New Mars Forums

NASA could provide quite a bit of initial research data, but one cannot expect NASA to hand a perfect blueprint of a piece of hardware and then have Boeing or some other company just whip it out without any additional research and development costs.

I considered that issue.  You will note that my proposal would set a minumum weight limit.  Obviously 10,000 pieces of aluminum foil dumped across Mars does not constitute an ability to utilize the property for productive purposes.

Actually it's not for a manned landing.  Consider that such a circle would have a radius of 5.643 kilometers.  Several astronauts in a reasonably well-designed Mars suit could fully explore such an area on foot, assuming favorable terrain, in a fairly short span of time.

There should be no maximum limit as to how much land one can have.  If I land on Mars, drive my rover 500 km and discover a valuable geothermal site, haven't I earned the right to claim it as property since I found it?  Oh no, wait, I already got my one square mile of land.  Instead of developing it, I will keep it a secret, hoping that property laws change before someone else finds it.  Say there is no maximum limit and I do claim it, but can't develop the site. I will just sell it to someone else who can make it productive at a price they are willing to pay.

Why would a corporation spend billions to land probes on Mars just to claim land that no one would buy from them?  We will surely get to Mars eventually, but we are at least a decade and perhaps many decades away.  Martian land is worthless until it can be made productive.  Therefore a land grab mission would cost billions for something that is worthless.  But considering that your mind is devoid of any economic sense at all, it sure sounds like a business plan you'd sign on to.

Columbia Investigation Enters New Phase, Air Force Picture Adds Intrigue

Looks like the left wing was definitely falling apart.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/st … 30207.html

The French are weenies.  That's why they have always been so good at surrendering.  This time the battle hasn't even begun and they've surrendered.  Way to go France!

If there are a lot of initial R&D costs involved, then a long-term contract is the only way a company could expect to make a significant profit.  Why would my company spend millions of dollars developing Mars mission hardware when it would be guaranteed only a few government sales?  Such R&D diverts resources from other projects within the company.  Contracts must be competitive enough to make taking them more profitable than whatever a company is currently working on.  Short term contracts will therefore be much more expensive than long-term ones.  For example: The government could pay $5 billion for a 10-year, 20 hab contract, or $3 billion for a 3-year 6 hab contract.  In this situation, its the taxpayers who won't be getting their money's worth.

I retract my previous proposal.  I have in the past two months read The Case for Mars and Atlas Shrugged, and I have decided both Dr. Binswanger's property proposal and my own variation of it are inferior to a new plan I have formulated. 

Instead of set acreage, it should be a circle of land around the landing craft.  Both manned and unmanned private landing craft would be eligible.  A probe of a certain minimum weight would entitle its owner to ten square kilometers of Martian property surrounding the probe.  A manned landing craft would be entitled to something like 100 square kilometers of land.  These would be only initial values.  Rovers, manned or unmanned, would be allowed to plant land claim markers further away from the landing site.  The land between any three or more markers would also become property of the individual or corporation.

The land claim extension by rover solves the problem with the original idea brought up by Phobos earlier in this thread: I don't think Ayn Rand would have liked those people who suggested giving the whole planet to the first bunch to land there.  The idea of squatters rights seems to revolve around land ownership going to those who make productive use of a certain parcel of land and any land they show no capability of developing economic wise they don't have rights to.  Obviously someone has shown some capability of developing the land if they are capable of traversing what they have claimed with a rover of some kind.

One of the proper functions of government is the protection of property and the establishment of property rights.  Allowing private companies to stake claims on Mars with probes will encourage private exploration by rover and humans will eventually follow.

Why is a government monopoly any better than a corporate one?