
I'm not arguing who has what authority. I merely pointed out that Newt thinks it can or should be a state, making your claim false.

A moon base would be a huge waste of money and resources unless we had an economic reason to build it.
The most cost effective way to explore and exploit the resources in our solar system, would be to send robots, not people.

Two hundred and fifty miles above the Earth puts you a long way from the nearest kitchen tap. And at $15,000 a pint, the cost of shipping fresh water aboard the space shuttle is, well, astronomical.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
Asteroid mining refers to the possibility of exploiting raw materials from asteroids and other minor planets, including near-Earth objects. Minerals and volatiles could be mined from an asteroid or spent comet to provide space-construction materials (e.g., iron, nickel, titanium), to extract water and oxygen to sustain the lives of prospector-astronauts on site, as well as hydrogen and oxygen for use as rocket fuel. In space exploration, these activities are referred to as in-situ resource utilization. A comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 km could contain more than two billion metric tons of iron–nickel ore.
In 2006, the Keck Observatory announced that the binary Trojan asteroid 617 Patroclus, and possibly large numbers of other Jupiter Trojan asteroids, are likely extinct comets and consist largely of water ice. Similarly, Jupiter-family comets, and possibly near-Earth asteroids that are defunct comets, might also economically provide water. The process of in-situ resource utilization—using materials native to space for propellant, tankage, radiation shielding, and other high-mass components of space infrastructure—could lead to radical reductions in its cost.

I'm not arguing who has what authority. I merely pointed out that Newt thinks it can or should be a state, making your claim false.

Newt said that if we have a colony on the moon and they reach 13,000 in population they have a right to petition to be a state... the moon colony does. Not that the whole moon becomes a US State...
Democrats are so caught up in making the United States a totally socialistic country

I agree MHz, the point of creating a mining colony in space would be to avoid the cost of lifting the same resources from earth into space.
Moving water and other materials from these objects to earth would require less energy. When it makes sense, we will exploit our solar system's resources and the colonies will happen on their own. Now if someone wants to send a mission to Mars so that they can claim to be the first... that's different. But the US already claimed the first to the moon prize, so building a base would be pointless and redundant as well as expensive.

The moon does have one advantage, being there is no atmosphere launching could be via a magnetic rail gun that could launch as fast as it could be loaded. If a Fresnel lens can heat things up here how would it work on the moon for melting 'moon dust'?
In the mining/homesteading Acts you have to make certain improvements to the property every year, the only thing the US is in line for is a littering ticket.

The moon does have one advantage, being there is no atmosphere launching could be via a magnetic rail gun that could launch as fast as it could be loaded. If a Fresnel lens can heat things up here how would it work on the moon for melting 'moon dust'?
In the mining/homesteading Acts you have to make certain improvements to the property every year, the only thing the US is in line for is a littering ticket.

Not really. Improvements could be erecting McD's, landscaping golf courses, building a mall, etc. Improvements, you know. lol