New Mars Forums

I agree with this. Absolutely, this is part of the mosaic of what will motivate people to go out there.

If that mountain of money won't come to Mohammad, maybe Mohammad had better mosey on over to that mountain.

I believe a great many people would find a genuine emotional connnection with building permanent human settlements "out there" - - and remember this is America, only.

What about selling stuff to Europeans, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, South Americans, etc. . .

The global economy has trillions of dollars. Buy Russian lift and siphon off a few billion and you can really go places.

I want to sell advertising to buy rockets. How does that fit it? Does "brand value" exist out there or back here?

Otherwise (except maybe for PGM) there is nothing of economic value to bring back. Tax the profits earned by companies that take tourists to the Moon? I see no reason to tax them more or less than any other company.

I remained confused by the "all or nothing" mentality expressed here. Is ANY commercialization acceptable? Your comments suggest no.

Of course, commercialization is the original source of the tax dollars you propose we spend.

2006 in Washington DC

Everyone who reads this message board should attempt to go. As with the 2004 Chicago convention, any NewMars member who greets me in person and asks will be treated to ONE beverage of their choice (draft beer or equivalent).

The cost? Ya' gotta listen to me blather for 5 or 10 minutes. 

The Outer Space Treaty binds Terran governments.  If people renounce their Terran citizenship, then the legalities are murky.  Very murky.

In Heinlein's Harsh Mistress, the key was to get one Terran government to recognize Luna as a political entity. Today, places like Isle of Man or Bermuda can fulfill a similar function.

And in the end, as always, it will boil down to raw political power. A nice "cover story" merely allows the squeamish to accept it more easily.

So long as the builder issued a statement disclaiming the land and an acknowledgement that upon the scope reaching its useful life and being dismantled, they will vacate, why not?

Of course, after 50 years pass (or 100 years) that pronouncement might get "forgotten"

Thus your conundrum. Do "we" prohibit people leaving Earth until a global consensus is reached?

I say "no"

= = =

And that really is the question. Should government PROHIBIT commercial ventures, not should government PERMIT commercial ventures.

And since some governments can "defect" and choose to look the other way it really becomes should the U.S. government prohibit commercial activity on the Moon.

Again I say "no"

The modern nation state was invented by the Peace at Westphalia after the Calvinists, Lutherans and Catholics grew weary of beating each other bloody with no discernable benefit to show for the carnage.

I am not sanguine that the modern nation state will survive the 21st century as a relevant institution of human organization which is a pity as the U.S. is the most successful nation-state ever.

Why will space settlers rebel? Their interests and Terran interests will necessarily diverge. It can be peaceful, or not depending upon the wisdom of those in power.

I've been reading about World War Zero, the theory that around the turn of the last century the British quietly and peacefully ceded naval hegemony to the U.S. based on their assessment that they would lose a naval war with Washington. 

The Naval Treaty of 1922 sealed the deal.

Going into space will change human nature, IMHO. Just not fast enough to attain universal government.

Mining Lunar platinum is clearly not the key to Mankind's conquest of the cosmos

Hmmm. . .

Want to buy an authentic key to the Cosmos? Fabricated from 100% genuine lunar platinum? Has a logo stamped on it and everything.

= = =

More seriously, Wayne White made an interesting point at a recent conference I attended. We are better off allowing the first settlements to be politically independent, from the beginning, because they will engage in political rebellion sooner or later anyway.

Lets avoid the whole "reprise 1776" thing from the start.

If that is true WHY should any nation-state expend money building a settlement?

The fellow who did the Radio Mars drama (see other thread) has sent me an e-mail with excerpts as follows:

Might this fit into the podcast idea? Mix audio and text. Write dialog as well as e-mail for the mission. Keep it on-line for pod-casting as desired.

Authentic or whimsical or both?

Thoughts?

Speaking of JP Aerospace, my recollection is that the more technically minded people here started out scoffing and ended with, "Well maybe it might actually work, maybe at least."

I agree substantially with both Austin Stanley and GCNRevenegr, in this thread.

= = =

Now for my own comments:

* Population pressure? To use Werner von Braun's unfortunate phrase, unskilled labor will always be able to make babies faster than skilled labor can make rockets. Space will never solve Terran over-population, if it exists.

That said, people unhappy with an overcrowded Earth may well desire to start over, elsewhere. Space will not alleviate Earth's population issues but population pressure might push some folks out there.

* Before I read Moonrush and Wingo's hypothesis about Ni-Fe asteroid fragments on the Moon, I didn't think there was any short term profitable scenario for lunar business, except perhaps for a few tourists.

Now I do think PGMS are an exciting possibility (if they exist) however total Terran platinum sales currently total approximately $7 billion per year. Hardly astronomical numbers.  On the other hand, PGMs are such terrific catalysts, if lunar supply or asteroidal supply was large enough to substantially depress prices, I am confident folks on Earth will discover a great many terrific applications that are only economical using cheaper platinum.

* This leaves settlement as the main driver. Mike Griffin concurs, as far as I can tell - - or maybe I concur with him?  8)

Why settlement? As others have said, its intangible, but it is tied into our identity and how we conceive of ourselves as a species.

= = =

Edit to add. As I have posted before, if we do not attempt to settle "out there" what does that say about us, as a species?

It's not necessarily about what we will find but rather it's about what we may become. As Elon Musk recently said: