Musk's plans for Mars

GW Johnson · 2016-10-03 15:01:09

Say Musk sends people to Mars. Those folks mine something.

Legal under treaties or not, just who the hell else is going to go out there and try to arrest them?

Nobody else has a transportation means to go there. Not for one whale of a long time. Piss off Musk and you never ride his ships.

So what's all the big deal about space law? I think all this will get settled in a very practical way. Eventually. After some fait accompli's.

As for Musk's trip plans, a case could be made to slow down and use the 180 day free-return trajectory. But I'd bet Musk doesn't do that until he loses a ship. Or two. Dead crew problem.

Otherwise, as far as the ships go, advanced life support and advanced suits, and advanced radiation shielding doesn't matter. Even at Hohmann min energy 8.5 months one-way, microgravity and GCR exposures are acceptable. And you can just pack the supplies to eat, drink, and breathe. That's why one passenger equates to one ton of cargo.

I do worry about solar flare events, which could be quite lethal without a place to shelter. And a carbon-composite ship structure is no shield at all. The people will have to hide behind the cargo tonnage, or die. Maybe just die.

Advanced life support and better suits matter for the base on Mars, not the ship that gets you there. Using those as an excuse not to build the ship and go is a NASA/political thing, not a Musk thing. And not a most-of-the-rest-of-us thing.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-10-03 15:12:43)

kbd512 · 2016-10-03 15:34:37

Terraformer wrote:

kbd512, the great thing about those things (life support, ISPP, and MCP suits) is that they don't require billion dollar budgets to develop - whilst the total development cost might be measured in the billions, the different components can be developed separately. The best thing various space organisations such as Mars Society could be doing is probably to support such work.
As regards Musk's mega rocket, I'm more interested in the possibilities for building a new space station, a combination of a depot, space business park, and research centre for the things we'll need to colonise space.

Terraformer,

I think those are all great ideas, but it's still mission failure by entropy, to paraphrase Dr. Zubrin. We develop technology because we want to do something worthwhile with a technology. There are technologies we need to develop for humans to live in space indefinitely and projects we can postpone until after we've actually set foot on Mars. The more money and attention you take away from real space exploration technologies, no matter how well-intentioned, the longer you'll have to wait to go somewhere and do something worthwhile.

Terraformer · 2016-10-03 16:20:27

Say Musk sends people to Mars. Those folks mine something.
Legal under treaties or not, just who the hell else is going to go out there and try to arrest them?

They don't have to arrest you, they can seize your assets back on Terra. Until you're self sufficient, they hold the upper hand. It's also very difficult to issue rights to the gold in your vault, for trading back on Earth, if those rights won't be recognised, and any gold that is withdrawn is seized upon arrival.

As regards gold mining, though, I think it could actually work. The total amount of mined gold in existence is 171,000 tonnes. At the moment, gold is around $42 million US per tonne, so 1000 tonnes would be worth $42 billion. That's less than 1% of the current gold available, so I don't think it's going to cause the price to collapse. At the moment, all that gold is worth $7.2 trillion. If we got 1% of that in our Martian vault, we'd have $72 billion available. Enough to fund the seed settlement, after which we can start selling semi-para-terraformed (thin atmosphere, just about habitable for plants) land?

louis · 2016-10-03 18:47:30

I think Terraformer is arguing differently...but taking your point, I think that is irrelevant in terms of a sole occupier of Mars.

If for sake of argument Musk reaches Mars first and decides to extract gold, he has effective if not fully legal ownership rights as in no one else is going to come and try and mine where he is mining. Even if you don't "own" something if you are allowed to exploit it then that is the equivalent to ownership and it is v. difficult for anyone to muscle in on your operation.

Mark Friedenbach wrote:

I don't think anyone is arguing differently, louis
The problem is the lack of mining claims -- the exclusive right to extract resources from an area. Without the ability to file and enforce mining claims we find ourselves in a situation where no one is willing to invest the capital necessary to build new businesses.

louis · 2016-10-03 18:51:21

I agree entirely. This is the NASA "diffusion" problem. Because they have allowed every scientist and technologist to make their pitch they have ended up with a diffuse range of projects. We (ie humans) need to refocus on Mars. NASA is a lost cause. Musk has the right focus. Also I believe once we have colonised Mars we will have a fantastic platform for investigating the rest of the solar system and the wider universe.

kbd512 wrote:

Terraformer wrote:
kbd512, the great thing about those things (life support, ISPP, and MCP suits) is that they don't require billion dollar budgets to develop - whilst the total development cost might be measured in the billions, the different components can be developed separately. The best thing various space organisations such as Mars Society could be doing is probably to support such work.
As regards Musk's mega rocket, I'm more interested in the possibilities for building a new space station, a combination of a depot, space business park, and research centre for the things we'll need to colonise space.
Terraformer,
I think those are all great ideas, but it's still mission failure by entropy, to paraphrase Dr. Zubrin. We develop technology because we want to do something worthwhile with a technology. There are technologies we need to develop for humans to live in space indefinitely and projects we can postpone until after we've actually set foot on Mars. The more money and attention you take away from real space exploration technologies, no matter how well-intentioned, the longer you'll have to wait to go somewhere and do something worthwhile.

SpaceNut · 2016-10-03 19:28:40

The plan is grand in size and dream leaping from what a Red Dragon might be capable of doing all the way to landing a colony ready to work.
Its steps are huge.....

Void · 2016-10-03 20:27:21

So could this ship make it at the location of the phonex lander?
th?&id=OIP.Made017cce1fafb7905376eccc826a761o0&w=300&h=150&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0

I believe it is flat, and has ice. Can the ice support it's weight?

It needs lots of ice, so there are;
-The two polar deposits around the ice caps or;
-Mid-Latitude glaciers or;
-Speculated fossil ice in the Mariner Rift Valley or places like it around the equator.

I think they could get small nuclear reactors from the Russians, and perhaps others?

I am under the impression that spacesuits of today will not be sufficient for the polar areas even in the summer. Is that true?

Last edited by Void (2016-10-03 20:32:31)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-10-03 20:44:45

Void wrote:

So could this ship make it at the location of the phonex lander?
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.Mad … =0&p=0&r=0
I believe it is flat, and has ice. Can the ice support it's weight?
It needs lots of ice, so there are;
-The two polar deposits around the ice caps or;
-Mid-Latitude glaciers or;
-Speculated fossil ice in the Mariner Rift Valley or places like it around the equator.
I think they could get small nuclear reactors from the Russians, and perhaps others?
I am under the impression that spacesuits of today will not be sufficient for the polar areas even in the summer. Is that true?

Why not? Remember the movie the Martian, where it starts out with a dust storm that knocks down an antenna which impale an astronaut? In real life this could not happen, even the fiercest winds have only the force of a light breeze on Earth, the same can be held true of the atmosphere's ability to carry away heat, with a less than 1% atmosphere, the air might be way colder than Antartica, but it just can't dra the heat away from a suit that a blizzard in Antarctica can do on Earth. The worst part about it would be the heat drawn away through the soles of your boots, but I shouldn't be too much trouble to add extra thermal insulation there.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-10-03 20:46:52

Terraformer wrote:

Say Musk sends people to Mars. Those folks mine something.
Legal under treaties or not, just who the hell else is going to go out there and try to arrest them?
They don't have to arrest you, they can seize your assets back on Terra. Until you're self sufficient, they hold the upper hand. It's also very difficult to issue rights to the gold in your vault, for trading back on Earth, if those rights won't be recognised, and any gold that is withdrawn is seized upon arrival.
As regards gold mining, though, I think it could actually work. The total amount of mined gold in existence is 171,000 tonnes. At the moment, gold is around $42 million US per tonne, so 1000 tonnes would be worth $42 billion. That's less than 1% of the current gold available, so I don't think it's going to cause the price to collapse. At the moment, all that gold is worth $7.2 trillion. If we got 1% of that in our Martian vault, we'd have $72 billion available. Enough to fund the seed settlement, after which we can start selling semi-para-terraformed (thin atmosphere, just about habitable for plants) land?

There is no Terran Government to arrest you, instead there are lots of countries, land in the right country and they won't arrest you!

Mark Friedenbach · 2016-10-04 00:23:43

The problem is not supposed space priates that muscle you out of your mining operation and take everything. The problem is the competitors who see you setup operation and decide and decide to move over and drill right next to you. And all of their friends, too. And they flew on different flags of convenience, so doing anything about it becomes an international affair.

Companies like Rio Tinto are willing to invest tens of billions of dollars into setting up a gold (and other) mining operations because they are given assurances about exclusivity that allow them to amortize the start-up cost over the 30-50 years of the expected life of the mine. They will not be willing to invest such sums of money if the moment they strike it big every other mining company will relocate next to them and run the same veins dry.

I will assert that this is in fact all that is stopping major resource extraction firms from setting up extraterrestrial mining operations. I've spoken with representatives of these companies who are attending new space conferences to keep tabs on the growing commercial space industry. What is needed is a property rights regime for land use of the Moon, Mars, and asteroids. Some rate-limiting process that issues 99-year resellable leases for exclusive use and claim to the resources extracted from a well defined volume of extraterrestrial land.

The Outer Space Treaty prevents the direct application of existing mining claim laws, since those depend on states claiming sovereignty over the land itself. However this could be maneuvered around in either of two ways. First alternative, by pushing for new international treaties under the UN, in the same manner as the International Seabed Authority was created. This has a lot of downsides however, as shown with the ISA, in that it is likely to become politicized and the goals perverted in order get ratification from the major players. Second, direct contracts between launch and equipment providers could be used to bootstrap a mining claims registry that exists outside of the international law framework, but is effective nonetheless. It could later become international law untouched once its effectiveness is established.

The latter approach is my preference and it works today, thanks to the existence and market dominance of SpaceX. It was also a business model I was working on until recently, and would be happy to mentor anyone who wants to take it up.

Last edited by Mark Friedenbach (2016-10-04 00:26:06)

Impaler · 2016-10-04 01:25:20

Mark Friedenbach wrote:

The Outer Space Treaty prevents the direct application of existing mining claim laws, since those depend on states claiming sovereignty over the land itself. However this could be maneuvered around in either of two ways. First alternative, by pushing for new international treaties under the UN, in the same manner as the International Seabed Authority was created. This has a lot of downsides however, as shown with the ISA, in that it is likely to become politicized and the goals perverted in order get ratification from the major players. Second, direct contracts between launch and equipment providers could be used to bootstrap a mining claims registry that exists outside of the international law framework, but is effective nonetheless. It could later become international law untouched once its effectiveness is established.
The latter approach is my preference and it works today, thanks to the existence and market dominance of SpaceX. It was also a business model I was working on until recently, and would be happy to mentor anyone who wants to take it up.

Their is no such thing as 'exists outside of the international law framework' and 'is effective nonetheless', these are mutually exclusive terms.

The strategy of a Internationally recognized claim granting organization is the only feasible means to entice investment in resource extraction. The history of the ISA proves this beyond a doubt, the US tried to run it's own unilateral claims and without any international legitimacy it just stagnated the whole field, including the ISA claims being developed because industry didn't want to jump until it knew which claims regime was going to be the winner, in essence it was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-defi … format_war all over again.

No framework created unilaterally would be functional due to the OuterSpace Treaty, as signatories nations can't make or recognize any other nations claims so no set of reciprocal recognized claims between the leading space-fairing nations could be created, that was the point to prevent the super-powers from carving up the 'new world' between themselves and locking the rest of the world out.

Like it or not the rest of the world is going to get a say in how space resources are collected and distributed. SpaceX is not Americas ticket to do an end run around the OuterSpace Treaty, it would be bad for their business and I'm sure Musk would resist it. The very notion that treaties are to be dispensed with once one is in a position of power is an anathema to the very idea of the rule of law.

Last edited by Impaler (2016-10-04 01:39:27)

Mark Friedenbach · 2016-10-04 02:36:16

Impaler, I'm quite surprised you hold that opinion, given what we've worked on together outside of this forum. Maybe my explanation wasn't clear? By "outside of the international law framework" I mean "not explicitly governed by existing treaties," and NOT "illegal." Contractual agreements have weight irregardless of whether the the subject matter is explicitly regulated or not. E.g. SpaceX can mandate everyone they fly sign contracts entering themselves into a private industry regulatory regime which is able to use regular old contract law to extract remuninations from any signatories that do business with claim jumpers. You could still claim jump, but you'd be effectively cut off from all supply lines. Economic incentives keep this going, not the threat of criminal convictions.

Last edited by Mark Friedenbach (2016-10-04 02:37:53)

Terraformer · 2016-10-04 02:49:25

If mining the same vein would mean interfering with the equipment of the first miner, then that is prohibited under the OST. You can't interfere with the normal operation of another's base.

Which suggests to me that you should just tent over the entire place and claim it as your base, with some moderate paraterraforming.

Mark Friedenbach · 2016-10-04 02:55:48

Terraformer, you could mine it from another entrance. The tent idea works for the surface, but not underground resources.

GW Johnson · 2016-10-04 10:19:35

Responding to kbd512's list in post 146 above, there's advanced life support, making propellant at destination, and better space suits.

Only one of those is necessary for Musk's big transport vehicle: making propellant. He's addressing this one way or another by doing LOX-LCH4 out of Martian air and ice mining for water. I don't know where he is getting his hardware, but it doesn't look to me like he is waiting around for the government to do this. So whether NASA funds this or not is irrelevant to Musk's efforts.

His ship design shows shorter-than-min-energy travel times, so microgravity and radiation exposures (except solar flares) are not a serious problem. And you can just pack the food water and air to breathe. So whether NASA ever funds work in these areas is fast becoming irrelevant. Musk (and soon some others) are literally leaving the government in the dust.

It's what gets built on Mars that needs the advanced life support and the advanced space suit. That starts as a small base, growing slowly into a real settlement, and later a "real" city. They need something better than a recycling life support system for space stations, they need a real closed ecology. That's something we have so far been unable to do, the example being that biosphere thing out in Arizona.

It'll get developed on Mars the hard way, I think. To that end, I hope they land with the crew sewage and offload it into storage for later use as fertilizer for farming. There was no mention of anything like that in Musk's presentation. But it will have to be done. He talks about continuing flights, so I think he is talking about regular life support resupply, until such time (undetermined) when the settlement population successfully does create a closed ecology.

The MCP suit is not a high-dollar item, unless you go to an "old space" suit contractor. It can be done Earthside, and final-demo'd at ISS, or just in orbit as an EVA. Whether NASA ever lets Dava Newman build one of these "for real", somebody else somewhere else certainly can. I think it likely one of these "new space" companies will just do it for themselves. But I wholeheartedly agree, MCP is required. There's no practical way for a person to live and work and explore on Mars wearing the ridiculous contraptions we are using, or that have been proposed.

As for power: my guess is that one of the very first cargoes Musk sends will be part fuel factory and part solar electric power supply. Later, as the base grows, I bet they find a way to use a combination of solar and nuclear. And eventually invent something home-grown on Mars.

Kbd512's other topic was in space propulsion. For Musk's purposes, he's already sidestepped that with his transport rocket design. For the others that will follow, this is still quite real. There's things nuclear, and there's things electric, that both need doing. The nuclear stuff is fairly dangerous, one way or another. Neither can be developed hanging in space where every test is a flight test. The electric stuff really needs vacuum for its workings. All in all, I'd say the perfect place to do this is on the moon, where there are no neighbors to annoy, and no air/water to pollute. There's no better reason than that to go back, really.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-10-04 10:31:09)

Void · 2016-10-04 12:22:46

GW Johnson said:

There's things nuclear, and there's things electric, that both need doing. The nuclear stuff is fairly dangerous, one way or another. Neither can be developed hanging in space where every test is a flight test. The electric stuff really needs vacuum for its workings. All in all, I'd say the perfect place to do this is on the moon, where there are no neighbors to annoy, and no air/water to pollute. There's no better reason than that to go back,

Jeff Bezos seems to be heading to the Moon, Elon Musk to Mars.
Not actually in direct competition, I think, just competitive for glory.
http://qz.com/779719/amazons-jeff-bezos … -the-moon/

While I do believe they are each acting within the most important of dreams, I also believe they are reaching for the money as well. (And that's a good sign).

For Musk, this triggers thoughts in my head:
http://www.space.com/24984-spacex-mars- … ragon.html
(Using the dragon to access Mars robotically.)
Obviously he hopes his company to be paid for services rendered.
And the more possible to render services, the more potential customers.

But there could be another twist to it. Those operations might give data to create a hopper spaceship, a sub-orbital version for use on Mars. I can see several situations where it would be valuable.

Shifting personal from the south polar region to the north and vice versa according to seasons. Moving people up and down in the Mariner Rift Valley, if it proves true that there are massive fossil ice deposits to be found under the floor of the rift valley. General transport.

Fitting all this together, it begins to make a sort of macro sense, at least to me.

Done

Last edited by Void (2016-10-04 12:34:34)

Antius · 2016-10-04 16:00:54

Some low-tech solutions for early Mars settlement.

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com

Water power networks aren't as easy in 2/5th gravity, as you need 2.5 times as much flowrate at the same head. But low-voltage DC might be the way to go for power networks in a compact base. Compressed CO2 would likely power many mechanical devices as it is easier to build compressed air tools than motor driven tools. The green house and fruit wall posts are as applicable to Mars as they are on Earth. Timbril vaulting provides a means of building floors and roofs using interlocking tiles, which avoids the need for wood or any other supporting members.

Last edited by Antius (2016-10-04 16:04:07)

louis · 2016-10-04 17:23:08

Yes, there's a lot of focus on Rovers but really a "space hopper" - Red Dragon or whatever makes a lot of sense. I guess what you need to do is position propellant making facilities (gas stations I guess) all over the planet.

Void wrote:

GW Johnson said:
There's things nuclear, and there's things electric, that both need doing. The nuclear stuff is fairly dangerous, one way or another. Neither can be developed hanging in space where every test is a flight test. The electric stuff really needs vacuum for its workings. All in all, I'd say the perfect place to do this is on the moon, where there are no neighbors to annoy, and no air/water to pollute. There's no better reason than that to go back,
Jeff Bezos seems to be heading to the Moon, Elon Musk to Mars.
Not actually in direct competition, I think, just competitive for glory.
http://qz.com/779719/amazons-jeff-bezos … -the-moon/
While I do believe they are each acting within the most important of dreams, I also believe they are reaching for the money as well. (And that's a good sign).
For Musk, this triggers thoughts in my head:
http://www.space.com/24984-spacex-mars- … ragon.html
(Using the dragon to access Mars robotically.)
Obviously he hopes his company to be paid for services rendered.
And the more possible to render services, the more potential customers.
But there could be another twist to it. Those operations might give data to create a hopper spaceship, a sub-orbital version for use on Mars. I can see several situations where it would be valuable.
Shifting personal from the south polar region to the north and vice versa according to seasons. Moving people up and down in the Mariner Rift Valley, if it proves true that there are massive fossil ice deposits to be found under the floor of the rift valley. General transport.
Fitting all this together, it begins to make a sort of macro sense, at least to me.
Done

kbd512 · 2016-10-04 17:49:36

GW,

Mr. Musk has to transport a propellant plant that can make hundreds of tons of LOX and LCH4 propellants on Mars from Martian water. How much easier would that task be if it was a substantially smaller volume of water that only had to be electrolyzed into LOX and LH2 for a LOX augmented NTR with triple the Isp of LOX / LCH4?

Is it even realistic to produce and store that amount of propellant with solar panels on a planet that's 50% farther from the Sun than Earth?

The first order of business is going to be making the propellant to get that massive and expensive spaceship back. The LANTR already has the power plant built into the rocket to produce the heat and electrical power required to melt and electrolyze the water.

How are we getting those huge, delicate solar panels from a cargo hold 30M up in the air onto the rocket to the surface of Mars, never mind the massive LOX plant, without a crane? Let's assume no storage tanks are required at all because we can use the rocket's propellant storage tanks, which realistically won't be the case for a number of reasons, but let's assume no heavy storage tanks are required. The propellant plant is still going to be the size of a CONEX box. After you melt the water, you have to store it somewhere until you can convert it into oxidizer and fuel.

It's a cool concept, but let's figure out what the power and intermediate product storage requirements are for the propellant plant. That spaceship weighs 150t dry. I think it's too heavy and too tall. Even if you can land it perfectly, every time, you have to get the cargo off the ship without tipping over.

This stack might actually work:

BFR SI (no change) + BFR SII (just the stage, no spaceship) + 4 LANTR (Tri-modal NTR) for TMI / TEI / EDL / ISPP

* BFR SI and BFR SII send the stack to LEO
* LANTR stage refuels on Mars after EDL and at GEO upon return to Earth
* LANTR thrust and Sip is high enough for MOI + EDL and MOI + TEI + EOI with refueling
* The reactor is the power plant for refueling on Mars is attached to the rocket
* Potential to use LOX from lunar sources to lower IMLEO

First Launch Opportunity - Colony Infrastructure

BFR SI + BFR SII + LANTR SIII deliver three tuna cans to LMO

Tuna Can 1 - One LOX / LH2 plant powered by LANTR
Tuna Can 2 - Two electric STRV-103 derivative tracked vehicles to manipulate the Tunnel Boring Machine and serve as earth movers
Tuna Can 3 - One nuclear powered 5M diameter Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) and primary power plant for the colony

Construction crew comes back to Earth in Tuna Can 2, LANTR stage is separated and taken to ISS for inspection / refurbishment

Second Launch Opportunity - Colony Commissioning

30 colonists in BEAM habitat for in-space transfer and three tuna cans delivered to ISS by BFR SI + BFR SII with fuel to refuel LANTR's

Tuna Can 1 - Inflatable atmosphere and water processor modules
Tuna Can 2 - Inflatable colonist quarters and communications modules
Tuna Can 3 - Inflatable medical and greenhouse modules

LANTR's mated to BEAM and tuna cans to transfer the colonists to Mars.

The colonists load up in the first tuna to setup the first two modules. The ISPP plant refuels the LANTR to retrieve Tuna Can 2 and 3 from orbit.

Impaler · 2016-10-05 00:51:57

Mark Friedenbach wrote:

Impaler, I'm quite surprised you hold that opinion, given what we've worked on together outside of this forum. Maybe my explanation wasn't clear? By "outside of the international law framework" I mean "not explicitly governed by existing treaties," and NOT "illegal." Contractual agreements have weight irregardless of whether the the subject matter is explicitly regulated or not. E.g. SpaceX can mandate everyone they fly sign contracts entering themselves into a private industry regulatory regime which is able to use regular old contract law to extract remuninations from any signatories that do business with claim jumpers. You could still claim jump, but you'd be effectively cut off from all supply lines. Economic incentives keep this going, not the threat of criminal convictions.

Remember I'm as socialist not a libertarian, the idea that contracts can take the place of actual law is not something I subscribe too, and in fact I consider it a dangerous fantasy.

The situation you describe of SpaceX required some kind of resource extraction claim recognizing clause in order to be flown under the threat of embargo would never work. Presumably the US government not SpaceX is the body granting said claims as efforts are already underway to grant such claims though only US entities are bound to respect them. So this would essentially be a blatant attempt to use a launch monopoly to bind international companies to a unilateral US claims system.

No mining company foreign or domestic is going to invest if their claim is recognized only in the US and enforced only by a temporary launch monopoly from a US company. As soon as someone else gets launch capability, infringement on claims would begin immediately and all of the recognition contracts would be terminated. This idea is not something SpaceX would ever go for, though I can see Congressional Republicans being so stupid as to pass laws requiring that all US launch companies only do business with customers that recognize US claims, the blow-back from that would be incredible and quite crippling to the whole US launch sector.

Mark Friedenbach · 2016-10-05 02:33:07

Impaler wrote:

Presumably the US government not SpaceX is the body granting said claims as efforts are already underway to grant such claims though only US entities are bound to respect them.

Maybe. There are rumblings about such a registry among staffers at the hill. But my original plan was an industry group, which is something that has precedence. It is actually the US government's preference that industry try to sort out these problems first in a self-regulation regime before a government solution is tried.

The natural evolution of this approach over time is that the self-regulation regime becomes officially recognized by the international community through international treaties. I'm not so much of a libertarian as to reject that. But starting as a self-regulation regime allows for an effective registry to exist at the time at which it becomes politicized, which greatly reduces the chance that it will be perverted by political process as the seabed authority was.

Last edited by Mark Friedenbach (2016-10-05 02:33:32)

louis · 2016-10-05 14:44:32

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/s … reaty.html

Seems to me the Outer Space Treaty makes clear:

1. Celestial bodies can be subject to "use" and mining would come under the category of use.

2. You can't appropriate any part of celestial bodies to an Earth state.

3. Non governmental agencies can operate under the aegis of treaty states (e.g. Space X can operate under the aegis of the USA).

4. The Treaty clearly recognises the need to ensure safe operation of facilities and equipment where use is made of celestial bodies.

Taking all the above into account, I think there is no reason why a treaty state shouldn't introduce a licensing system at its bases to ensure safe occupation of land. Licensing would not be leasing but it would potentially be a useful system for mining organisations to know they had some official licence related to a particular piece of land.

GW Johnson · 2016-10-05 14:50:50

Eventually, this treaty will be changed to reflect a future status quo quite different from the one when it was written. Until then, it sort of governs, by the consent of its signatories.

Assuming Musk doesn't piss off NASA too bad by leaving them so far in the dust, then the US government can "authorize" him to create settlements on Mars.

Eventually, Earth governments will have very little to say about how space resources and land get used. Those who go "out there" will write their own rules. As they have always done.

Lawyers here on Earth are always slow to deal with what "is". Politicians far slower than that. So what? Just exactly who will arrest them way "out there"? I think I asked that question before.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-10-05 14:52:11)

Terraformer · 2016-10-05 15:10:31

louis wrote:

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/s … reaty.html
Seems to me the Outer Space Treaty makes clear:
1. Celestial bodies can be subject to "use" and mining would come under the category of use.
2. You can't appropriate any part of celestial bodies to an Earth state.
3. Non governmental agencies can operate under the aegis of treaty states (e.g. Space X can operate under the aegis of the USA).
4. The Treaty clearly recognises the need to ensure safe operation of facilities and equipment where use is made of celestial bodies.
Taking all the above into account, I think there is no reason why a treaty state shouldn't introduce a licensing system at its bases to ensure safe occupation of land. Licensing would not be leasing but it would potentially be a useful system for mining organisations to know they had some official licence related to a particular piece of land.

Indeed. One could make the argument that attempting to mine the same vein as another would jeopardise the normal operations of their base, and since the state which the base is registered in is meant to supervise the operation and ensure it's safety...

This means, of course, that you can't get a mining claim without any actual mining. So companies are going to need non-disclosure agreements for their probe results. But I don't think that's an insurmountable problem.
...

If people really wanted to experiment with a free for all on Terra, though, they could try disbanding the International Seabed Authority, and just let people keep whatever they pick up... the mining would be done by robots anyway, which may not leave any permanent mine workings down there...

louis · 2016-10-05 17:19:46

I think Musk has been clever with the way he has gone about things. He started off with that Pacific Island nation state - which probably gave the US authorities pause for thought...better to play ball with him, who knows where he might take his technology. I think he knows he needs NASA's communications network - I doubt it would be that easy for Musk to replicate that. Once you have a hundred thousand people on Mars, living as permanent residents I think it would be difficult to resist their demands for self-government.

GW Johnson wrote:

Eventually, this treaty will be changed to reflect a future status quo quite different from the one when it was written. Until then, it sort of governs, by the consent of its signatories.
Assuming Musk doesn't piss off NASA too bad by leaving them so far in the dust, then the US government can "authorize" him to create settlements on Mars.
Eventually, Earth governments will have very little to say about how space resources and land get used. Those who go "out there" will write their own rules. As they have always done.
Lawyers here on Earth are always slow to deal with what "is". Politicians far slower than that. So what? Just exactly who will arrest them way "out there"? I think I asked that question before.
GW

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2016-10-03 15:01:09

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#152 2016-10-03 15:34:37

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#153 2016-10-03 16:20:27

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#154 2016-10-03 18:47:30

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#155 2016-10-03 18:51:21

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#156 2016-10-03 19:28:40

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#157 2016-10-03 20:27:21

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#158 2016-10-03 20:44:45

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#159 2016-10-03 20:46:52

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#160 2016-10-04 00:23:43

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#161 2016-10-04 01:25:20

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#162 2016-10-04 02:36:16

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#163 2016-10-04 02:49:25

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#164 2016-10-04 02:55:48

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#165 2016-10-04 10:19:35

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#166 2016-10-04 12:22:46

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#167 2016-10-04 16:00:54

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#168 2016-10-04 17:23:08

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#169 2016-10-04 17:49:36

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#170 2016-10-05 00:51:57

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#171 2016-10-05 02:33:07

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#172 2016-10-05 14:44:32

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#173 2016-10-05 14:50:50

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#174 2016-10-05 15:10:31

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

#175 2016-10-05 17:19:46

Re: Musk's plans for Mars

Board footer