You are not logged in.
I placed this in the human missions because it was the best place for it.
I've just been flicking through the Outer Space Treaty. Don't get you're hopes up about living on Mars, it's banned under international treaty.
Article II
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
Let's dissect that.
by means of use or occupation
Sorry, no habs or colonies.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Nope. The treaty simply says Mars can not be appropriated by occupation, just as Antarctic bases do not justify claims of sovereignty. Occupation is not prohibited, neither are habs or colonies.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
But there isn't an incentive for a nation to seed a colony on Mars. And I can't think why a private company would want to. Bottom line: No-one lives on Mars. If a private company Para-terraforms a part of Mars, anyone can move in without paying cash to the company, therefore there is no incentive.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
But there isn't an incentive for a nation to seed a colony on Mars. And I can't think why a private company would want to. Bottom line: No-one lives on Mars. If a private company Para-terraforms a part of Mars, anyone can move in without paying cash to the company, therefore there is no incentive.
The UN is a joke that appeases dictators. Nothing annoys the UN more than to have the United States enforce its decisions.
So if the UN doesn't want to be taken seriously, then why should we?
Offline
Private companies have many reasons to expand to Mars, 1) to develop new technology and advance new ideas, 2) to gain access to material resources at a lower cost than from earth, 3) because private companies expanding into space will become as large in assets as some nations, they could make their own rules about space and they haven't signed the international treaty, also not all countries signed the treaty as well.
So, Terraformer, don't think that all private company's have the same agenda regarding Mars or any other bodies in space.
Offline
The outer space treaty was a means to an end. It stopped tensions that could have led to nuclear war as both sides had plans to make the Moon the ultimate in missile platforms. A race that neither side could really afford.
Still it is dated but not completely worthless. One point is that though a nation cannot own the body it is on it is allowed to use the materials of that body to push its space programme.
The spacecraft and base are considered territory of the nation that launched or own the vehicle. They cannot be interfered with.
So any base that is placed on Mars by the USA is USA land. It just is sitting on land it does not own. It cannot be interfered with and as such anything it makes from the materials there are also USA owned.
It will come down to how wide the area that the base will control so that it wont be interfered with. A common courtesy zone in other words.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
I'd say about 5 km sounds about right. This is all temporary of course, because eventually humans will own Mars, it is simply a matter of arriving at who owns what without resort to violence. Actually property ownership is essential to economic development, it allows among other things the use of land as collateral for a loan for capital improvents and so forth. I think the pertenent question is whether he who colonizes Mars the most gets Mars the most. A bit of realpolitic is involved here. I think 5 km exclusion zones is reasonable, you have to expect the colonial powers to be able to enforce this and defend their territory to some degree, otherwise its point less. None of the space going powers has the capability to defend an entire planet at this time, we simply can't get enough people out there to do that job.
Offline
I'd say about 5 km sounds about right.
Actually 5kms is not enough room as far as I can see. Both the Moon and Mars will rely on the ability to utilise the surrounding regolith to create breathable air and to provide materials and items needed for any base. 5kms sounds a lot but it can be quickly used in any long term bases.
I dont really think we can get down to specific sizes of land that is considered occupied or being used as it will come down to what operation is currently going on.
Still it will come down to international agreement as the Outer Space treaty has to be either superseeded by another more pertinent treaty. (A difficult proposal as just about every nation will jump on to the bandwagon and most will not be willing to allow the current space powers to get a chance to dominate space) or we can try to change the OST to become more effective (again another difficult proposal but not as hard)
This is all temporary of course, because eventually humans will own Mars, it is simply a matter of arriving at who owns what without resort to violence. Actually property ownership is essential to economic development, it allows among other things the use of land as collateral for a loan for capital improvents and so forth. I think the pertenent question is whether he who colonizes Mars the most gets Mars the most. A bit of realpolitic is involved here. I think 5 km exclusion zones is reasonable, you have to expect the colonial powers to be able to enforce this and defend their territory to some degree, otherwise its point less. None of the space going powers has the capability to defend an entire planet at this time, we simply can't get enough people out there to do that job.
I do agree but that is a capatilistic proposal and unfortunatly in this type of brokerage the likes of Socialist Venezuela have just as much say as the USA.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Nope. The treaty simply says Mars can not be appropriated by occupation, just as Antarctic bases do not justify claims of sovereignty. Occupation is not prohibited, neither are habs or colonies.
It's specifically said that anyone who puts or builds something there must maintain control over it. They may not refuse reasonable requests for entrance from anyone else, but a certain small area around anything you've placed there is under your control.
Courts will agree that maintaining control entails a certain amount of control over who wanders in & around your site.
You could probably evict squatters, if they simply move in and take over.
Another important point is that as they say "posession is most of the law" In this case, it means that if you're there, you're the law. Anyone who has problems with the way you run things, needs to be there to do anything about it.
Offline
Terraformer -
A private company might want to do it because that's its object. Space X and Elon Musk seem to have that aim there.
A private company with sufficient funds could use a small country back on earth as a means of operating from Earth. I think Space X has done that with a small Pacific country have they not?
So one can envisage a situation where a company gets to Mars first and establishes human settlement and lays claim to the planet or part of the planet. It is not much different from the way companies like the old East India Company operated in the past.
I have suggested that such a company ought to establish a Mars government framework and seek to get that ratified with the UN so as to provide a framework for follow up missions from UN states.
An established Mars settlement would have ways of controlling later expeditions and obliging them to go through the equivalent of customs checks.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
I placed this in the human missions because it was the best place for it.
I've just been flicking through the Outer Space Treaty. Don't get you're hopes up about living on Mars, it's banned under international treaty.
Article II
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.Let's dissect that.
by means of use or occupation
Sorry, no habs or colonies.
So what, if a power has settled a sizable population and has enough fire power to defend it, it isnt theirs.
Thats nonesense.
Offline
Terraformer -
The treaty doesn't say you can't have settlements, it just says you can't appropriate the land to a nation. But a private company is not a nation. And a Planetary Settlement Protocol created by the private company is not a nation.
A private company might establish such a protocol which required that all further expeditions and settlements are approved through the main base on Mars. All visitors to Mars would have to show credentials at this base and be authorised to use power equipment on the surface of Mars and to have the aims of their visit and/or settlement approved. Any person failing to respect the protocol might have the power supply cut off and other equipment confiscated. The people in the unauthorised settlement would face the prospect of leaving the planet or being taken to the main base for their own safety.
I am not saying this is a great road to go down, but it is feasible and could be a bargaining chip in negotiations between the UN and Mars/the private company.
I think it is important to retain the aim of Mars being a single self-governing global community and not subject to the laws of earth bound states or the UN.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Terraformer -
The treaty doesn't say you can't have settlements, it just says you can't appropriate the land to a nation. But a private company is not a nation. And a Planetary Settlement Protocol created by the private company is not a nation.
A private company might establish such a protocol which required that all further expeditions and settlements are approved through the main base on Mars. All visitors to Mars would have to show credentials at this base and be authorised to use power equipment on the surface of Mars and to have the aims of their visit and/or settlement approved. Any person failing to respect the protocol might have the power supply cut off and other equipment confiscated. The people in the unauthorised settlement would face the prospect of leaving the planet or being taken to the main base for their own safety.
I am not saying this is a great road to go down, but it is feasible and could be a bargaining chip in negotiations between the UN and Mars/the private company.
I think it is important to retain the aim of Mars being a single self-governing global community and not subject to the laws of earth bound states or the UN.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Shouldn't this be in Space Politics. not Martian Politics?
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Terraformer -
The treaty doesn't say you can't have settlements, it just says you can't appropriate the land to a nation. But a private company is not a nation. And a Planetary Settlement Protocol created by the private company is not a nation.
A private company might establish such a protocol which required that all further expeditions and settlements are approved through the main base on Mars. All visitors to Mars would have to show credentials at this base and be authorised to use power equipment on the surface of Mars and to have the aims of their visit and/or settlement approved. Any person failing to respect the protocol might have the power supply cut off and other equipment confiscated. The people in the unauthorised settlement would face the prospect of leaving the planet or being taken to the main base for their own safety.
I am not saying this is a great road to go down, but it is feasible and could be a bargaining chip in negotiations between the UN and Mars/the private company.
I think it is important to retain the aim of Mars being a single self-governing global community and not subject to the laws of earth bound states or the UN.
The "protocols" of this private company would not likely to be legally binding, and several of the colonists might decided to break the face of whomever used punitive action upon them (like cutting power).
They could hardly act as a immigration office for Mars since they don't have a legally binding claim to the territory. Again, colonists in riots and face breaking on a large scale even if they acted like such.
Private companies ultimately rely on governments to enforce property rights. Without this, they are pretty much defenseless.
Offline
The idea of mars as a single self-governing planet will never work. Who would want to go to mars then? Escape Earth only to find the same situation on Mars, just with a harder workload? Mars should be kept free. People should be allowed to set up colonies wherever they want to, and Hold as much as they can.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Terraformer -
I think we're looking for quite a loose form of government. No one really governs the Antarctic at the moment. I'm not saying we need an Antarctic Treaty, but that just illustrates the point that not everywhere needs to be run by a centralised state machine.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Terraformer -
I think we're looking for quite a loose form of government. No one really governs the Antarctic at the moment. I'm not saying we need an Antarctic Treaty, but that just illustrates the point that not everywhere needs to be run by a centralised state machine.
The reason for that are obvious. At most, 4000 people are living in Antartica as researchers. Under treaties, they are forbidden to appropriate its mineral resources. It's being kept as a pristine enviroment and nobody is settling it in any real way.
Settling Mars and exploiting its resources will create a need for some form of governance and organization or there will be conflicts. Hopefully, thats a democratic form of governance - whatever the settlers of the planet want for the planet goes etc etc
Offline
Sorry Chris Columbus, you cant sail west, you'll fall off the end of the earth.
Sorry America, you can't be independent, it's against British law.
Sorry Mars, you can't have any of your own planet, it's against an anachronistic treaty that was signed before man even landed on the moon.
Sure.
Offline
A form of governance will be unavoidable on Mars as it becomes more and more populated. There needs to be a set of laws, rights, rules and regulations agreed on by most people etc etc
Otherwise there will be utter chaos. Companies will be unable to protect their investment without a Martian Government or backing from a Earth based nation state.
The reality is that several nation states will have landed humans on the Moon and Mars by the end of 21st Century and they certainly aren't going there just for the sightseeing. They are going to want to appropriate a portion of the planets resources or establish trade that effectively does the same. Disputes will have to be resolved between all these powers.
A form of governing council on Mars thats democratically elected will be needed once a permanent population has settled.
It would be very suprising if one of Earth's powers didn't prop up a Martian government on the planet.
They can't appropriate the territory themselves without ripping up several treaties and coming to blows with all the other countries, but they can't stop the people of Mars making a claim of sovereignty and forming a government that happens to be pro - (insert name of powerful Earth Nation) and that would give preferential treatment to that Nation's trade and corporations, protecting its material property and IP etc etc
Offline
Shouldn't this be in Space Politics. not Martian Politics?
Probably but it is about our hopes to colonise Mars and how this is affected by the current treaties which apply to all missions in space from Voyager to manned missions.
Any private company acting in space will be the subject of the outer space treaty and will have to be linked to a home base country. In space that countries laws will apply to the vehicle and its contents and it will be the country that is liable if that vehicle damages other countries property. This still may create the flag of opportunity scenario where private companies are technically operating from countries that did not launch the mission as a tax saving method or that the laws of that country allow for easier working conditions.
When we come to Mars and other large bodies it makes sense that there is legislation in place to actually deal with conflict scenarios and to allow utilisation of resources. This may come down to creating for Mars a Martian authority where disagreements and problems can be ironed out before they become too serious and to deal with legal situations as they happen. But this authority will also be a means to increase use of Mars and to promote cooperation and increase infrastructure to make viable colonies.
If we dont have something in place Before we land then you can almost guarantee that chaos will happen and that the countries that send missions and build bases on the Mars will have to go to the UN and the world court to sort out these issues and have to wait a long time for resolution.
And dont even get me on the trouble that terraforming would be without the authority there to ok it. Terraforming would affect all bases and all probes so everything on the planet would be affected and whichever country attempted it unless it had backing of a Martian authority would find itself in a legal quaqmire of epic proportions to just operate.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Terraorming is clear cut: You're either for it or not. So we can have a nice democratic vote on it and will be able to have a clear majority.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
No Terraformer it is not clear cut. What you are doing is actively changing a whole planet. Every country that is operation on that planet from simple probes to large manned bases will be affected and therefore has a say in what happens. You will be affecting the property of those countries.
Imagine this as an example. China which has a large base starts to terraform Mars but there is a small USA base located near the North pole. The poles start to melt and water starts to flood the USA's base.
Who is responsible China of course and it is China that would have to pay compensation to the USA for its actions. But as noted Terraforming is a global development that affects everyone present on Mars and whoever does it is liable for all future effects due to the terraforming.
So vote away but remember in this vote one nay stops the whole project.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Unless the over 'Ayes' promise to pay compensation to the one 'Nay'. But then everyone will say 'Nay'.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Im reasonably sure that when we start to get Mars Colonised then those countries involved will form at least a committee to talk over disputes and of course to make decisions to benefit all. There is plenty of things to discuss from placing of emergency shelters to what quage should we use in the development of rail across the planet.
It will simply be a matter of commen sense to have it exist and it will as everything start small and get bigger as time develops.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline