The First to Mars - Who will it be?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-03-31 11:11:25

It's also surprising that the cosmonauts seem to be less hierarchic than the astronauts. Maybe communism does really work in spaceflight.

Communism for Mars ?

callmeishmael · 2006-04-02 03:02:54

I voted for China, but I think they would only be first if the manned Martian mission is about 50 years off. If it happens sooner, it will probably be an international - US/Euro/Russian and maybe Japanese consortium.

cjchandler · 2006-06-30 16:22:50

I don't think anyone is going to mars soon. Only a nation based in space around earth and the moon with huge space mining infrastructure will be able to do it. Mars direct isn't going to happen because of the expense, democracys are too shortsighted for the long haul. the second part is why bother, other than to say you've done it? astroids, the moon, and outer planet moons are just as good with less of a gravity well. Mars has the unfortunate situation of having too deep a gravity well to be easilly acessable, but too little gravity to keep people in desent shape. I will be visited only to show some space group's dominance or to mine water.

MikkelR · 2006-07-08 07:45:48

I believe it will be a NASA funded mission with big contributions from the private sector. I do however have no problems visualising a European led mission (By European i mean ESA/Rokosmos) since the only thing missing for such an event to occur is political unity, which I believe will happen in the next 10-15 years. Many Europeans (Especially the 15-40year generation, who have lived and worked in different european countries) can see the advantage of having a federal Europe that limits national sovereignty in the quest of uniting in a common front to promote european values.

Rxke · 2006-07-08 11:15:16

A crew of six, with at least one 'token' European, probably a German or Italian scientist-astronaut... As one of the mission specialists... And (maybe, maybe) one Russian...

All part of the bartering policy that's in vogue today in spaceflight, Europe builds some stuff, and either gets free seats to ISS or free launches of some hardware... The glovebox is European, some 'fridges, pressurized cargo-containers, the upcoming ATV's...

Like the Italian cargo-container that's currently in orbit inside the Shuttle, it probably partly paid for the long duration stay of Thomas Reiter, the German astronaut now also orbiting...

I expect this kind of thing continuing through the years, mutually benefitting both agencies.

Same story probably with the Russians. Though that future seems more uncertain.

Oh, it will be an American mission for sure, with an American commander, and American pilots etc. But not 100.00%, heh.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-16 12:49:56

I said NASA. I think that the current administration has very little stomach for globalism, plus for valid reasons or not many of people view the pre-Columbia ISS delays on the Russians.
I agree with this stance, I think that our exploration of the next new world should be an American (the British can come too) affair. Ideally I would like to see private industry step up to the plate, but I don't think that is in the cards at this juncture. I also think a good motivator for a continuing program is if we dumped the space treaty so that the driving ethos of the Mars program would not be 'we came in peace for all mankind' but 'We claim this next new world for the United States'. I know I'm sure I will be flame for being a jingoist or what-have-you, but every new frontier has been conquer by national expansion because that's what offers incentive, resources, territory, prestige. Plus, the Chinese haven’t signed the space treaty, and in the long run I really, really don't want to see Mars under the banner of the PRC. (Or the UN for that matter)

I have a simple proposal. Why not have a Martian Constitutional Convention? Those who can get to Mars get to participate, have a minimum number to make quarum such as 7 or 9 people and require that they stay for 1 Martian Year and then have the Convention, if they can maintain their presence on Mars, the Constitution remains in effect. If those people are 7 or 9 Americans, then naturally by selecting who gets to go, the US would influence what sort of constitution is adoped for a Martian government. Legally the Planet would count as a seperate nation, but practically it would depend heavily on whoever finances the expeditions to Mars and pays for the projects there. No native Martians can do that by themselves, they'll need sponsors from Earth such as NASA, the ESA or whom ever. You can skip the whole "Who owns Mars" issue by establishing Mars as an independent country from the get go, and then have that government allow countries on Earth to pay for various missions on Mars. Who gets sent to Mars determines what kind of society exists there, no jingoism involved. If some nation can't afford to send people to Mars, it has no business saying how that planet should be governed. We don't need a grand compromise among all the nations of Earth, that would create nothing but a UNish nightmare of nongovernment and lawlessness.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-08-17 03:41:50

Tom Kalbfus,

Does this mean, that If private enterprise gets their first they could design the constitution for Mars ? everytime people think that government will do it the economies are business driven not government driven they wait for there handout through charges and taxes.

publiusr · 2006-08-17 11:06:57

Private industry alone will not win space.

Most of these space conventions are made up of a lot of groups selling and nobody buying.

Alt.space incest, I call it.

You get a few venture capitalists who forget the lesson of spacelift is TVA, not MSN. Spacelift is blue-collar thrust, not white collar computing. Venture types will put money in low infrastructure internet start ups that need only a good programmer. But the paltry funds that would cause such a venture to lift off is worthless when trying to build real spacecraft.

So space start ups get small sums in fits and starts--use them for fine glossy ads--which they just pass around to each other or the rare investor, who glances at them before placing them in the circular file..13.

Remember, the mark of a 'good businessman' is his ability to (while eating that steak dinner you just bought him) look you dead in the eye and say--

"No."

And off he goes to invest his money in EXXON.

And--to be perfectly fair...wouldn't you?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-17 13:08:50

Tom Kalbfus,
Does this mean, that If private enterprise gets their first they could design the constitution for Mars ? everytime people think that government will do it the economies are business driven not government driven they wait for there handout through charges and taxes.

Why not? if the prize is the whole planet, then this may start a whole new space race and free up alot of private capital as well. You must remember that the US Government gets the money it has to spend on human space missions from private enterprise through taxation. Ordinarily a human space mission may seem like a throwaway for most private investors as their is no return. however some rich person might fancy himself as the founder of a new nation, so he might underwrite a colonization mission with his own funds, and leave a lasting legacy for is progeny. Generally the success of a Martian government depends on how open and inclusive it is. I'm willing to bet that if you increase the importance of a human Mars mission alot more people are going to attempt it. If its just flags and footprints and then good bye, then only governments may attempt this for bragging rights and propaganda. I believe the people whol colonize Mars first deserve a chief say in what sort of government it has, it would be a good idea if it was amendable so that it may continue to meet the needs of the current Martian population, but the initial Constitution should be decided by those who first colonize the planet whoever they may be. I think if properly motivated, their is a good chance the US may get their first, but who knows, other countries may think they have a good chance too as well as private corporations, why not? There is nothing that says private corporations can't start their own country. I do prefer one government for all of Mars rather than another planet with borders, competing ideologies and wars. Let the contest be decided by who gets there and establishes the first permanent human colony. The people who live on Mars, however they get there should always have the final say. Just because their sponsors give them a Constitution doesn't mean necessarily that the individuals they send their will automatically adopt it. I don't think the UN with all the Nations in the World should decide on this matter, I don't think they deserve too. Those that actually put up the money and colonize the planet should have a greater say, because without them nothing happens. The ability to get to Mars is a mark of sucess, and an indication that their system of government and the way they run their society is working. I think the capitalist democracies have a big leg up in the Mars race if sufficiently motivated.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-17 13:21:53

Private industry alone will not win space.
Most of these space conventions are made up of a lot of groups selling and nobody buying.
Alt.space incest, I call it.
You get a few venture capitalists who forget the lesson of spacelift is TVA, not MSN. Spacelift is blue-collar thrust, not white collar computing. Venture types will put money in low infrastructure internet start ups that need only a good programmer. But the paltry funds that would cause such a venture to lift off is worthless when trying to build real spacecraft.
So space start ups get small sums in fits and starts--use them for fine glossy ads--which they just pass around to each other or the rare investor, who glances at them before placing them in the circular file..13.
Remember, the mark of a 'good businessman' is his ability to (while eating that steak dinner you just bought him) look you dead in the eye and say--
"No."
And off he goes to invest his money in EXXON.
And--to be perfectly fair...wouldn't you?

The motivation behind all business interests is power, if they get a chance to start a political government on Mars, they may just reach into their deep pockets to do it. Money is just a form of power, and it is the power they are after, if getting a chance to start a government on Mars and become the planet's leader suits their fancy, they may just dig into their deep pockets to accomplish it. So long as "everbody owns Mars" nobody's going to want to spend the money to send people there, however if you can conquer a planet and make it your own, that is a different story. So long as Mars remains the common property of all humankind rather than just the people who live there, there is going to be little incentive to colonize the place except for enthusiast groups like the Mars Society. I'm willing to risk not getting there first, I happen to think the chances of my country getting their first are very good, but if someone else like China does it, I can accept that. If the constitution is too repressive, Mars is not going to be successful and no one is going to go there. If property rights aren't protected, no one is going to invest there. I think there is no environmental problem of developing Mars like their is with Antartica, Mars is pretty barren and no one has thus far proven otherwise. You can strip mine it, or terraform it, and no one is going to seriously object. I think Mars has a good chance in becoming a second home for humanity, the massive manipulation of the planet's environment would be unthinkable to do deliberately to Earth.

Grypd · 2006-08-22 08:15:22

The motivation behind all business interests is power, if they get a chance to start a political government on Mars, they may just reach into their deep pockets to do it. Money is just a form of power, and it is the power they are after, if getting a chance to start a government on Mars and become the planet's leader suits their fancy, they may just dig into their deep pockets to accomplish it. So long as "everbody owns Mars" nobody's going to want to spend the money to send people there, however if you can conquer a planet and make it your own, that is a different story. So long as Mars remains the common property of all humankind rather than just the people who live there, there is going to be little incentive to colonize the place except for enthusiast groups like the Mars Society. I'm willing to risk not getting there first, I happen to think the chances of my country getting their first are very good, but if someone else like China does it, I can accept that. If the constitution is too repressive, Mars is not going to be successful and no one is going to go there. If property rights aren't protected, no one is going to invest there. I think there is no environmental problem of developing Mars like their is with Antartica, Mars is pretty barren and no one has thus far proven otherwise. You can strip mine it, or terraform it, and no one is going to seriously object. I think Mars has a good chance in becoming a second home for humanity, the massive manipulation of the planet's environment would be unthinkable to do deliberately to Earth.

Mars is a big place and it has roughly the same landmass as we currently use now (remember no oceans..yet). But getting there at the moment will take a lot of power literally billions of dollars and it wont get many people there. So any group getting there will not have the numbers to have the moral capability to say we own Mars.

It will come down to routine access to space and the development of routine journeys to Mars before Mars colonisation will take off and the political future of Mars can be developed.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-22 10:12:49

Mars is a big place and it has roughly the same landmass as we currently use now (remember no oceans..yet). But getting there at the moment will take a lot of power literally billions of dollars and it wont get many people there. So any group getting there will not have the numbers to have the moral capability to say we own Mars.
It will come down to routine access to space and the development of routine journeys to Mars before Mars colonisation will take off and the political future of Mars can be developed.

Mars is empty. If one person lives there and claims to be ruler of Mars, their is no one else to say otherwise. That one person might claim to be the World Government of Mars, but if someone else sets down and does whatever he wants, there is very little the first person can do about it.

How many people do we need exactly to have claim to a World Government on Mars, and if not the whole planet, then how much of it can a person legitimately claim to own? I think having no government works, when you have few people on Mars, but when population gets high enough where you start having to worry about crime, then you need a government of some sort to enforce the law so you don't have chaos and anarchy. I think we need some nice orderly process where a World government can be established and all concerned will recognize it and make it stick.

If Mars has its own World government that is automatically recognized by the most important nations, then we can get past the national rivalry issues about who owns Mars, who can claim it as a terrotory and how much of it.

I think Mars should have an open World Government with equal access to all so that nations and corporations that invest in it can all realize a return in their investment and so have incentive for doing so. I think property rights are important, their must be some agency that fairly awards claims to various governments, agencies, corporations and people so that Mars might be properly used and exploited. Earth governments should be allowed property rights,but not sovereignty over territory on Mars. A Martian Government should have sovereignty and decide upon the laws with the democratic participation of all the people living on Mars, and all corporate and national enitities should be legally required to adhere to the law established by the Martian government, but the law should also be fair, open to all and unbiased. I wouldn't want nation-states forming on Mars or colonies with borders. I think all the World's governments, all corporations, and all people who can afford to get their should be allowed equal access to all parts of Mars without having to contend with borders, and customs except for that of the planet as a whole. That way we have a bit of security that doesn't exist on Earth. With a recognized World government, we don't have to worry about wars and other such things, and if the government is fair and just, people won't have reason to rebel, and it should be inclusive to allow for the participation of the people in the political process.

Probably at this time, no one really cares about a World Government on a planet with no people, so I think nows the time to decide upon a process for determining one, hence my idea of having a constitutional convention on Mars. Once people start arriving on Mars in large numbers their are bound to be comflicts between them and disputes about who owns what, and who rules. I just think we should head all that off and establish a process that the participating nations will agree to adhere to and then just follow that process to establish a new Martian government when the time is right.

When the European powers colonized the New World, their were many wars between the colonial powers over resources and competing claims. The sooner we can settle this, before economic interests get involved, the better I think.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-08-22 10:15:23

though this link should probably be posted here too.

RUSSIA, WESTERN EUROPE MAY UNITE INTO LARGEST SPACE ASSOCIATION

Would make for a very interesting combination

I'm not sure if Russia and Europe will ever form one space group, they politics of Euro ( French, British, German ) Vs Moscow mentality will prevent this
what they could do however without building one big space group is come to an understanding on joint missions like the ESA/NASA Cassini-Huygens or ESA/RSA joint missions putting European astronauts to space

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-22 10:33:14

EXXON and other private oil companies together have only 10% of all the oil resources in the World, the other 90% belong to governments and are exploited by government owned and run oil companies. EXXON is just the tip of the iceburg and it cannot extract oil from places it does not control and isn't allowed to operate. Governments jealously guard these resources whenever the price of oil is high. So called big oil companies like EXXON are just bit players and their participation and investements in oil doesn't affect the overall oil supply situation. the oil market is controlled by Governments, not by "big" oil companies. Exxon literally lives off the crumbs left over by the national oil cartels that control most of the oil in the World. If an investor is a modest person and can't think of anything better to do with his money, he might invest in Exxon and live off the crumbs left over by OPEC. If you want really big time however, you will want to invest in space colonization and get there first! The first people to get their and establish their authority, will set the rules that everyone else will have to live by. I think that in the end is a much more profitable investment than a bottom feeder like EXXON, who just invests in oil drilling and can't really affect the overall oil picture, and are at the mercy of OPEC. OPEC sets the oil price and EXXON can profit by it or not with the small percentage of the World's oil that they actually own.

Mars is out there, there is a whole planet's worth of stuff. You could do asteroid mining right on the surface of Mars, the Moon too, because each crater that you see and the remains of an asteroid buried under its surface, some of those asteroids have valuable mineral wealth. the Geology of the Moon and Mars is mostly dead, so those asteroids haven't gone anywhere since, they are still there. I think it may be easier to mine the asteroids buried under Mars's craters, than to mine the asteroids in the belt. On Mars they are close together, in space they are far apart and in different orbits.

Grypd · 2006-08-22 15:20:03

"Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Mars is empty. If one person lives there and claims to be ruler of Mars, their is no one else to say otherwise. That one person might claim to be the World Government of Mars, but if someone else sets down and does whatever he wants, there is very little the first person can do about it.
How many people do we need exactly to have claim to a World Government on Mars, and if not the whole planet, then how much of it can a person legitimately claim to own? I think having no government works, when you have few people on Mars, but when population gets high enough where you start having to worry about crime, then you need a government of some sort to enforce the law so you don't have chaos and anarchy. I think we need some nice orderly process where a World government can be established and all concerned will recognize it and make it stick.
If Mars has its own World government that is automatically recognized by the most important nations, then we can get past the national rivalry issues about who owns Mars, who can claim it as a terrotory and how much of it.
I think Mars should have an open World Government with equal access to all so that nations and corporations that invest in it can all realize a return in their investment and so have incentive for doing so. I think property rights are important, their must be some agency that fairly awards claims to various governments, agencies, corporations and people so that Mars might be properly used and exploited. Earth governments should be allowed property rights,but not sovereignty over territory on Mars. A Martian Government should have sovereignty and decide upon the laws with the democratic participation of all the people living on Mars, and all corporate and national enitities should be legally required to adhere to the law established by the Martian government, but the law should also be fair, open to all and unbiased. I wouldn't want nation-states forming on Mars or colonies with borders. I think all the World's governments, all corporations, and all people who can afford to get their should be allowed equal access to all parts of Mars without having to contend with borders, and customs except for that of the planet as a whole. That way we have a bit of security that doesn't exist on Earth. With a recognized World government, we don't have to worry about wars and other such things, and if the government is fair and just, people won't have reason to rebel, and it should be inclusive to allow for the participation of the people in the political process.
Probably at this time, no one really cares about a World Government on a planet with no people, so I think nows the time to decide upon a process for determining one, hence my idea of having a constitutional convention on Mars. Once people start arriving on Mars in large numbers their are bound to be comflicts between them and disputes about who owns what, and who rules. I just think we should head all that off and establish a process that the participating nations will agree to adhere to and then just follow that process to establish a new Martian government when the time is right.
When the European powers colonized the New World, their were many wars between the colonial powers over resources and competing claims. The sooner we can settle this, before economic interests get involved, the better I think.
A goverments control of land only comes down to what it can defend, either by force or by use of historical and legal authority. Currently no one has that right and no one will have it for a long time. No decision made on this planet will have universal popularity or even universal political support. If it does you may well not like the result. Imagine not being allowed to go at all, and being called imperialist for even thinking
No it will come down to who actually controls the land and the more important ability to get to Mars. There are strategic choke points when it comes to Mars and control of these gives will give the occupier a lot more power.

Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2006-03-31 11:11:25

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#77 2006-04-02 03:02:54

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#78 2006-06-30 16:22:50

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#79 2006-07-08 07:45:48

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#80 2006-07-08 11:15:16

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#81 2006-08-16 12:49:56

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#82 2006-08-17 03:41:50

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#83 2006-08-17 11:06:57

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#84 2006-08-17 13:08:50

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#85 2006-08-17 13:21:53

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#86 2006-08-22 08:15:22

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#87 2006-08-22 10:12:49

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#88 2006-08-22 10:15:23

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#89 2006-08-22 10:33:14

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#90 2006-08-22 15:20:03

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#91 2006-08-22 15:48:07

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#92 2006-08-23 07:26:51

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#93 2006-08-23 14:06:17

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#94 2006-08-25 10:41:34

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#95 2006-08-26 23:01:09

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#96 2006-08-28 22:36:17

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#97 2006-08-29 08:37:11

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#98 2006-08-30 03:50:28

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#99 2006-08-30 05:32:11

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

#100 2006-08-31 17:03:02

Re: The First to Mars - Who will it be?

Board footer