Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

soph · 2003-02-08 12:32:39

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.

Whoa, that sounds a lot like what I said earlier.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-08 16:46:35

Sounds good. Then Corporation Ares X can send up a few hundred generic probes, land them, and have lots and lots of claim rights. They could even pay people to land and claim the land under Corporation Ares X's name! It would be a great business.

Of course, it shouldn't work that way. I envision a more American Frontieer sort of thing. You live on your land and are given a maximum limit to how much you can have. Say a square mile at best. That land is enforced by your possession of it, at least until a world government, or a local government is put into place which can respect your claims.

100 square kilometers is extremely excessive, though. Unless you can show that you're developing all of it.

And that still doesn't answer the dilemma as to what happens if a corporation lands lots of probes or manned vehicles for the express purpose of ?buying up? all the land. This isn't the ?frontier? I want to see.

soph · 2003-02-08 18:26:24

What I said earlier, is that each company has the right to 100 acres radius around their initial landing site. After that, they get less, say 25 acres radius, and a maximum cap of 5 claims. They can then sell, say 25% of that land to cover costs. The rest they would have to develop on their own. No ownership rights could be passed from other organizations unless first reviewed by an independent organization.

These missions would have to be manned with a minimum of 10 people on board.

This is similar to the homestead act, except you are allowed 5 claims instead of one. This amounts to an area of oh, 5000 acres or so, which isnt a huge amount for a large company!

Roark · 2003-02-08 22:43:29

Then Corporation Ares X can send up a few hundred generic probes, land them, and have lots and lots of claim rights.

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.

100 square kilometers is extremely excessive, though.

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.

You live on your land and are given a maximum limit to how much you can have.

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.

And that still doesn't answer the dilemma as to what happens if a corporation lands lots of probes or manned vehicles for the express purpose of ?buying up? all the land.

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.

soph · 2003-02-09 10:10:25

Roark, thats why my proposal includes 5 claims, the last 4 smaller than the first...which means you can go claim that nice vent your found earlier.

KaseiII · 2003-02-09 10:31:04

Some one a while back said capitaliasm should go into space along with democracy, which I think is very Ironic because Capitalism opposes democracy, prefering to keep power with the wealthy (and usually stupid) elite. All it is is Autpcracy with a new name. If you are going to have dictatorship of the wealthy, use a royal family, at least they know how to handle money (not that I am pro-dictatorship - but anything is better that another Americanised Capitalist state, another country where only 20& vote because the other 80% are too fat to egt in the poling booths. I am sorry but I don't trust americans, you may be nice people, you probably are, but ur the "new money" rich kid of the world - stupid and unused to money. No offence - but it is true - current consensus in Britain is the USA is a bigger threat to world security than any other country, because ur not that experienced as a nation, are you?)

No Offecne, btw. But it is all true.

soph · 2003-02-09 10:57:32

Oh dear. This is a load of crap that i would stash away with Alexander Sheppard's rants. There is a reason why 300 million people outproduce the entire EU. The middle class is immense, so it's not "an elite." Look at American culture, it relies around the middle class.

Democracy and capitalism go hand-in-hand. They both are based on the whims of the people. The 20% figure is only due to the sub-par education here, and around the world. No country of similar size to America has a better education. It is easier to provide education to a smaller group of people.

There are "new money" people all around the world. I would actually say most of the upper class of America is old money-you only see the new money because of their opulence. The old money sits in the background, wanting to live apart from the rest of society.

Dictatorship of the rich! Please, come to America sometime.

Oh, and by the way, most Americans I know are average weight, not obese, so you might want to get your facts straight.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-09 16:21:37

I considered that issue. You will note that my proposal would set a minumum weight limit.

Not an issue, really. Corp Ares X is going to want to send machinery to develop stuff. Instead of sending all their machinery to one spot, they'd drop it in succession over hundreds of kilometers. Then they would quickly have land rights over a shitload of land.

Put a person in each shipment, and they have even more.

Actually [100 square kilometers] is not [excessive] for a manned landing.

Hmm, 100 square kilometers is 24710.5 acres. I just did a Google search and it seems most early American land claims were no more than 1000.

Hey, I'll go for this if it's limited to the lower regions only.

There should be no maximum limit as to how much land one can have.

Hey, that's great! I just built a fence right down the equator on Mars. I get the north side and my friend clark gets the south side (I like seafront property, clark, sorry)!

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, so wait, you're proposing that you first get the 100 square kilometers around where you landed, and now you're proposing that you can extend it and pick anything you want? What happens to the inital land?

I could go with actually moving your hab or whatever to this new spot, and owning the land around it (that's how it worked in the American frontier days, after all), but I find it ridiculous that you think you can go about picking whatever you want and claiming it without limits.

I just claimed Elysium Mons!

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.

Okay then. I own Mars. I don't even put a fence up, I simply own it. You have to pay me for it now. Thanks.

Really, this is how people approach property rights in space, they have this inablity to understand that property rights are meaningless unless someone is there to enforce them. 100 square kilometers might be easy to enforce with a couple of people. But for one person I would doubt it.

Until there is a world government, or a government at all, there will be no respecting of ?property rights.?

Why would a corporation spend billions to land probes on Mars just to claim land that no one would buy from them?

Um. They don't have to sell it, they can develop it themselves if they wanted. Like I said, the flaw with this argument is that any corporation can land a lot of payloads that contain machinery and a person, and claim lots and lots of land.

Therefore a land grab mission would cost billions for something that is worthless.

Nah, because once Ares X develops the land, people will be able to get to Mars without having to build the infrastructure themselves (ie, the road will be built and the path will be cheaper). And even though Ares X won't have developed a lot of the land (neither would anyone who owns that much land for themselves), they'll have claims over it, so they could own a whole region without anyone being able to do shit about it.

But that assumes the property is enforcable. They should take lots of weapons with them.

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.

Well, you've certainly failed to substantiate that baseless claim in your reply, but sure, I would happily sign on to such a plan. I mean, I'm getting lots of fee land, right? With the right technology, I could own Mars! And no one would be able to stop me!!

And KaseiII was just making a silly post, I doubt they believe that 80% of Americans are unable to fit in a polling booth. But it's a fact that 60% of Americans are overweight, and 1/5th are actually obese.

soph · 2003-02-09 16:47:54

Hey, Josh, what about my plan!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-09 18:32:45

Your plan is much more reasonable.

We need some limits. Personally, I think it would be ideal that the limits be to as much as you could protect / control / use whatever, rather than how much you can put your name on. But yeah, 5 or so plots, four of smaller size, are much better than unlimited... and much easier to enforce.

KaseiII · 2003-02-16 07:35:34

Soph, I would have been scared if an american had actually agreed with me, but that is what America looks like to the rest of the world.

3 problems with your statemoent.
1. USA does not make more than the EU combined. It only just barely makes more than Germany. And Germany plus just the UK make a good bit more than USA.
2. Isnt the US population only aroun 260Million.
3. You haven't met many Americans if you most are average weight. Though I guess the US aveage weight is higher than the European Average weight.

And I have been to America. I found it (for the most part, but probably the new generation are better and not like this) a county full of short, overweight people who are far to happy.

And capitalism and democracy don't go hand it hand. Unless you class bribary as a form of capitalism.

Again no offence to Americans...but you all really scare us.

soph · 2003-02-16 08:05:57

1. USA does not make more than the EU combined. It only just barely makes more than Germany. And Germany plus just the UK make a good bit more than USA.

Well, this is rather funny. Here are some statistics for you, cold hard facts:

Germany- GDP: $1.81 trillion

UK: GDP: $1.252 trillion

USA: $9.937 trillion

The closest country is China, with $4.42 trillion, Japan is third with $2.9 trillion, and Germany is fourth.

So, obviously Germany and the UK don't come close. Together, they are roughly 25% of the American GDP. The rest of the EU is a fraction of what Germany is. So, yes, America outproduces the EU.

2. Isnt the US population only aroun 260Million.
3. You haven't met many Americans if you most are average weight. Though I guess the US aveage weight is higher than the European Average weight.

2. It's around 280-300 million.

3. And you call us ignorant. I live in America, so I've seen quite a few more Americans than you. Most are at or below average weight. In fact, anorexia is a problem among teens. There are a fair share of overweight or obese people, but they are not the norm. Get your facts straight.

KaseiII · 2003-02-16 10:51:22

The "norm" as you put is the majority, And the majority of Americans are fat. So overweight is your norm.
And I didn't call you ignorant but maybe where you live and your age group. Maybe there isnt a high percentage of overweightness. Maybe you caught on to the fact being fat is bad. Which very few Americans understand or care about. I don't know which.

Anyway this topic was about the evils of Capitalism not the evils imposed on the world by the United States. Despite how intertwined the subjects are. Also, in a way, every American sort of has to defend Capitalism. a) it keeps you in control of the world, so to speak and b) over the past 60 years you have killed too many people imposing Capitalism throughout the world just to accept its a bad system.

Americans over the past 50 years haven't even had the ability to consider Socialism never mind adopt it. I feel sorry that you live/lived in such an oppressed soceity/

soph · 2003-02-16 10:58:29

Ok, capitalism is evil. 20 million died in the Soviet Union in the name of socialism, but capitalism is evil. Under the guise of socialism, Hitler killed 12 million people in death camps, but capitalism is evil. Under a socialist-type system, China has had a brutal dictatorship, but capitalism is evil.

Countries who have switched to capitalism have enjoyed greater prosperity. As China has switched to capitalism, its economy has boomed, and the country has enjoyed more freedoms. As Ghana switched to capitalism, it too enjoyed an economic boom. Russia is now a large recipient of foreign investment, cracked out of its socialist shell, and is becoming a world economic power once more as the capitalist economy stabilizes.

Damn, I love freedom of choice!

The highest living conditions in the world are in America, but capitalism is evil.

The "norm" as you put is the majority, And the majority of Americans are fat. So overweight is your norm.
And I didn't call you ignorant but maybe where you live and your age group. Maybe there isnt a high percentage of overweightness. Maybe you caught on to the fact being fat is bad. Which very few Americans understand or care about. I don't know which.

Again, being an American, I can actually speak with fact on my side. You can't. I've given statistics to prove my points, which you avoid.

Americans over the past 50 years haven't even had the ability to consider Socialism never mind adopt it. I feel sorry that you live/lived in such an oppressed soceity/

Oppressed? I'm in one of the most free societies in the world! I can say whatever I want about the government, choose whatever occupation I want, and socialize with who I want. I didn't know that this fit the definition of "oppressed."

KaseiII · 2003-02-16 12:37:04

You are oppressed, you are conned into thinking you have freedom. And Hitler was anything but Socialist.

And by UN pole Norway has the highest standard of Living in the world. Uk is 12th and the usa is 14th.

Why to all Americans fail to see their own evils. But to ready to see the evils of other. You made us lose our empire just so u could gain one by dominating other nations economies.

soph · 2003-02-16 12:44:13

So it's jealousy that gives you your brainwashing? I see.

Why is it that Europeans, guilty of the same evils, blame everything on the US?

I don't have freedom? Tell me, if I can say anything I want, choose what I want to be, go where I want to go, buy what I want to buy, how I'm oppressed? You can't tell me that I'm oppressed, because I'm not.

Why do you see American "imperialism" and not see the Chinese pillage of Tibet, or their slaughtering of their own people in WW2?

Why don't you see the 20 million people massacred by Stalin in an attempt to socialize the Soviet Union? Why do you not see the countless numbers that died in wars the Soviets started to spread their system?

Why don't you see the oppressiveness of socialist dictatorships? The world economic powers only exist as such because they are based on capitalism. Name one major economic power that is not based on a capitalist economic system. Sure, everybody has some elements of socialism, including the US (welfare is one example), but the economic powers are all capitalist.

It is easy to proselytize the "evils" of a system when you benefit from the system yourself. Were it not for capitalism, you wouldn't have the computer to visit this forum on.

I see the "evils" of America, my question is why the world fails to see the good of America, and the evils of the rest of the world.

KaseiII · 2003-02-16 15:34:36

What you fail to realise is all your evils you mention are in the past. America is the largest present evil. And I do think of America's good. You have some of the best Universities in the world. Most of then in the North-East which is quite Europeanesque. But American self-righteousness does not allow them to see their own problems. And yes I am a bit jealous, or more resentful. For America does not deserve what it has. It is only so rich from getting money out of Britain and France during the World Wars. Profiting on death.

As in the famous quote..."History ended in 1917 when America became the most powerful nation on earth."

And i am not going to argue anymore. For i can never agree with you and you can never agree with me. We are both patriotic and should be. Ok.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-16 15:39:30

You know, it's probably well determined by now that I only see problems with capitalism when resources are abundant, or obviously, when they're run like mob states.

Any system wherein someone attempts or is able to become all powerful doesn't meet the true criteria for socialism (lowercase- non-Soviet, non-totalitarian, democratic, decentralized, etc- the systems Einstein, and surprisingly, even Orwell himself ascribed to). And by the same token, any system in which capital is regulated by a government (which all forms of successful capitalism have been), arguably doesn't meet the true criteria for capitalism. Or at least, the version of capitalism most pro-capitalists strive for.

The question isn't whether or not America has benefitted the world with its growth. The question is whether or not such growth has benefitted those who were directly harmed. So far the answer is no. And so far calling America evil in that context is fair.

soph · 2003-02-16 15:48:56

For America does not deserve what it has. It is only so rich from getting money out of Britain and France during the World Wars. Profiting on death.

Um, what? It was the other way around, buddy. The $36 billion Germany never paid, you know how it got the money in the first place? American banks. They loaned the money, intending to use it for the treaty repayments. After the public dissent against the treaty, they used it for themselves. We were robbed the modern day equivalent of hundreds of billions.

After the war, we handed Europe oodles and oodles of money. So who doesn't deserve what they have? We paid Europe, not vice versa. Don't fabricate.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-16 16:04:36

Oh well, US companies were licensed to do business with the Nazis, which is what I think KaseiII was getting at, so we benefitted from Hitlers Germany. Consider it Karma.

:laugh:

BTW, this topic has completely destroyed itself. I'm not going to reply to it anymore, unless someone wants to argue the true feasiblity of a bounty (which I think has been sufficiently debunked by now).

soph · 2003-02-16 16:12:47

I like my plan for a bounty. It gives a reasonable incentive to land, and it gives a fair amount of funding (say a $100 million for the first landing, $1 million for the next 4). It could be more of a Mars version of the Homestead Act than a bounty, though.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-16 16:23:56

I like your idea better, too. At least it defines limits. I personally don't go that far, because believe it or not, I'm not as ideological as people think I am- let the people do what they want, I say- let what works work.

I question the enforcablity of your 5 lot system, but perhaps it could work with a large enough population. $100 million is dooable, perhaps, especially with a cheap nuclear drive or whatever, which shortens the length of a trip and reduces mass by an easy factor of 7. But even still, you're not going to get a lot of people going for it, especially since, as we've seen with the X-Prize, people would need to pay into the bounty to pay for it.

In the case of the X-Prize, you have to pay $10k. In the case of this Mars prize, it seems you'd have to pay 100k, at the very least, to enter the competition. This would only be enticing to the richest people. And even then, from a profit point of view, people would look to Luna, since it's closer, etc. We've really been over all this several times before...

But yes, what you suggest is more akin to the Homestead Act than anything. Although you suggest much larger land portions...

soph · 2003-02-16 16:38:15

That's because the American West was much more accesible, and much more limited in size

It would take a company to get to Mars, and they would be required to develop about 60% themselves, keep 20% for scientific uses, and sell the other 20% to customers (screened internationally) to cover costs.

I was thinking $1 billion at first, but that is a bit much for each landing. Somewhere between $100 million and $500 million. The first landing would be a landmark, because the company could then mass produce their landers to land on and develop their property. Other companies will also want to buy their launch equipment, so they can get a stake. So, you will see a few competing companies, and many launches to Mars. A few large corporations will rise out of the race, the main suppliers of launch equipment.

Ever cheaper will be the motto of the pioneering companies. Any company that can scale down costs will become successful.

srmeaney · 2005-08-04 16:38:15

All well and great offering a bounty to get that first mission, but if China gets ther first, Will a US government shell out the reward to a Communist state?

Dayton Kitchens · 2005-12-22 10:15:10

I'm now officially off the bounty idea.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-02-08 12:32:39

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#27 2003-02-08 16:46:35

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#28 2003-02-08 18:26:24

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#29 2003-02-08 22:43:29

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#30 2003-02-09 10:10:25

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#31 2003-02-09 10:31:04

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#32 2003-02-09 10:57:32

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#33 2003-02-09 16:21:37

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#34 2003-02-09 16:47:54

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#35 2003-02-09 18:32:45

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#36 2003-02-16 07:35:34

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#37 2003-02-16 08:05:57

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#38 2003-02-16 10:51:22

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#39 2003-02-16 10:58:29

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#40 2003-02-16 12:37:04

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#41 2003-02-16 12:44:13

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#42 2003-02-16 15:34:36

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#43 2003-02-16 15:39:30

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#44 2003-02-16 15:48:56

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#45 2003-02-16 16:04:36

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#46 2003-02-16 16:12:47

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#47 2003-02-16 16:23:56

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#48 2003-02-16 16:38:15

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#49 2005-08-04 16:38:15

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

#50 2005-12-22 10:15:10

Re: Why Not Offer A "Bounty" For A Mars Mission - 10 Billion dollars for the first

Board footer