how do we share Mars?

[Saryctos]

Roll to place your pieces first?

[Sisyphus]

Well exactly, they'll want a product. But a product a few hundred years down the line? That requires investment on the scale of, say, a major war? That's government territory.

 

And I wouldn't bet on it being the U.S. government, either. As Tom Friedman would say, the world is flattening. Who knows who will be the superpowers of the late 21st century and beyond? People tell me China and India seem poised.

 

(Also, was the 1969 moon landing treated with contempt by anyone but dumbass conspiracy theorists?)

[Haezed]

I know you're being sarcastic, but I very much doubt "capitalists" will play any part in terraforming a planet, except maybe as government contactors.

 

Also, I don't see how, short of violent action, any country can "hold any other back."

 

Something this massive won't get done unless there is a profit to be made. Think back to the transamerica railways. That only happened because the government incentivized private industry.

[Comandante]

I know you're being sarcastic, but I very much doubt "capitalists" will play any part in terraforming a planet, except maybe as government contactors.

 

Also, I don't see how, short of violent action, any country can "hold any other back."

 

We will most likely not proceed with terraforming unless the cost of such project isn't on optimal levels, in fact, I think it won't take place until a VERY good idea is laid down first so that terraforming takes place relatively cheaply and so quickly (relatively) and efficiently. Of course I haven't got any ideas now of what kind of idea that could be, but I'm sure as technology advances that new ideas will be born. That way most of the cost will probably be in setting up a launch pad and a booster (if we still happen to use rocket boosters by then), and perhaps a machine(s) to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and carbon to nitrogen (as SkepticLance said, Nitrogen is going to be needed on Mars and it isn't there (in high enough concentrations)).

 

As for seeing how a country can hold any other back think of it this way; if, for example, 5 nations decide to share the cost of going to Mars and in return expect a rep (or a group of reps) from each nation to board the 'ship' as well as equal share of whatever they're going to Mars for, and then for example, one of the nations figures it can cover the cost by itself and just refuses to make a deal with the other 4 nations, it can just as well take off and help itself while the others will be watching it on tv (if they're lucky).

[SkepticLance]

To terraform Mars is, at this time in history, beyond us. It will probably remain so for quite a while. Thus, the first people on Mars will live in artificial environments, probably underground. They should have the benefit of abundant nuclear energy, which means they will be able to set up proper sun lamps to grow crops under.

 

I have thought for quite a while that this approach to the conquest of outer space is a bit wasteful. The biggest problem in space travel is to leave the embrace of our planet's gravity. So why do we immediately assume we will dive into the gravity well of another planet? Would it not be more sensible to stay in space, where we can move freely.

 

If we have to build enormous artificial habitats on Mars, why not build them in space? It would take an awful lot less energy to travel beyond Mars to a site of building material and water, such as the rings of Saturn, than to land on Mars, and take off again. There, in space, we could use that material to build a giant rotating city . Such cities could move freely about the solar system, or even to other star systems, since they would be self sufficient for long periods.

[Sayonara]

We'll leave science out of this one, however, to make a comment, I think that use of photosynthetic organisms would be an inefficient method for conversion .

Not necessarily. A "brewing station" can be used to vent massive plumes of single-celled photosynthetic organisms into the atmosphere, where they spread out into an umbrella with a massive surface area for light absorption and slowly descend, eventually contributing towards an organically rich "soil" of sorts. The problem of supplying nitrogen remains, but the essential process are kicked off.

 

I don't think that whoever makes the land habitable should deserve the right to own the planet.

According to current international treaty, it really depends on what the land is going to be used for.

 

Because the US, the greedy capitalists, will have unfairly held the rest of the countries back while they did all the development themselves. The american empire, which knows no limits, now wants to drain the resources of yet another planet. The great america just can't get fat enough.

That doesn't actually support the point, though, does it?

 

And I wouldn't bet on it being the U.S. government, either. As Tom Friedman would say, the world is flattening. Who knows who will be the superpowers of the late 21st century and beyond? People tell me China and India seem poised.

Funnily enough...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6506539.stm

 

To terraform Mars is, at this time in history, beyond us. It will probably remain so for quite a while.

I don't think it is - there have been scientifically viable ideas around for terraforming for the better part of half a century.

However the kind of resource investment it would take, and the risks involved, are definitely more than corporations or even nations are willing to post.

 

Thus, the first people on Mars will live in artificial environments, probably underground. They should have the benefit of abundant nuclear energy, which means they will be able to set up proper sun lamps to grow crops under.

Assuming that the initial terraforming stages were manned (which I personally would not expect, but hey) you'd have to use these strategies anyway.

 

I have thought for quite a while that this approach to the conquest of outer space is a bit wasteful. The biggest problem in space travel is to leave the embrace of our planet's gravity. So why do we immediately assume we will dive into the gravity well of another planet? Would it not be more sensible to stay in space, where we can move freely.

There are arguments both ways - remember the Dyson Swarm thread?

[Comandante]

According to current international treaty, it really depends on what the land is going to be used for.

 

Well, that's exactly my point. Who is going to decide what the land will be used for? A more logical approach as I see it is that the idea of making the land habitable should be developed and then the cost shared among.. perhaps even all nations and their contributions should be optimal for their country's networth. For example, you can't ask the same amount of contribution from US and... say Italy. Anyhow, when that's settled then all nations should agree that the land be 'free for all' (or '% of profit from products to all contributors based on their investment') after the terraformation process is complete. However, that's only an idea. The reality is probably different.

 

Nice bbc link there, interesting article. Russia will probably achieve the heights of former Soviet Union, it's just a matter of time.

 

(ps. this new SFN layout is rather ugly!)

[Sisyphus]

Well yeah, hopefully those nations that could possibly go it alone will seek assistance from as many other nations as possible, anyway. But that really depends on who is in charge when that happens.

[GutZ]

Who, then, does?

 

The entire human race.

[ydoaPs]

The entire human race.

 

Why do humans have any more claim to it than chimps?

[JohnF]

Whoever is in a position to control access to Mars will decide if and how it is to be shared. It may start with multiple nations colonising parts of Mars and they may choose to work together and allow others to use Mars. But if any of them have the power, and choose to exercise it, then they will decide the sharing out of Mars. It could even be a private enterprise that eventually controls Mars. A nation exercising what others considered undue control might cause problems for the nation on Earth and force them to some sort of compromise. A group of private individuals on the other hand may simply relocate to Mars and be in a position to defend their claim without having to concern themselves about pressure back on Earth.

 

There are certainly no fundamental rights to Mars just as there are no fundamental rights for anything. Rights are given by the more powerful to the less powerful and can just as easily be taken away.

 

Perhaps the original question would be better as "How should we share Mars" because 'do' is the present tense and therefore irrelevant since we are not yet in a position to share it anyway.

[Haezed]

The entire human race.

 

 

In a few hundred years, Martians will object to such imperialist sentiments and demand independence.

[Sayonara]

Why do humans have any more claim to it than chimps?

 

We don't. But chimps lack the technology to make it happen.

 

They do however have about the same capacity to manage planets as we seem to have, so maybe there is hope for them.

[JohnB]

Regardless of how the divvy up starts, I think the colonists would very quickly think of themselves as Martians first and Earth (Insert nationality here) second.

 

If something goes wrong, it will take 30 minutes or so to even tell Earth about it and at probably 6 months for help to arrive. The colonists would realise very early on in the piece that help can only come their neighbours, not Earth. So they would co-operate with the colonies of other nations readily and lie to their individual Earth govs if needed.

[Comandante]

Whoever is in a position to control access to Mars will decide if and how it is to be shared.

 

That is not very likely to happen, but likely nevertheless. The reason being is that IF the access becomes restricted by the 'wrong' parties or in any way defies the international law, then the protests will be on Earth, not on Mars. Would you be happy with someone developing weapons of mass destruction on Mars and not letting anyone else come 'up', or defy to listen to any warnings or orders whatsoever? The real question though is; how do we make sure that they don't? If the parties that have taken control are all hosted on Mars then there will be noone to fight with on Earth and Mars will soon 'run out of control' - again, unlikely (since there is probably going to be someone connected with those parties on Earth). The main point from here is that the access to Mars must be controlled, if not strictly, to make sure there is no means of any harm or threat for the people on Earth and not only that but also to make sure that everyone would get a fair share of Mars should we need to evacuate from Earth. And that's only one of the objectives that must be achieved. We shouldn't 'infect' Mars with our Earthly evil and the only reason to do that is to control the access, but that brings us to the old question again; WHO is going to control it? Who is right? What if we’re all wrong and our human race is neither capable or intelligent enough to colonize Mars in a peaceful and thoughtful way?

 

What if a nation decides to setup a base on Mars (or even Moon?) for the sole purpose of building missile launch sites for 'defense' ? Surely such a missile would take a hell of a long time to reach Earth or even its designated target - or so you thought. Remember, we're speaking if not 1000 years ahead, nobody can predict precisely what the technology will be able to do by then. That in turn makes us ask why do we even bother to think about it now then? Well, technology might be changing rapidly but the laws not so much. On the other hand I like to imagine what the future might look like. In my personal opinion “we” (who is “we”? the UN?) must define a rule that will inspect every ship headed to Mars (or moon) and that will be amongst the first steps towards peaceful sharing of Mars.

[GutZ]

Why do humans have any more claim to it than chimps?

 

We don't, but chimps havent mastered space travel yet.

[Sisyphus]

Mars will belong to the Martians. And the Martians will be the permanent colonists and their descendants. Those colonists undoubtably will all have to pull their weight in the whole process. I don't foresee any chimps being remotely capable of that...

[Comandante]

We don't, but chimps havent mastered space travel yet.

 

Are you trying to imply that we humans mastered it? Our current understanding of space travel can be vaguely likened to a fish jumping out of the water for a second, only to fall back and wonder how tall the sky is. The fish won’t advance in its ‘technology’ much unless it grows some kind of wings, which is unlikely, but we humans on the other hand have a better chance.. or so we think!

[Sayonara]

Are you trying to imply that we humans mastered it? Our current understanding of space travel can be vaguely likened to a fish jumping out of the water for a second, only to fall back and wonder how tall the sky is. The fish won’t advance in its ‘technology’ much unless it grows some kind of wings, which is unlikely, but we humans on the other hand have a better chance.. or so we think!

 

This is not a very helpful analogy. The technology required to physically get to Mars is not beyond us, in fact it is now dated by several decades. It doesn't have to be "whooooosh, and we're there", it only has to work. Perhaps we cannot warp a cityship to Mars in under half a second, but we can actually go there if we decide to invest the resources. This is more than the Alliance of Chimp Nations will be doing any time soon.

 

However, getting back to the purpose of the thread, the technology to colonise a planet is not "space travel technology" at all, it's more in the arena of ecosystem manufacture (albeit massively so), and this will be the limiting factor on how well the first invaders are able to secure and exploit unclaimed territories.

 

Our theories and models for describing and predicting primary colonisation and succession scenarios are very strong; where we fall short is at the point where we need to start thinking about deployment on a planetary scale.

 

I would expect that early attempts to colonise Mars would involve highly localised terraforming attempts which - by necessity - must be coordinated with similar attempts at different sites. Since no single nation or corporation will ever be able to afford so many separate installations, co-operation will be required for any chance of success.

[SkepticLance]

There is a high probability that the first Martian colony will be American. They will set up a tiny, but high tech encampment. Possibly underground. In time, they will grow food and make oxygen under artifical lights.

 

However, human nature being what it is, other nations will not permit the USA to have it to themselves, and other colonies will appear.

 

It will be a very long time before the population becomes very large, since Mars is highly inimical to human life. Terraforming will take thousands of years. Long before that, there will be extensive underground cities.

 

How the various Martian communities conduct their politics is not predictable. Could be war and destruction. Maybe they will be smart and get together. Ultimately, whatever is the result will declare independence, and the nations that sent the colonies will be just out of luck.

[Sayonara]

There is a high probability that the first Martian colony will be American. They will set up a tiny, but high tech encampment. Possibly underground. In time, they will grow food and make oxygen under artifical lights.

However, human nature being what it is, other nations will not permit the USA to have it to themselves, and other colonies will appear.

Isn't this contradictory?

 

If other nations can set up other colonies, why should we assign high probability to the USA establishing the first one? If anything, the seasonal fickleness of the USA's political structure is a massive handicap, and the more direct approach taken by monolith societies such as China means they are much more likely to go the distance.

 

 

It will be a very long time before the population becomes very large, since Mars is highly inimical to human life. Terraforming will take thousands of years. Long before that, there will be extensive underground cities.

I agree that primary colonisation will happen before terraforming is complete (in fact, it has to - just not necessarily by humans), however I don't see why the conditions on Mars should prohibit population expansion in these circumstances, because the circumstances require artificial habitats which mitigate or avoid the effects of adverse conditions. If we can send a colonisation force to Mars, there is no technical barrier whatsoever to sending a consignment of expandable modular habitats along with them.

 

I am not really sure what makes you think that colonists would want to live in underground cities - that seems like a lot of unnecessary effort to me.

 

How the various Martian communities conduct their politics is not predictable. Could be war and destruction. Maybe they will be smart and get together. Ultimately, whatever is the result will declare independence, and the nations that sent the colonies will be just out of luck.

Again you contradict yourself - you state that internal politics is not predictable, then predict the political stance of a declaration of independence.

 

Mars will always be totally physically dependent on Earth, because:

- Earth has material commodities which Mars will require, however the reverse is not the case.

- Mars will not have, and almost certainly will never have, large-scale disaster relief facilities.

- Even a terraformed Mars will require regular organic and chemical donations from Earth in order to maintain a healthy biome.

- Without expert skills from Earth, Mars will have to predict social and technological requirements a generation in advance, and plan schooling on that basis. God forbid they should ever have to cope with the unexpected.

- Without academic input from Earth, Mars will have to conduct its own research (this could be considered covered by the commodities point, but I disagree that they are the same thing).

[MolotovCocktail]

Isn't this contradictory?

Mars will always be totally physically dependent on Earth, because:

- Earth has material commodities which Mars will require, however the reverse is not the case.

- Mars will not have, and almost certainly will never have, large-scale disaster relief facilities.

- Even a terraformed Mars will require regular organic and chemical donations from Earth in order to maintain a healthy biome.

- Without expert skills from Earth, Mars will have to predict social and technological requirements a generation in advance, and plan schooling on that basis. God forbid they should ever have to cope with the unexpected.

- Without academic input from Earth, Mars will have to conduct its own research (this could be considered covered by the commodities point, but I disagree that they are the same thing).

 

Well, you don't know that. I'm sure that at the beginning of Martian colonization that would be the case, but I'm sure that after 50 or so years Mars would probably be self-sufficient. Take the case of the American colonies over 300+ years ago, they were pretty much self sufficient after about 20 or so years within colonization.

[Sayonara]

Well, you don't know that.

Yes I can. It's all pretty much self-evident, in fact.

 

Unless you propose that moving to Mars makes people have babies which know everything you could ever need to know, and that Mars has magical properties that let one wish up vital commodities such as milk, insulin, antibiotics, and computer chips.

 

I'm sure that at the beginning of Martian colonization that would be the case, but I'm sure that after 50 or so years Mars would probably be self-sufficient. Take the case of the American colonies over 300+ years ago, they were pretty much self sufficient after about 20 or so years within colonization.

You do realise that neither colonisation nor terraforming will magically bestow Mars with uranium, gold, tin, copper, aluminium, zinc, phosphor, calcium, or any number of other vital metals and minerals? Not to mention the fossil fuels required for plastics and petrodistillates.

 

The American colonies were "self sufficient" because they were begun in a verdant and plentiful land. They did not have to terraform the Americas, and they had significant trade opportunities which they used. You aren't self sufficient just because you have political independence from one particular nation state.

It's a mistake to base predictions for Mars colonisation off the colonisation experiences in the Americas. The situations are entirely different.

 

Self-sufficiency after 50 years? Come on.

[Phi for All]

Well, you don't know that. I'm sure that at the beginning of Martian colonization that would be the case, but I'm sure that after 50 or so years Mars would probably be self-sufficient. Take the case of the American colonies over 300+ years ago, they were pretty much self sufficient after about 20 or so years within colonization.

The American colonies had resources I'm not sure Mars can duplicate, including helpful natives who knew the dangers inherent in the territory. Plus it's one thing to grow your own food and another to be completely self-sufficient. 50 years wouldn't be enough time to gather materials and manufacture the kind of structures and machinery necessary for a growing colony without some assistance from Earth. The American colonists could get along with pretty crude shelter or even sleep out under the stars while exploring.

 

Besides, if a colony is even semi-successful there will be regular visits from Earth. There will be resources and equipment that is simply easier and cheaper to get from the next Earth shipment rather than make it yourself.

[MolotovCocktail]

Yes I can. It's all pretty much self-evident, in fact.

 

Unless you propose that moving to Mars makes people have babies which know everything you could ever need to know, and that Mars has magical properties that let one wish up vital commodities such as milk, insulin, antibiotics, and computer chips.

No, but we can plant crops in Martian soil. And native life on Mars hasn't been ruled out quite yet. In the initial colonization phases, food and water are much more important. In the case of Mars, one would also need to set up a small biosphere or greenhouse that would allow people to have access to fresh air. Once this is set up, it should be pretty self-sufficient.

 

You do realise that neither colonisation nor terraforming will magically bestow Mars with uranium, gold, tin, copper, aluminium, zinc, phosphor, calcium, or any number of other vital metals and minerals? Not to mention the fossil fuels required for plastics and petrodistillates.

 

The American colonies were "self sufficient" because they were begun in a verdant and plentiful land. They did not have to terraform the Americas, and they had significant trade opportunities which they used. You aren't self sufficient just because you have political independence from one particular nation state.

 

Self-sufficiency after 50 years? Come on.

Terraforming Mars has been proposed as a way to make it more habitable for humans and Earth based life. As for the claim that Mars has no natural resources, this is off the mark. For example, there is hydrogen in the polar ice caps (and underground). Mars itself is a rocky planet composed of silicate compounds and iron-oxides, and I'm sure there are plenty of specific metals and minerals there to use (though not found yet). And whatever cannot be mined on Mars can most certainly be mined on its moons. As for plastics, cellulose can also be used to make them as we do on Earth.

 

And why would we need to terraform Mars to be exactly like Earth? After all, there is research going on in being able to manipulate the genetic code of humans. Sure, in its current state we probably won't survive even with genetic manipulation but all we really need to do is make the atmosphere breathable and the temperature high enough for liquid water to exist. And raise the atmospheric pressure of the planet somewhat.