You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
The first colonists should be given land stakes of a certain amount of land (say, 100 square kilometres?) Eventually all the land would be gone and people would start to settle in each 'nation.'
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
Perhaps the people or entities should first demonstrate the ability to utilize the resources, same goes for asteroid claims. I think nations may make such claims and so might large corporations at first.
If a 10 km by 10 km claim is made by a nation, the land claim could be treated as national territory for a prohibitionary period allowing time for the claiming entity to make capital investments and improvements to the land, and if it fails to do so, then the land reverts back to community property after say 5 or 10 years or so.
The UN could easily set up an office and entertain claims to celestial resources, but if the person who stakes a claim can't even get there, then it should not be taken seriously.
I think maybe 10 km by 10 km claims on both the moon or Mars, and perhaps whole claims on asteroids that are less than 10 km on their longest dimension For instance the latest Popular Science magazine talks about NASA possible sending a mission to an Near Earth asteroid, I think the United States may be allowed to claim an entire asteroid that's less that 10 km on its longest dimension and the World may be willing to accept that. Of course their are liability issues, if the claimant nation alters the course of an asteroid to put on a collision course with Earth, that can be interpreted as an "act of war." Asteroids don't make the best of weapons of mass destruction though. Putting an asteroid on a collision course is much harder than diverting one from such a course. And if done, there would likely be plenty of time for the opposing nation to divert the Asteroid assuming that it knows about it.
Offline
I think that we have to consider that land, as we know it, does not exist, and will not until a terraforming project is completed.
The only real use for wide open space is mineral exploitation. Residential, industrial, and commercial space will be really compact. Agriculture will be done in labs, probably in a distributed manner by residence, or in an industrial setting.
Land should be split up into equal squares. Colonists will then build what they need. Once independent from outside supplies, private interests can decide how the resources are used.
I also think that claiming territory for Earthly nations garentees eventual war. The land is there for the people who live there, who will inevitably want stuff from Earth. If people go to escape Earth, the problem is on Earth. People should go for the adventure of taming an other-worldly frontier.
Also, all asteroids under, say, 5km on their longest axis can be considered debris for indiscriminate exploitation, anything larger is a terrestrial world, reserved for settlement.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
All the asteroids have been claimed already.
I think the colonists who stake a hold should demonstrate their ability to hold it. If they can't then it reverts back to unclaimed land.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
I think that we have to consider that land, as we know it, does not exist, and will not until a terraforming project is completed.
There you are wrong. In order to terraform a planet, you must first own that planet, or being paid by someone who does own the planet. The terraformer is making a massive investment in the planet, and he isn't doing it out of the goodness of his heart, that's simply not the way economics works.
The only real use for wide open space is mineral exploitation. Residential, industrial, and commercial space will be really compact. Agriculture will be done in labs, probably in a distributed manner by residence, or in an industrial setting.
mineral exploitation is not nothing. If you are going to mine an asteroid, all legal ambiguities need to be cleared first, otherwise the investors risk losing their investments to someone else who may claim ownership contrary to yours and reap the benefits of your investments.
Land should be split up into equal squares. Colonists will then build what they need. Once independent from outside supplies, private interests can decide how the resources are used.
I also think that claiming territory for Earthly nations garentees eventual war. The land is there for the people who live there, who will inevitably want stuff from Earth. If people go to escape Earth, the problem is on Earth. People should go for the adventure of taming an other-worldly frontier.
Colonists will need support from their mother countries, those countries will not be supporting those colonists out of the goodness of their hearts either. If you say nations cannot claim territory, that will discourage national efforts to colonize space. The claims must be reasonable of course. If a country cannot exploit all of Mars, then it shouldn't claim all of Mars as its territory, a small asteroid however, no one will quibble much about. In many cases an asteroid may be considered an "object" rather than a "place". Some spaceships could conceivably be made out of an asteroid, and if no one owns the asteroid, that makes it all the more difficult to turn it into a spaceship, and I think we need every incentive we can possibly get for going into space, having other people claim parts of your spaceship as the "common heritage of Mankind" is no way to go if we want investments in space. We should get rid of space "community property" where ever practical so as to encourage private and national investment in space, but each investor must demonstrate the ability to exploit the resource. "Community property" discourages capitalism and progress, everything becomes charity otherwise, people would have to donate money without any expectation of getting a return, most money comes more easily as investments rather than as charitable contributions.
Also, all asteroids under, say, 5km on their longest axis can be considered debris for indiscriminate exploitation, anything larger is a terrestrial world, reserved for settlement.
There might be valuable ores in large asteroids, but in that case, you'd claim only part of the asteroid rather than the whole thing. I never said these laws would be simply, but they should be workable so people can make an investment and expect to get some sort of return should it turn out well. What I want to minimize is the legal risk to investors, that is someone makes an investment in some celestial body, and then after the investment has been made having someone else claim the body that the investment was made in is the "common heritage of Mankind" and then begin settling himself in your completed space colony for instance. Now if this was a real estate venture, and the investors wanted to sell a certain amount of coops within the "Island Three" Colony, they don't want a bunch of socialists claiming that the colony was made out of an asteroid and is therefore the "Common heritage of Mankind" and then move in and use up space making less coops available to paying customers. You see the problem here don't you?
Offline
Hello, all the asteroids have been claimed. Anyone there?
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
All the asteroids have been claimed already.
By who?
They'll be dead before we get to them.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
I think that we have to consider that land, as we know it, does not exist, and will not until a terraforming project is completed.
There you are wrong. In order to terraform a planet, you must first own that planet, or being paid by someone who does own the planet. The terraformer is making a massive investment in the planet, and he isn't doing it out of the goodness of his heart, that's simply not the way economics works.
Terraforming is an extremely long term project that will require far more than economic considerations, but political and social ones as well. By the time you get the workforce required, they're apt to decide that they are more than capable of living on the planet as is, and would rather not do something that floods everything they and their families depend on thank you very much. And oh by the way, their native born kids think Mars is fine just the way it is. In fact they think you should Marsiforming Earth to prevent all the damage done by the moisture in the atmosphere. Why on Mars would you want to introduce another destructive agent of erosion on their planet?
You got to realize that the very technology that makes terraforming possible also makes it obsolete. Once we manage to dome over a hundred or so square miles at once, we can effectively reproduce any environment we want, except for the gravity on larger bodies. Unless the environment is completely hostile to human technology (think Venus) to the point you have to alter the planet just to land on it, there will always be a long drawn out political process carried out by the locals to decide just what their rock will be.
It will never be a corporation making such a decision, because the greatest investment will be make in the sacrifice and upheaval endured by the inhabitants.
The only real use for wide open space is mineral exploitation. Residential, industrial, and commercial space will be really compact. Agriculture will be done in labs, probably in a distributed manner by residence, or in an industrial setting.
mineral exploitation is not nothing. If you are going to mine an asteroid, all legal ambiguities need to be cleared first, otherwise the investors risk losing their investments to someone else who may claim ownership contrary to yours and reap the benefits of your investments.
Again, the very nature of the the beast dictates the commercial interest is balanced against the needs of the human body. Oxygen will be the first thing that is mined, and growth of the colony will be dictated by amount of oxygen that can be added to the overall environmental system. Same with hydrogen. Mineral resources are almost a side effect.
Land should be split up into equal squares. Colonists will then build what they need. Once independent from outside supplies, private interests can decide how the resources are used.
I also think that claiming territory for Earthly nations garentees eventual war. The land is there for the people who live there, who will inevitably want stuff from Earth. If people go to escape Earth, the problem is on Earth. People should go for the adventure of taming an other-worldly frontier.
Colonists will need support from their mother countries, those countries will not be supporting those colonists out of the goodness of their hearts either. If you say nations cannot claim territory, that will discourage national efforts to colonize space. The claims must be reasonable of course. If a country cannot exploit all of Mars, then it shouldn't claim all of Mars as its territory, a small asteroid however, no one will quibble much about. In many cases an asteroid may be considered an "object" rather than a "place". Some spaceships could conceivably be made out of an asteroid, and if no one owns the asteroid, that makes it all the more difficult to turn it into a spaceship, and I think we need every incentive we can possibly get for going into space, having other people claim parts of your spaceship as the "common heritage of Mankind" is no way to go if we want investments in space. We should get rid of space "community property" where ever practical so as to encourage private and national investment in space, but each investor must demonstrate the ability to exploit the resource. "Community property" discourages capitalism and progress, everything becomes charity otherwise, people would have to donate money without any expectation of getting a return, most money comes more easily as investments rather than as charitable contributions.
The "mother countries" are making their investments as we speak. NASA is percolating private industry to develop the technologies required to make this happen. Once NASA, and other space agencies (governments) pour enough money into it and prove the concepts with bases, the aerospace companies will partner with governments to reduce the cost the space program by building things off world.
Also, all asteroids under, say, 5km on their longest axis can be considered debris for indiscriminate exploitation, anything larger is a terrestrial world, reserved for settlement.
There might be valuable ores in large asteroids, but in that case, you'd claim only part of the asteroid rather than the whole thing. I never said these laws would be simple, but they should be workable so people can make an investment and expect to get some sort of return should it turn out well. What I want to minimize is the legal risk to investors, that is someone makes an investment in some celestial body, and then after the investment has been made having someone else claim the body that the investment was made in is the "common heritage of Mankind" and then begin settling himself in your completed space colony for instance. Now if this was a real estate venture, and the investors wanted to sell a certain amount of coops within the "Island Three" Colony, they don't want a bunch of socialists claiming that the colony was made out of an asteroid and is therefore the "Common heritage of Mankind" and then move in and use up space making less coops available to paying customers. You see the problem here don't you?
The smaller the asteroid, its less of a colony, and more like a space station attached to a rock. There has to be a line somewhere. Extensive mining on something that small is dangerous, so you either have to use all of it, or not poke it too hard. Even the larger ones are unpredictable. It only takes once for thousands to die because a mined asteroid tore itself apart. Hows that for loosing your real estate venture?
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
I think the end result of a terraforming effort will usually be a "city planet", the terraformers will need to utilize maximum occupancy in order to get the maximum return on their massive investment. I think whether it be government or private organization, the terraforming entity will expect some sort of return on its investment.
Oh, and any creature that can live on Mars as is, can probably also live in the cold hard vacuum of space as well. The atmosphere of Mars does not provide a useful role for any organism, it doesn't carry much mosture, it has no oxidiser, there is no point in breathing it unless you are a plant, but without liquid water, plants can't grow. And creature that recycles its own oxygen and produces its own nutrients and containing its own body fluids is a hybrid of both plant and animal, it would contain its own ecosystem and receive energy from the sun, such a creature can live on any asteroid that contains volitiles, and doesn't specifically need to live on Mars. Those people that require an atmosphere to breath for respiration are the ones who would want to terraform it.
Offline
All the asteroids have been claimed already.
By who?
They'll be dead before we get to them.
Me and other people. And I intend to get to them in two decades at the most. The moon has already been claimed,
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
The Moon certainly has not been claimed. Just saying that you claim the Moon does not give you ownership of the Moon.
One of the primary determinants to laying a claim is to demostrate an ability to go there. If you can't go their, you might as well lay claim to the entire Alpha Centauri System, that's another place you can't reach.
We can't be sure about the state of transportation in two decades, it is premature to say that we will be going anywhere in the Solar System. One can make boasts, and who knows they may be right, but you can't count on it like death and taxes.
Offline
Okay then, people believe someone has claimed the moon, as they buy land off him [the claimnent.] I could assembale a fleet of ships and take it buy force, then it would be mine. Wars will be fought over property.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
If you can claim the Moon without going there, then you can claim the Andromeda Galaxy with all 600 billion star systems in it! I'm sure the native inhabitants there won't mind if I file a claim with the UN for their Entire Galaxy and crown myself Emperor thereof.
Offline
I think it only applies within our solar system. And no planets (unless you claim before the object is reclassified as a planet.)
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
I think its silly for anyone scribbling at his desk top to claim a celestial body he's never been to or seen. I think you actually have to stick a flag in it to have any right to claim it, otherwise you can have multiple people sitting at their desktops claiming the same object, and who's to know who claimed what? I think people have no business owning an object they can't get to. Do you want a 6-year old claiming Ceres and then demanding some multibillion dollar mining company pay him royalties to extract minerals from it? Lets say he claimed Ceres as a 1st grade class project - now just what did he do to add value to this mineral extraction process that he deserves payment for. Do you want just any pencil pusher claiming whatever objects he finds on his database? I just don't think a person ought to be allowed to claim an object remotely, and if some slick sales agent comes knocking on your door to offer you the "deed" to some Lunar real estate, don't give him your money, that's just nuts!
Offline
Don't diss people who claim Ceres. I did that. I'll probably take it by force if anyone objects. I'll launch a probe with a flag onboard so I have a flag stuck in it. You try doing that with Adromeda. You'll be dead before it gets there.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
I could assembale a fleet of ships and take it buy force, then it would be mine. Wars will be fought over property.
You could. But if I were you I'd expect whomever your attacking to strike back at your stuff on earth.
This is why nations can't claim territory on other planets. Wars in space would spread to Earth. And considering who is likely to have the capability, that would not be good.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Not necessarily, just as brushfire wars don't automatically become nuclear wars. Ever care to follow the path of a Russian/Soviet made AK47, how it goes from the factory floor into the hands of a terrorist killing an American? Yet the United States doesn't respond by nuking Moscow? Maybe we should at least threaten them, telling them that they can't deal with out enemies without at least risking becoming out enemies also. But you see my example.
Offline
AKs are also manufactured by every country that ever kissed the Soviets big red rear ends. You can't blame an injured tanker from the Great Patriotic War for the fact that that he made a dam good weapon.
And I think that any conflict between colonies in space is sure to cause a conflict on Earth. For one thing, denying your foe to the ability to resupply protects your investment.
But mostly because the colony is the culmination for your nations prowess. If anyone so much as looks at it funny, your going to give them the dirty look. For the same reason you park your shiny new car in the empty end of the parking lot.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
AKs are also manufactured by every country that ever kissed the Soviets big red rear ends. You can't blame an injured tanker from the Great Patriotic War for the fact that that he made a dam good weapon.
And I think that any conflict between colonies in space is sure to cause a conflict on Earth. For one thing, denying your foe to the ability to resupply protects your investment.
But mostly because the colony is the culmination for your nations prowess. If anyone so much as looks at it funny, your going to give them the dirty look. For the same reason you park your shiny new car in the empty end of the parking lot.
Actually Soviet weapons suck, why do you think we overran Iraq's conventional army so quickly, why do the Israelis beat the Arabs time and time again on the conventional battlefield? That is because Soviet weapons stink, they are no good on a battlefield when facing our soldiers armed with American weapons, all those Soviet weapons are good for is murdering civilians, that's it!
Offline
Mostly because the Arabs have no idea what they are fighting for.
I can't speak for all Soviet weapons, but the AK-47 and its derivatives are universally viewed as the most durable assault rifle mankind has ever produced. Thats one reason theres so many of them. The old ones are still around and work.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Mostly because the Arabs have no idea what they are fighting for.
Actually they do. They are fighting to destroy Israel.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
Mostly because the Arabs have no idea what they are fighting for.
Actually they do. They are fighting to destroy Israel.
Thats why their Islamofasicst leaders send them into battle. But when they start getting slaughtered on mass for no apparent gain, they quickly realize they are wasting their lives and start retreating or surrendering on mass.
In disturbing opposition to this general rule, Hezbollah guerrillas have been practically bred for that purpose, and fought like in Southern Lebanon last year.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Mostly because the Arabs have no idea what they are fighting for.
I can't speak for all Soviet weapons, but the AK-47 and its derivatives are universally viewed as the most durable assault rifle mankind has ever produced. Thats one reason theres so many of them. The old ones are still around and work.
They are good for murdering large numbers of unarmed civilians, but M16s are more accurate and have a longer range. On the battlefield, AK47s suck, thats why they keep on losing to our forces.
Offline
Why are we arguing about soviet rifles? Firstly, as of right now, you can't stake a claim to anything higher that mt everest. So you can say that ceres is yours, just like I can say that the USA is really Jumpboy11jania, with me as supreme overlord. If you want to claim ceres, send a probe w/ a flag there. Then you will, in my opinion, have claimed everything within the horizon (~2 km) of that flag. I believe that given area on mars/moon and elsewhere should be a population center based thing. Ex: Nation x makes a town of 1000 people on mars. Because this town has more than y amount of people, they get a radius of z km around the base. If part of that is already used, then you get a replacement area somewhere else. If you have valid claims to make a base, then you get 1/2 the radius (~1/4 the area) in advance that's yours to use, and ungettable by another company/nation.If you actually land, then you get the full distance. For asteroids, it should be by volume.
-Josh
Offline
Pages: 1