well as the fact that there is a marked absence of laws on the Moon. The governments that have ratified this Treaty have reliquished their jurisdiction of these territories.
It even goes further to say that the Moon is the heritage of all mankind, making the Moon by far more the publics property than anything else (oh we see and noooow the governments want to change their mind? A bit hard.). 
Your article correctly argues that generally Space Experts agree that for someone to claim the Moon or other celestial bodies, he should exercise some degree of as it says "control" or "intent to occupy" over the territories in question. 
Well, it certainly looks like from here that the people of earth, and 1.8 Million lunar property customers worldwide are doing exactly that, within the boundaries of their financial and military means, by purchasing lunar property and forming public opinion.
Everyone in this discussion knows that the Moon Treaty attempted to fill the "private ownership gap" by explicitly addressing private ownership, and in vain as it was not ratified in the UN (by now three times in a row).  This should be better mentioned.
Especially the USA decided not to sign it as it would "deny private ownership and exploitation of lunar resources for profit motives". The USA said at the time that they would like to wait and see "how public opinion develops", and alas, it has. This is well documented history at the UN.
So the questions the lunar realtors (and space experts) have therefore very well raised (we the public are grateful) are that 
(a) the question of property rights in space and on the Moon must be formally addressed as they are not clear, and the lunar realtors have recognized this 26 years (at least since 1980) before anyone else who hopes to reap profit from Earth orbits or Lunar developments these days (see also the Hilton Group, Hotel in Orbit, Paris Hilton, Richard Branson, Virgin One orbital flight, China.). 
As well as that
(b) the rights of the public must be correctly represented in such a debate, or a bunch of corporate minded well financed people will just simply decide its all theirs, simply because they can afford to go there, and you, Mr. X Y Z in the street, can not. 
To many space experts, lunar realtors and their clients this is a vision that is unacceptable. 
Its time to defend the rights of the public to own a property on the Moon and the other planets.
Just yesterday, even Nasa confirmed publicly on MSNBC
ABC News and CNN that Lunar Property rights have yet to be established (see here). David Beatty of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory said an international legal framework would be helpful in the area of property rights. 
(We also hear that many NASA employees have purchased lunar plots; which is interesting to say the least. As we can see, even they are not putting their money on the government to win this debate..)
Lets just hope the USA don't do the same thing as was done with the Indians so long ago; shooting people that don't agree with you is these days just too easy; (see also Iraq, the definition of the word Insurgent as well as Freedom of Speech?).  :( .
If the USA and other countries first relinquish their jurisdiction and sovereinigty of these territories via the "Outer Space Treaty", they should now not turn around and try to reclaim that, which they have given to all mankind, just because in retrospect they find that money may be involved. 
The rights of any individual to own a lunar or extraterrestrial property are more important that the profit motives of a few wealthy individuals in the upper echelons of power. 
In other words: The USA cannot have their cake and eat it too.
Further, it is by now obvious that it is absolutely crucial that the public opinion, which is very present, should be represented adequately when such property rights are discussed and dealt with. 
That is the real issue lunar activists and lunar realtors worldwide are attempting to address and draw attention to and alas they are succeeding thankfully.
One should further be very careful to ignore the realtors and their clients by the way; by now they are a "small club" of "only" over 800'000 people making them the largest advocate group in history, even surpassing in size the second largest membership organisation, i.e. the World Wide Star Trek fan club.
2. 
Current:
as stated by the United Nations "Outer Space Treaty", space is the "domain of all mankind", and therefore not available for private ownership.
The second part of this phrase is incorrect and as many Space Experts agree, the jury is very much still out on whether space is available for private ownership or not. If what you state were true, the drafting of the Moon Treaty would not have been necessary.
In fact, many Space Experts agree that lunar laws that must first be established should be modelled on Earth law and when that happens which will hopefully be soon, (although no one has jurisdiction to do it anymore by their own treaties), in that case however if any agreement is reached, lunar property private ownership will very well become possible. (Note that any legal expert will tell you that our terrestrial laws stop at an altitude of 80km.)
The Outer Space Treaty only says that no GOVERNMENT can own space, and the Moon Treaty was supposed to stuff the hole of private ownership that the "Outer Space Treaty" did not legally cover.
Proposal change to:
It is generally accepted that, as stated by the United Nations "Outer Space Treaty", space is the "domain of all mankind", and can no loner be claimed by any governments. It explicitly though omits mentioning private individuals.
or
Proposal change to:
space is the "domain of all mankind".
3. But lets get back to that Outer Space Treaty. All it has done is relinquish the rights of all governments and there is legal precedent for that. 
4-5 years ago, a lunar realtor in Europe was
----
:I didn't bother to read your whole very long thread and I'm not a lawyer nor do I know what a 'space law expert' is but in response to your first point, most sales are indeed fradulent because the seller is selling something they almost definitely do not own and don't have the right to sell, and do not make this sufficiently clear or may even make up bullshit claims when advertising what they are selling. In most countries, it is indeed against the law to mislead prospective purchasers when selling something. It doesn't matter whether you claim to be selling lunar land or a Wii 2. In a few cases the sellers may make clear what their claims are based on and how little support their is for their claims in which case it's possible they are not doing anything illegal but these sellers are rare I'm pretty sure (since few people will be dumb enough to buy something which isn't worth anything) Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some suggestions 

message: In 'extraterrestrial claims,' there's a sentence that begins, "Next year, the Red Planet was claimed by the Western Federation Church and Tribe." Uh, what? Next year? Was? --Masamage 05:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this mean?

message: It's quite an amusing subject, but nevertheless quite upsetting to think there are numerous conmen who are actually making money from it. It's perhaps more upsetting to think there are people stupid enough to 'buy' extra-terrestrial real-estate. It cannot be done. Philosophically speaking, there are blurry lines around the whole concept of ownership (and everything else for that matter). I don't own the body I travel around in, but I think I have the best 'claim of ownership', even if it may not be the earliest claim. In most countries on Earth, my claim would be officially recognised, but that does not make it universally official.
If you think you own the moon (or anything for that matter), you have to think about how and where you would defend your claim. My body claim is based on the belief that I am the person who uses it most, am the person who keeps it alive and am the person who will disappear when it dies. It's a good claim. And if anyone else challenges my claim, I would probably successfully defend my claim in most courts of law. At least those on this planet, if not those on all of the planets which pre-evolved us and claimed ownership of this solar system millions of years ago.
When buying a certificate of ownership of a piece of E.T. R.E., the 'buyer' is merely buying a claim. Who would do that if they knew they could claim it for free? Everyone can claim ownership of anything they want, but not every claim can be satisfactorily defended. Tomid 16:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy of ownership 

message: How is contention over spots in the valuable geostationary satellite orbit settled?  Has this ever come up in any sense other than scam artists?  I'd find it hard to believe there's never been any real arguments over it. Gigs 15:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a sentence to the article just to note this issue. Perhaps it could be expanded into something a bit more informative by someone knowledgable about the subject. Matt 14:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real issues 

message: I have removed the "neutrality disputed" banner, which was added some time ago, as it is not now clear from the talk page what, if anything, is still being disputed. A number of points seem to have been resolved, and various suggestions to change the wording seem to have been implemented. If anyone wants to reinstate the banner then it would be useful to add a new section here summarising what is still perceived to be a problem with the neutrality. Matt 11:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "neutrality disputed" banner 

message: Doesn't belong as a redirect.  There should be a redirect link on a page devoted to him.  --Chalyres 08:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dennis Hope Re-direct 

message: "In 2005, Marina Bai, a Russian astrologer, sued NASA for having encroached upon her "holy of holies" (the Moon) by landing a probe on comet Tempel 1." --That doesn't make any sense at all.  She sued by landing a probe? That's impossible.  Or she sued NASA claiming that they defiled the moon by landing a probe on the comet?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  It doesn't help that there's no source.  I won't delete it, because I don't have any source to DISPUTE it, but it should probably be deleted anyway.  I leave it up to the general community 67.163.165.236 (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holiest of Holies?? 

message: does this treaty say anything about human nations respecting the claims of alien ones?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname (talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what happens when we get to inhabited planets 

message: I have cleaned up this article, and posted a notice at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Extraterrestrial real estate.  Comments here or there are welcome.  If anyone would like to restore or revise content that I have removed, please be sure to comply with the following policies: 
*verifiability
*External links, especially the section on those which are normally avoided
*Fringe views
*No original research
*Conflict of interest
Thank you. Jehochman Talk 10:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: This article mention nothing about organizations that claim to sell stars. It should, as they exist. 207.69.139.144 (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Selling stars

message: Love how it's refered to as a thing that everyone agreed with.
"International Moon Treaty."
Cute.  No more posting lil' white lies in this article.
Like the ones that legitimize the Moon Treaty.  
</declared> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes.faires (talk • contribs) 10:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Moon Treaty 

message: This article used to include a brief history of claims to extraterrestrial real estate made by individuals over the years.  It would be much more interesting for all if this remained, but there are some accountability issues here, so I'll place a citation linking to a credible source that does list those claims.
Wes.faires (Wes.faires) 16:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual Claims of Ownership 

message: Can the moon be regarded as a Micronation in the sense that it is claimed by Dennis Hope (and others) but the claims aren't recognized. The term "Micronation" does not seem to refer to the actual size of the land "owned", as is proven by other "micro"-nations such as Westarctica, which is a good part of a continent. This is also the case with and other claims made by private individuals in Antarctica... Any thoughts? BigSteve (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A  fictional nation, perhaps.  Heptor  talk 23:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micronation 

message: The article mentions a number of nut cases ... sorry ... individuals who sued NASA.  Were the cases successful?  P.S. I own the Sun and I'm currently charging the the bargain rate of one gram of gold per gigajoule of sunshine used; please send me a bag of gold annually. JIMp talk·cont 09:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Extraterrestrial real estate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606192246/http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/results/ice/moon.htm to http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/results/ice/moon.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Under the section: "Notable claims", it talks about Martin Juergens claim that the Moon has belonged to his family since July 15, 1756. There is a reference to footnote #11. 
At footnote #11, two links are provided: 
1) A link to the original source: 
http://www.parascope.com/articles/1196/moonw.htm
The relevant content for that domain: http://www.parascope.com/ is no longer available. That domain is now "parked" and only hosts a page of links for apparently monetary purposes.
2) A link to an archive of the original page, on Archive.org, archived on March 13, 2016, and somehow "Retrieved 2013-06-04", 3 years before it was available.
The link on archive.org that is provided is: 
https://web.archive.org/web/20160313201737/http://parascope.com/articles/1196/moonw.htm
Unfortunately it appears that that link fails, at least it failed many times for me on Thursday August 16, 2018. The failure mode for me, using Firefox browser, was that it tried, unsuccessfully in a repetitive loop (infinite) to load the page. The page as displayed remained blank and never completed, even after waiting 10 minutes or more. 
After some research, I found that at least one earlier archive of the page, from May 07, 2006, still works: 
http://web.archive.org/web/20060507235822/http://www.parascope.com/articles/1196/moonw.htm
At some point, after I make sure the 2016 archive link is still broken, I will try to update the page with the alternate archive link.
If someone else comes across my Talk post here, and wishes to update the page, please feel free to do so.
Fyiman (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote for Martin Juergens claim that the Moon has belonged to his family since July 15, 1756. 

message: We're proposing adding the following sections to expand on this article and discuss feasibility of a mission to extraterrestrial bodies like Mars.
Real Estate Market ;
Transportation ;
Planetary Protection ;
Astrobiology ;
Environmental Effects of Launches ;
Sustainability ;
and we are proposing modifying Orbital Real Estate section to highlight the issue of orbital debris which would make it difficult to set up real estate. We also propose adding to the History section to include proposals for Mars travel and proposals have evolved over the years.
We took a more holistic approach to our proposed edits to extraterrestrial real estate to add value and bring in new sources that provide details on a full mission overview to an extraterrestrial body. Would you favor adding these proposed edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farheem (talk • contribs) 19:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your WP:BOLDness, but I removed these sections. They all had to do with aspects of extraterrestrial colonization or spaceflight more generally, not the specific topic of extraterrestrial land ownership, so they don't belong in this article. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Additions