You are not logged in.
No no, that's... not what the word province means in that case.
Alberta is a province of Canada, and outer space is a province of all humanity.
You sound exactly like a graduate of Harvard Law School.
The first paragraph of Article I of the Outer Space Treaty reads, “The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind”.
The phrase “shall be the province of all mankind” has been the subject of analysis and debate. Does that phrase prohibit the establishment of permanent human settlements on the moon and other celestial bodies? It is time to take a very close look at “the province of all mankind”.
A “province” is an administrative division of a sovereign state. For example, the nation of Canada has 10 provinces, one of which is named Alberta. Someone could therefore refer to Alberta as “the province of Alberta”. Proceeding on this example, we may ask has any sovereign designated “outer space” as a “province” and then given that province the name “All Mankind”? The answer to that question is “No”. We may therefore conclude that the phrase “the province of all mankind” is completely meaningless. This conclusion is supported by the fact that if the phrase “and shall be the province of all mankind” were deleted from the Outer Space Treaty the meaning of the treaty would not change at all.
The phrase “and shall be the province of all mankind” is best understood as an example of “inartful drafting”. The person who drafted that part of the treaty did a very poor job of writing a sentence that can be comprehended by the average person.
"inartful drafting": http://www.politico.com/states/new-york … are-023352
“If and when the Moon and Mars are settled in the future through other incentives, the nations of Earth will eventually have to recognize these settlements' authority over their own land. But to create an incentive now, governments would need to commit to recognizing that ownership in advance, rather than long after the fact.” Page 39.
“The following discussion lays out the argument that current international law, and especially "the Outer Space Treaty," does appear to permit private property ownership in space and permit nations on Earth to recognize land ownership claims made by private space settlements, without these nations being guilty of national appropriation or any other legal violation.” Page 44.
Alan Wasser, et al., Space Settlements, Property Rights, and International Law: Could a Lunar Settlement Claim the Lunar Real Estate It Needs to Survive, 73 Journal of Air Law & Commerce 37 (2008)
http://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol73/iss1/3
I believe that a nation that is not a party to the Outer Space Treaty could claim a portion of Mars and issue “Mars Settlement Permits”. I also believe that the United States of America, which is a party to the Outer Space Treaty, could recognize the validity of those permits without violating the Outer Space Treaty. That recognition might make the holders of the settlement permits eligible to receive infrastructure development loans from the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund.
If a number of Mars Society chapters applied for and received Mars Settlement Permits, and if they received an infrastructure development loan from the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, what would they do with that money?
They might first design and build a ground transport vehicle that is capable of taking passengers from one settlement to another, and from any settlement to the spaceport. If the distance between settlements and the spaceport is about 20 miles then the vehicle could be powered by compressed air. If the vehicle broke down during a trip between two settlements or between a settlement and the spaceport then the compressed air in the “fuel” tanks could be used to supply air to the occupants of the vehicle until a replacement vehicle could arrive and take passengers safely to their intended destination.
The ground transport vehicles might be manufactured under the name “MarsMobile”.
Reestablishment of the National Space Council
President Trump signed a NASA authorization bill yesterday.
“Vice President Mike Pence said March 21 that he expects the Trump administration to reestablish the National Space Council, a move that has the backing of a key member of Congress.
“Pence mentioned the National Space Council at the end of a signing ceremony at the White House for the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017, an event attended by members of Congress, NASA astronauts and NASA Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot”.
http://spacenews.com/pence-confirms-pla … BkzMW.dpuf
I believe that we should prepare a report that describes the kinds of political and economic systems we would like to see established on Mars, and that we should present that report to the National Space Council.
Urban Planning on Mars
"Although various engineering, economic, and medical aspects of Mars habitation have received close attention from space agencies, far less attention has been given to the role of human dynamics in a Mars mission. This study outlines the relationship between human wellbeing and the planning and design of a Martian settlement. It draws from environmental psychology and urban planning to define a set of criteria for human wellbeing with respect to the built environment. Through the review of analogous habitats including Antarctic research bases and the International Space Station, the study analyzes the specific impacts that a Martian settlement will have on individual and societal wellbeing." Continued at...
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/rese … 1773/36865
- Are you anticipating that the Cooperative gets there first and builds a spaceport? Or are we just calling the location a spaceport in anticipation? At first landings there won't be anything there; the Cooperative wouldn't have anything to offer (unless it was v v well funded and could send its own autonomous infrastructure landers for robotic construction)
Perhaps the Board of Regents will arrange for SpaceX to deliver a habitation module to the spaceport and, in ceremonial fashion, to place the "Initial Point" monument that marks the center of the spaceport trust property. The habitation module might be designated as the office of the Territorial Marshall, and the authority of the T.M. would extend up to 50 miles from the Initial Point. The habitation module might include a Clerk's desk, where any homesteader can file a "Homestead Claim" to a parcel of land that is outside of the spaceport property and outside of the six settlements but within the 50-mile limit.
Frankly, I do not expect many homestead claims to be filed but the option should be available.
- not many in SpaceX et.al. may want to settle Tharsis - see NASA's search for an ideal settling point for example: 'The first human landing sites workshop in 2015 yielded 47 landing site proposals. ' - NASA landing site workshop
My spaceport site is just for purposes of discussion. However, I believe that the "soils" east of the Tharsis volcanoes have been enriched by many layers of volcanic ash.
Out of interest, how did you choose 'Regent' for the board members?
The University of California is defined in the California Constitution as “a public trust”. A California nonprofit public benefit corporation named “The Regents of the University of California” administers that trust.
https://businessfilings.sos.ca.gov/frmD … r=C0008116
That corporation is controlled by a Board of Regents and each member of the Board has the title Regent. The Regents are appointed by officials of the State of California. This governance structure gives the University protection from political pressures and that gives the faculty some measure of “academic freedom”.
“A forum such as the Mars Society could be a way for many 'little people' to get together and do something magnificent, like ensuring that Mars is free from Earth's domination from the start”. — John Peace
https://johnmpeace.blogspot.ca/2017/03/ … orums.html
The members of the New Mars Forums should adopt a “Mars Development Plan” that will ensure “that Mars is free from Earth’s domination from the start”.
For the purposes of discussion, let’s start at a point that is about 200 miles south by southeast of Fesenkov Crater.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fesenkov_(Martian_crater)
That crater is near to the eastern edge of the “Tharsis Region” of Mars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tharsis
Fesenkov Crater it is shown on the Lunae Palus quadrangle map of Mars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USGS … n-mola.png
Our Mars Development Plan might provide that (1) a spaceport will be built at 85 degrees west longitude and 15 degrees north latitude, (2) six permanent human settlements will be constructed within 20 miles of the spaceport, (3) those settlements will organize a Tharsis Transportation Cooperative, (4) the cooperative will be governed by a Board of Regents composed of 6 Regents, and (5) each settlement will elect one Regent.
The Cooperative will invite SpaceX and Blue Origin and Mars One and other rocket companies to land their rockets at the Cooperative’s spaceport. The Cooperative will operate a fleet of ground vehicles that transport people and supplies between the spaceport and the surrounding settlements, and from one settlement to another.
Each settlement will control a land grant that contains 144 square miles. The government of a settlement may adopt parcel maps that divide the lands of the settlement into parcels of various sizes. A settlement may lease parcels to people and organizations. A settlement may use lease payments to purchase shares in the Tharsis Transportation Cooperative or to pay for settlement infrastructure. Some lease agreements may include an option to purchase the parcel at a future time.
To be continued…
Your map clearly shows 6 separate communities.
No; my map shows 6 settlements, not communities. Each settlement (144 square miles) would be under the control of a chapter of the Mars Society. A chapter might adopt parcel maps and then lease parcels in the settlement to individuals and organizations and then invest the lease payments in shares of the Tharsis Transportation Cooperative or in infrastructure improvements in the settlement. And whether or not they adopt laws that authorize the incorporation of cities is up to them.
The parcel maps might create large parcels that have a rural character while other parcels are small and intended to be components of an urban area (an unincorporated town of 1,000 people or an incorporated city of 100,000 people). The town parcels might contain 1 to 10 acres while city parcels might contain one-quarter acre or less. The settlement's professional urban planners will advise the settlement's owners on these issues.
No separate settlements. Only one Mars. Each town will be small, only the size of a town. No bigger. No "township".
I see the problem now. You are using "township" as a reference to a political entity. That is not correct. A township is an area bounded by the lines on a surveyor's map. A township is not a legal entity. However, the lines on a surveyors map could be used to describe the boundary of a political entity.
I am not proposing that Mars be divided into hundreds or thousands of counties. I am not proposing that Mars be divided into a number of states. A surveyor's map could show township boundaries from the north pole of Mars to the south. However, those lines do not create counties or states or any other type of political entity.
I am proposing that groups of people (Mars Society chapters) who want to promote the settlement of Mars be given control over portions of Mars so that they can organize efforts to build settlements on Mars (and a spaceport).
I said a town will only be allowed to claim territory of a town. A city will only be allowed to claim territory of a city.
I cannot respond to your proposal because, in part, I do not know what you mean by “town”. And what you mean by “city”.
Is this the sort of thing that you mean by “city”?
“The city shall have the right and power to make and enforce all the laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to the restrictions and limitations provided in this Charter; provided that nothing herein shall be construed to prevent or restrict the city from exercising or consenting to, and the city is hereby authorized to exercise, any and all rights, powers and privileges heretofore or hereafter granted or prescribed by the general laws of the state including those specifically applicable to general law cities; provided, also that where the general laws of the state provide a procedure for the carrying out and the enforcement of any rights or powers belonging to the city, said procedure may be followed unless a different procedure is provided or required by the Charter, ordinance or resolution.
“It is the intention of the people in adopting this section to take advantage of the provisions of Section 5 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California giving cities Home Rule as to municipal affairs.”
http://www.qcode.us/codes/sacramento/vi … &frames=on
I proposed a means of bringing a “Tharsis Transportation Cooperative” into existence. And a means of providing for the construction and operation of a spaceport, governed by a Board of Regents.
You are making general suggestions, using words that are not defined. I cannot respond to your proposal because I do not understand it. Please be very specific. If you can, please specify the name of the law that your corporation will be formed under.
Robert,
Why do you think the Settlement Corporation needs to have a monopoly on settling Mars? Do you think they won't be able to raise the capital if it's open to competition?
All,
The formation of some sort of solar court to arbitrate claims over extraterrestrial resources - and perhaps also to establish a baseline of law (possibly under the principle of Hostis humani generis,enemy of mankind, that applies to maritime piracy and slavery) - should not be outside the bounds of the Outer Space Treaty. Indeed, it could be quite easily argued that it's required by the treaty, as party states are responsible for the space activities of individuals and corporations, and if those are establishing space stations and planetary bases there needs to be some way of handling disputes.
From there, with the application of a safety zone around bases and the ability to ring a territory with habitats, you can develop what is effectively land title. You won't be able to claim ownership of unused tracts of land, but you shouldn't be doing that anyway. If you want to use it in the future, go to the expense now of putting a base there. If you want autonomy, fly under a flag of convenience - perhaps even buy sovereignty off a small nation (1000 sq.m. of sovereign territory will do) to set up a Terran Commonwealth Office of Space Colonisation, with strictly limited laws imposed on the colonies.
So there's my proposal for a way forward. One which might actually be able to get support from the Powers That Be. Well, not the sovereignty purchase part, they tend to be loathe to let new countries join the sovereign club.
There is a big slice of Antarctica that no one has claimed. Depending on your nationality, you might go there and claim it in the name of the Government of Mars. Then borrow a billion dollars and establish a prototype Martian settlement that provides training for proto-Martian settlers. When that venture is a success, borrow more money to build a floating launch platform that can be towed to Earth's equator, and launch from there. Start sending your Martian Academy graduates to Mars with all the equipment that they will need to found self-sustaining settlements.
So does Taiwan get Mars?
The Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China have a very tense relationship. I think it would be unwise to inflame that relationship by speculating about whether Taiwan is or is not a sovereign that can make a territorial claim on Mars or anything else. We should stay a safe distance from that unsettled situation.
I drew a simple diagram which illustrates the "Settlement Pattern" that I have proposed.
The Holy See is a party to the Outer Space Treaty so it could not exert sovereignty over any portion of Mars. However, I believe that the Holy See could lease 5 acres of land from the Board of Regents of the Spaceport. A church could be built there. Those construction jobs could have a very positive effect on the economy of the area around the Spaceport.
No separate settlements. Only one Mars. Each town will be small, only the size of a town. No bigger. No "township".
I have worked as an estimator and electrician. I have sat all day long analyzing blueprints for building projects and preparing construction bids for tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars. I have dealt with county planning departments, architects, engineers, owners, general contractors, subcontractors, tradesmen, material suppliers, building inspectors, Fire Marshals and more. Constructing a modern building is an extremely complicated task.
The “urban planners” whom I have dealt with are in general some of the smartest people I have known, and that should not be surprising. People attend universities for many years to obtain bachelors and masters degrees in urban planning.
http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/urban-planni … -planning/
I understand why you want to keep things small and simple but that kind of living will not prevail on Mars. Surviving on Mars will be a constant struggle and the systems that sustain human life will have to be precisely constructed and constantly maintained by people who know exactly what they are doing. A small mistake could result in a fire that has catastrophic results.
Martian Settlements
Space Settlements: A Design Study was published by NASA in 1975.
http://www.saintannsny.org/depart/compu … oneill.pdf
I knew a person who attended the design study, which was held a Stanford University. It was during that study that they decided to use the term “space settlement” rather than “space colony”. They were aware that the term “colony” was disliked by people in developing countries because those people had recent and highly negative experiences with European powers and their violent terrestrial colonization programs.
In Wikipedia, “space settlement” is redirected to “space colonization”. However, I still prefer the term “settlement”. In the St. Lawrence Iroquoian language the word kanata or canada, means “village” or “settlement”.
So they're the legal equivalent of unitary counties?
“Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland an administrative reorganization in 1973 replaced that country’s six administrative counties and two county boroughs with 26 single-tier, or ‘unitary,’ administrative districts. These administrative districts are called unitary because they have only a single layer of government, unlike administrative counties, which are further subdivided into districts”; https://www.britannica.com/topic/county
We did not use the term “unitary county” in California but we had the “City and County of San Francisco”, where the city and the county governments have become consolidated into one government. They tried to get that kind of consolidation approved in Sacramento County but the people voted “No”.
In the Los Angeles basin they have a conurbation; numerous cities have grown together and things are very confusing.
Initially there would not be any cities in a “settlement” but as the population of the settlement grew larger and larger the people of the settlement could vote to authorize the formation of one or more cities.
If all of the voters in a settlement are extreme libertarians then they might vote "no" on a proposal to allow the formation of cities, because a city must impose taxes in order to pay for the services that the city provides.
Robert: I think that I might be misunderstanding you when you use the term “county” or “counties”. Every bit of California is in one county or another and every county is a “political subdivision” of the State of California. And every court is, for example, “The Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda”.
The “settlements” that I am proposing are not the legal equivalent of California counties. They are better described as “municipal corporations”.
Andorra’s “Tharsis Region” would not be covered from top to bottom with contiguous counties (the way that California is covered).
What do you mean when you use the term “counties”?
...no states or counties or principalities or what-have-you on Mars.
I think it would be optimal if there was a Government of Mars. I also think that the chance of getting the Outer Space Treaty amended in a way that provides for a Government of Mars is zero. So I have proposed the only other thing that I can think of: asking a sovereign that is not a party to the Outer Space Treaty to claim territorial sovereignty over a portion of Mars.
If the Republic of Malta or the Principality of Andorra wants to permit the establishment of a corporation that has the authority to establish a Government of Mars then please form such a corporation as soon as possible. Start issuing land patents (homestead grants) and city charters. That is fine with me. However, I think that a broad political base needs to be laid for the establishment of a sovereign territory on Mars. That is why I have proposed that Mars Society chapters in many different countries join together to ask a terrestrial sovereign to claim a portion of Mars and to then permit the chapters to sponsor the establishment of settlements and a spaceport (which might become a place for the Mars One mission to land).
Terrestrial sovereigns are not warring with each other because they have made conflicting, overlapping claims to portions of Antarctica. So I think your fear that a war would occur on Mars is very unrealistic.
...I wonder why you didn't propose that the Vatican City in Rome govern Mars...
The Holy See is a party to the Outer Space Treaty so it is not a sovereign that could claim a portion of Mars. Please see the "Holy See" at...
Scott Beach wrote:Tom:
The atmosphere of Mars is not capable of sustaining human life at this time. I therefore expect that most Martians will reside and work in pressurized structures, and that most personal residences will be components of "common interest developments".
So all of one's eggs are in one basket?
No. You should not assume that all of the residences in a Martian common interest development are "in one basket" (i.e., that they share the same air generation and containment system). I expect that each settlement's laws will prescribe a number of air locks and automatic emergency doors per a stated volume of residential space.
As soon as you have more than one sovereign power, you have competition. And when sovereigns compete, it's called war.
The Principality of Andorra is located in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain. There are Mars Society chapters in France and Spain. Those chapters and several other chapters could jointly request that the Principality of Andorra claim sovereignty over a portion of Mars in order to provide a legal foundation for the establishment of permanent human settlements on Mars. Your concern that some other sovereign would violently attack Andorra is not realistic. France is not going to attack Andorra; Spain is not going to attack Andorra; Canada is not going to attack Andorra. And the extremely violent United States of America is not quite stupid enough to attack Andorra.
You could think of what I'm saying as one colony for the entire planet, plus both moons... Doesn't that do what you're trying to do?
First, let me clarify a minor but important point. I use the term “settlement” to describe a political subdivision that exercises power over an area that contains 144 square miles. I avoid using the word “colony” because many people in the developing world remember the colonial era and they become angry when they hear the word colony. I only use the word colony when I write about the Hutterites because they use the word colony to refer to their communities of 60 to 160 people. Let’s try to avoid using the “c” word.
Terrestrial sovereigns have made territorial claims, and some overlapping claims, to portions of Antarctica but no sovereign has been so greedy as to claim the entire continent. I believe that a terrestrial sovereign might, at the request of six chapters of the Mars Society, claim a small portion of Mars and thereby use its sovereignty to provide a legal foundation for the settlement of Mars. However, I doubt that the Republic of Malta or the Principality of Andorra or any other terrestrial sovereign that is not a party to the Outer Space Treaty would be willing to claim all of Mars, because that claim would probably be condemned as a greedy act. Let’s try to avoid alienating the entire world.
Claiming the Tharsis Region is enough initially. I selected that region because all of those volcanoes have probably coated the surrounding lands with lots of important minerals that will help plants to grow quickly and to produce nutritious food for humans.
Police Protection for Homesteaders
Robert: I mentioned that there would be a Territorial Marshall at the spaceport controlled by six chapter-sponsored Mars settlements. Those settlements might be permitted to extend their police powers beyond their respective boundaries under a “joint powers agreement” which specifies that the settlements are jointly establishing the office of Territorial Marshall and empowering the Marshall to exercise police powers within an area that has a radius of 50 miles from the Initial Point of the spaceport.
The permit to establish a spaceport, issued by the Director of the Mars Secretariat, might authorize the adoption of a joint powers agreement that provides for a Territorial Marshall and for a Judge who can hear cases brought before the Judge by the Marshall.
The 50 mile radius would give the Marshall the power to police homesteads that are outside of the jurisdiction of settlements.
The term “joint powers agreement” is used in California to describe an agreement that political subdivisions of the State of California may enter into to jointly exercise the powers vested in such subdivisions by the California Constitution or by the California statutes.
I am trying to design a legal framework that does not have any gaps in it. If you see any gaps, please bring them to my attention. It might be necessary to provide for a “Prosecuting Attorney” and for a “Public Defender” but I am trying to avoid advocating a large federal bureaucracy.
