[Comandante]

As scientists we are still trying to figure out the best way how to make Mars hospitable. Eventually we'll come up with a feasible idea, Mars will turn green and scientists will be happy (overly generalized :), but then what? Who would own the territory and how would we split it? Would we share it in the first place? How does one buy land on Mars and from who? If someone wants a piece of land that is unoccupied can one just have it? What if we start a war on Mars and the strongest nation gets to own the planet? Those are just some of the things bothering me and I'd like to hear what you think, or shoot me a link if it's been discussed before.

[gcol]

As a precedent, consider how Antarctica was shared out, and how the procedure has worked out and may be improved.

I guess National prestige will be of prime concern, then the research grants of boffins and the aerospace industry. Until, that is, useful minerals are found or there is a military advantage, then we will see the bullets and fur flying and once again might will be right. By the time Mars is colonised, the might could well be with China. Uncle sam would not be at all pleased!!

[Comandante]

Antarctica is different, a 'habitable' Mars would be much more popular and in my own opinion no easy agreement could be possible. I also think China might be the first to populate Mars. But the questions still remain...

[Sisyphus]

Maybe it will be something like the European colonization of, well, everywhere else friom the 15th-19th centuries, except without the particular absurdity of there already being people living there. At first there will be ridiculous agreements between superpowers (Spain and Portugal dividing the world in half.... US and Russia? China and India?), which can't be enforced and so other powers make claims as well. Maybe there will be fighting, but doubtful, because any power great enough to establish a Martian colony has to much to lose by directly fighting another such power (the lesson of the 20th century). It'll all come to naught, though, when a couple centuries down the line the colonies start declaring their independence.

[Phi for All]

It would be very interesting to adopt the policy that whatever we do in space we do as citizens of Earth rather than citizens of just one country. Since that probably won't happen we'll rely on combined efforts and contracts but I don't know if national fervor will ever reach the pitch it was at during the race for the moon.

I think we should start a company that governments can consult with regarding colonization and territory distribution on Mars. Pass our rubric and receive accreditation and a great-looking suitably-framed certificate you can point to with pride. We'll need a list of criteria we're looking for in perspective colonists and developers.

I'm not trying to hijack this thread. Shouldn't there be an overall goal for sharing out Mars, a pre-planning phase where we can determine what we're looking to accomplish on Mars eventually? Do we go green or start drilling for fossil fuels (no green Martian jokes please)? Is Mars going to be Earth II or does it have a different structure?

[Sisyphus]

Fossil fuels on Mars would be quite the discovery!

[Saryctos]

Sisyphus said:

Fossil fuels on Mars would be quite the discovery!

Considering the pre-requisites for their existance, indeed it would!

[geoguy]

Sysco said:

Antarctica is different, a 'habitable' Mars would be much more popular and in my own opinion no easy agreement could be possible. I also think China might be the first to populate Mars. But the questions still remain...

????

The Antarctic is orders of magnitude more habitable than Mars. Not even in the same ballpark.

[Sisyphus]

geoguy said:

????

The Antarctic is orders of magnitude more habitable than Mars. Not even in the same ballpark.

But he said "more popular," not "more habitable." You're certainly right, but the fact remains that effective control of Mars could be far more valuable in the long term, even disregarding the obvious prestige of a permanent extraterrestrial settlement. Also, I thought we were talking about terraforming, anyway.

[ecoli]

we should start up new nations up there...

[Comandante]

As for terraforming, that's something science will deal with. What I was referring to is the 'law' behind 'space exploration' and in particular the law behind colonization of Mars. Does it exist as of yet? Apart from the fact that space should remain "demilitarized zone" and if I'm not mistaken, we can't even stick to that, have there been any attempts to lay down a basic set of rules or anything like that (at least)? . China knocked down a satellite lately by a rocket projectile making the rest of the world feel a bit unnerved.

As I see it, Mars will need an entire new legal system on international grounds that will be guarded by someone or something like UN. So if any nation breaches the rules it must be sanctioned (something we've found not to be a very efficient method). Nothing is perfect so neither will be this new legal system - whatever it happens to be, it will need to be upgraded and changed according to the advancements made.

It is also very likely that, as a result of misunderstanding or breaching of policies and rules on or in regards to Mars, there could be fights/wars about it on Earth since that's where the governments will reside. Therefore the problem about Mars is not on Mars, it's on Earth! Whatever arguments we might have about Mars, the chances are we'll fight over it on Earth or even in space. And that's only for the early stages (division and allocation of territory). When settlements start growing on Mars we'll have even more problems to deal with.

By the way ecoli, that idea of new nation is not bad. I imagined having a large spaceship filled with first 'immigrants' of every possible nationality and religion (provided they all speak a common language - english preferably). I would also set laws such that no single religion or nation should form any kind of group residences (something that happens a lot these days) - just to ensure a good mix. This first colony should be at least 5000 people - carefully selected each of them through a series of tests to ensure maximum stability of the community. After all elements and bodies that are required in a single country are formed on Mars, I would suggest declaration of a new nation, purely neutral to any other nation on Earth and fully responsible for Martian administration. If it was me, I would name the new country Marsiania and, if I was in a contest to design a flag, I would definitely start with a orange background :D

[Comandante]

Saryctos said:

Considering the pre-requisites for their existance, indeed it would!

lol hilarious. fossil fuels on mars would trully mean 2 flies down with 1 hit :-) (unless of course, we discovered fossils first!)

[Phi for All]

[quote name='Phi for All]I think we should start a company that governments can consult with regarding colonization and territory distribution on Mars. Pass our rubric and receive accreditation and a great-looking suitably-framed certificate you can point to with pride. We'll need a list of criteria we're looking for in perspective colonists and developers.[/QUOTE][quote name='Sysco'']This first colony should be at least 5000 people - carefully selected each of them through a series of tests to ensure maximum stability of the community.[/quote]System Colonization Immigration Examiners and Nomination Acceptance Requirements Agency (SCIENARA) to the rescue! We have a full range of tests and certifications to determine suitability for all applicants for off-world migration. From mega-corporations to plucky individuals, SCIENARA certification is your passport to other-worldly dreams!

I have a business plan but I need exam criteria. How do we make sure the right people get the green light to be part of the colony? Would any group or type of person be automatically excluded from consideration (that's going to cause many problems)?

[padren]

I can't help but to think it'll be nationalistic and largely based on flag planting. The more infrastructure that is placed by a government, the more likely they'll claim a larger area of surrounding terria- er, marrian. Corporate stakes will likely be tied to land claims of their parent country. (maybe not their 'literal' parent country, since the caymen islands don't come to mind as a leader in clout for land claims on other planets) but I could see a corporation seeking to setup an operation in a territory to be "claimed" by the US or another nation, even if that claim is only to lend stability and legitimacy to the operation.

Any country that sets up a base with 5 people will be unlikely to have a claim against a larger amount of land than say, a colony with 5000, will likely be disputed and not respected. International endeavors would likely have land claims that the group agrees to, but they will still have to have the aggregate claim respected by other nations outside the group.

Getting other nations to respect those claims will probably be based on the amount of infrastructure surrounding the claim, and keeping the claim "reasonable" so that its not contested outright.

It just makes sense that those putting up the most of the money, will want the biggest chunks of land to protect their investments, including nearby land to expand. These claims will either be uncontested because more allied infrastructure means a greater support network on the red planet, or because the nation making the claim has enough earthly clout to dissuade interference.

As far as new nations - they don't tend to appear overnight in places without any population, they emerge in populations that are already founded but seek autonomy for various reasons. Its entirely possible Mars could become home to new nations, and I would suspect it would be more in line with how Canada became a nation than how the US did.

Its an interesting topic, but I don't foresee any way for it to be "planned out" in advance, because if the planet did get parcelled out now, who gets there first and places the most infrastructure first would be a throw of the dice. I am pretty sure the process will be a lot more ad hoc when the time comes.

[SkepticLance]

Terraforming will not be quick. I saw a reference somewhere a few years back to the number 10,000 years.

In the mean time, colonies will take the form of enclosed communities, possibly underground. They will need nuclear power to run the sun lamps for growing food.

Given time, there could be a whole bunch of these communities. Eventually, of course, they will get annoyed enough with Earth control to declare independence and take over the whole shooting match. Once this happens, the idea of which Earth nation becomes moot. There will just be Martians.

[Comandante]

Phi for All said:

System Colonization Immigration Examiners and Nomination Acceptance Requirements Agency (SCIENARA) to the rescue! We have a full range of tests and certifications to determine suitability for all applicants for off-world migration. From mega-corporations to plucky individuals, SCIENARA certification is your passport to other-worldly dreams!

LOL

padren said:

It's an interesting topic, but I don't foresee any way for it to be "planned out" in advance, because if the planet did get parcelled out now, who gets there first and places the most infrastructure first would be a throw of the dice. I am pretty sure the process will be a lot more ad hoc when the time comes.

Those that get there first will be scientists, after them most likely tourists then engineers and builders and other robotic equipment. I think there's plenty of dust on Mars to make some kind of bricks and eventually erect buildings, scientific and residential, perhaps even business. We're talking about terraformed Mars after all, it will be possible to cultivate food etc. However, as you say, those that invest most of the money will want to claim 50% ownership of anything up there so that is an issue. But I can see a way around this, let the world's superpowers (by that time it might no longer be USA or China, might be Australia or some other nation(s) doens't matter which) invest equal amounts of fund into the project and in return expect equal amounts of profits for anything that might be profitable on Mars (don't be too skeptic about this, Mars will be an excellent playground for scientists and scientific research often turns out profitable). Once they reach say, 150% returns from these profits they can then agree to let the project to public - to the new colony, which can then declare new nation that will not be tied to any government or private ownership on Earth. That's only one way it could work, perhaps there are other ways. The bottom line is that we Will have to plan things out because if we don't they might turn nasty and our process of colonization of Mars will be inefficient and perhaps even stupid. Yes, we can't do much about it now because we're yet to see what all the problems will be, but it's definitely going to be a very large international project. We can use the upcoming moon missions as our models, I think they're already arguing who's going to build a base on what spot.

SkepticLance said:

Terraforming will not be quick. I saw a reference somewhere a few years back to the number 10,000 years.

Hey, were you being skeptic? :-) Don't underestimate the power of science and technology; it might all just resolve one day like a line of dominoes.

[SkepticLance]

To Sysco.

Nope. Not being especially sceptical or cynical, or even pessimistic. That was a statement I read some years ago - not even sure where.

However, we need to remember that Mars is an entire planet. To make changes would require massive inputs, and the easiest such massive input is time.

Mars would have something like 1,000,000,000,000 tonnes of atmosphere - pretty much all carbon dioxide. It may be theoretically possible to use photosynthetic organisms to convert this to oxygen. However, an oxygen atmosphere is not viable for a planetary ecosystem. Gotta have a nitrogen cycle as well. If the terraformers did not find a massive source of nitrogen on Mars, what would they do? We are talking vast quantities of anything and everything that might be needed to make a living ecology.

I cannot even imagine a method of raising Martian temperature to that required to keep water liquid, unlss it involves continuous technical input. Mirrors in orbit have been suggested, to focus heat onto the planet. However, they would need to be constantly adjusted. Even if that was done by computers, they would need constant maintenance. Even a small error would be disastrous.

On the whole, based on our current technology, it seems likely that Mars settlers would be in enclosed habitats for a hell of a long time.

[ydoaPs]

Sysco said:

As scientists we are still trying to figure out the best way how to make Mars hospitable. Eventually we'll come up with a feasible idea, Mars will turn green and scientists will be happy (overly generalized :), but then what? Who would own the territory and how would we split it? Would we share it in the first place? How does one buy land on Mars and from who?

I'd imagine that one would buy land from those who made the land habitable.

[Comandante]

SkepticLance said:

Mars would have something like 1,000,000,000,000 tonnes of atmosphere - pretty much all carbon dioxide. It may be theoretically possible to use photosynthetic organisms to convert this to oxygen. However, an oxygen atmosphere is not viable for a planetary ecosystem. Gotta have a nitrogen cycle as well. If the terraformers did not find a massive source of nitrogen on Mars, what would they do? We are talking vast quantities of anything and everything that might be needed to make a living ecology.

I cannot even imagine a method of raising Martian temperature to that required to keep water liquid, unlss it involves continuous technical input. Mirrors in orbit have been suggested, to focus heat onto the planet. However, they would need to be constantly adjusted. Even if that was done by computers, they would need constant maintenance. Even a small error would be disastrous.

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 .

yourdadonapogos said:

I'd imagine that one would buy land from those who made the land habitable.

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

[ydoaPs]

Sysco said:

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

Who, then, does?