Colonization of Mars

With any luck, it'll be a competition between Musk and Bezos.
yeah, here We have Mars city vs O'Niel Cylinder, i hope Bezos turn speed up at Blue Origin
other wise with current slow progress Blue Origin start the Cylinder build in year 3000...

On China, the U.N. and Rest of World
There U.N. charter about the use of Moon were Staates are prohibit to claim Territory there
This Paper has some loopholes like missing the right of private companies to claim Territory !
As charter was issue, the communist China republic was not recognised member of U.N.

But if the states respect this U.N. charter is doubtful.
The Moon has FREE raw material like rare earth element or oxygen and some water
And here Politicians don't care about U.N.

There even loophole in US laws to claim territory, if those are cartography by US agency.
Thanks NASA there details Maps of Moon and Mars.
but you need to get there to claim it.
What become reality with Starship, NOVA, New Armstrong and China copycat rockets...
 
Interesting point!

Traditionally, architecture and urban foundation has not been simplistically subservient to nature but rather sought the most propitious locus (Vitruvius, blah blah and so on). The short version: best location that gives the most advantages.

However, in non-earthly environments, is a habitat more like a house (integrated with locale) or a vehicle (independent of locale and self-contained)?

FYI, in architectural education, Vitruvius is held up as the Moses of architecture.

Honestly, I am not anywhere near of being an expert in this topic, and I am completely ignorant (sorry!) of your question, but the way you describe the issue, to me the answer seems to be to initially have a vehicle to explore where to set up a more or less permanent stationary post. My approach would be to have the equivalent of US mobile homes as self contained units that can be moved but can also more or less permanently connect to a water/power/gas/communications grids. But in case of doubt, be mobile.
 
Now I take it that you're not a spring chicken anymore, but you should *REALLY* revisit your understanding of current job families.
A good guide to that is what the Algorithm delivers to your Facebook feed. It knows you better than you know yourself. Once upon a time I used to get ads for mature singles and Russian wives, now I get offers for cheap cremation.
 
Honestly, I am not anywhere near of being an expert in this topic, and I am completely ignorant (sorry!) of your question, but the way you describe the issue, to me the answer seems to be to initially have a vehicle to explore where to set up a more or less permanent stationary post. My approach would be to have the equivalent of US mobile homes as self contained units that can be moved but can also more or less permanently connect to a water/power/gas/communications grids. But in case of doubt, be mobile.
Don't worry, I'm not trying to intimidate you with my pretence of knowledge in a specific area. I just wonder that in a new environment whether we might have to think differently, at least for a while. The links I'm providing are along the lines of 'Well, if you're interested...'
 
A good guide to that is what the Algorithm delivers to your Facebook feed. It knows you better than you know yourself. Once upon a time I used to get ads for mature singles and Russian wives, now I get offers for cheap cremation.

I'm presently locked in a pitched battle against Facebook algorithm.

The silly thing think I'm a Family Guy fan, probably because I actually like The Simpsons up to S13 - their golden age.

But I actually hate, loath Family Guy, and Seth McFarlane cynical stuff by large. 30 years of crap. I use the "report" button to denounce Family Guy as violent abusive stuff - in vain.

Plus all the VEO 3 A.I rubbish by lazy scammers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm presently locked in a pitched battle against Facebook algorithm.

The silly thing think I'm a Family Guy fan, probably because I actually like The Simpsons up to S13 - their golden age.

But I actually hate, loath Family Guy, and Seth McFarlane cynical stuff by large. 30 years of crap. I use the "report" button to denounce Family Guy as violent abusive stuff - in vain.

Plus all the VEO 3 A.I rubbish by lazy scammers.
I avoid all of those, and South Park. I deeply respect scepticism, but cynicism is a cop out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I avoid all of those, and South Park. I respect scepticism, but cynicism is a cop out.
South Park outrageus whackiness made me smile, the first seasons I mean. Things like the Satan & Saddam soapy bromance was funny. Or Cartman's mother sleeping with Clinton to rise abortion to 10 years and get ride of Eric that way -WDF.
Other than that yeah - nowadays it is way too disgusting for my tastes.
 
If economics was the main driving force of a Mars colonization, from where would the potential profits come ? Mining ?
What is there that could be more abundant/cheaper to mine/transport and sell than something we have here ? Seriously asking, I have no idea...

If there is profit to be made, I can understand something of the size of oils rigs or small mining town could be done. But these only last as long as there is something to extract there.
 
Last edited:
Mars and Moon indeed have no silver bullet resource to offer. Unobtainium only exists in Avatar's Pandora...
 
Mars and Moon indeed have no silver bullet resource to offer. Unobtainium only exists in Avatar's Pandora...
Well, they provide a lot of non-direct resources. Most valuable - easy to construct living space, not aligned with any existing nation. Essentially the social/political freedom, not achievable on Earth anymore.
 
There is good and bad in any system.
China to its credit, has supported national efforts better than Japan—it must be admitted.

Private efforts can also have problems

A GS-13 or COO of a company are pretty much cut from the same cloth—and the idea that one must be smarter than the other based on what hat he wears never made sense.

William Proxmire the politician, or Proxmire William the Venture Capitalist—-could be trouble either way.

Elon and China were both willing to invest in space…without regard as to which pocket the money came from.

Musk and Tumlinson (and Gary Hudson) all three believe in space privatization—but only one was successful.

China’s space capabilities have increased even as Putin went in the other direction.
 
I always expected the USA as a nation to consistently take the lead in space exploration.
I’d note that the USA taking the lead doesn’t intrinsically mean the *government* being the entity doing it; the government is not the country, and the country is not the government. The country is the people, and the government is a servant and only one of its representatives to the rest of the world.
If economics was the main driving force of a Mars colonization, from where would the potential profits come ? Mining ?
What is there that could be more abundant/cheaper to mine/transport and sell than something we have here ? Seriously asking, I have no idea...

If there is profit to be made, I can understand something of the size of oils rigs or small mining town could be done. But these only last as long as there is something to extract there.
Settling new regions, despite what the French and Spanish may have thought as they explored the New World, isn’t all about extraction to send valuables back home. Whether something can be profitably extracted and shipped back to Earth will depend heavily on transport costs. Platinum, gold, palladium, rhodium, even metals like samarium and gallium can be shipped to Earth, and Mars is rich in deuterium, assuming we have D-D or D3He fusion reactors by the time Mars can electrolyze water and extract the deuterium. It may also be possible to license ideas - a Martian settlement will have to focus heavily on science and engineering to survive, let alone thrive, in a hostile environment. They’ll need advanced robotics and automation; biotechnology for growing sufficient food; artificial intelligence to support the paucity of minds available to tackle problems, and plenty more besides. Yes, Earth will have many more researchers, but not necessarily better or more motivated ones. It’s also possible to have Martian luxury goods - probably not a substantial profit center, but nice to have nonetheless, given their likely low mass. And if humanity ever moves into the asteroid belt, Mars is better positioned energetically to support anyone going than Earth is. We need no silver bullets (and extraction is not a great reason to settle anywhere), just moxie and a bit of imagination.
 
Well, they provide a lot of non-direct resources. Most valuable - easy to construct living space, not aligned with any existing nation. Essentially the social/political freedom, not achievable on Earth anymore.
Easy ? I mean just sending a few shovels and a spade over there to build a wall doesn't seem easy to me, let alone cheap.
As for social/political freedom, as long as there is more than one human, then they have to learn to live with each others (or kill each others), ie establish social rules/customs/procedures to makes the group survival possible (especially in such an hostile environment).
So that in essence is a basic social contract, which involves freedoms, but also duties, just like in any social environment on earth.
It may be called "Mars Mining Conglomerate Coorporate Rules", "Mars bridge club code of conduct", or "Democratic Republic of Jolly Martians", it's the same thing. One will have rules to follow to live in the group, just like here. Don't see how it could be more "free" than life on earth.
 
Last edited:
Well, they provide a lot of non-direct resources. Most valuable - easy to construct living space, not aligned with any existing nation. Essentially the social/political freedom, not achievable on Earth anymore.
For whom would freedom exist on Mars, and why? In a sealed, very finite environment, there is no usable wilderness (or native lands to plunder), so leaving is out. Also, it's likely the level of regulation would be very high. At best, think an apartment complex. There will be a lot of very complex and expensive infrastructure to maintain, so taxes or something functionally identical will need to be paid. In a closed environment contaminants will be need to be strictly controlled (when my brother-in-law was active duty on USN submarines, aerosol shaving cream and deodorants were not allowed. It's the navy, so the individual sailors weren't going to paint anything except with navy-issue paint, with minimal VOCs); this could even affect permitted cooking methods.
 
Last edited:
Easy ? I mean just sending a few shovels and a spade over there to build a wall doesn't seem easy to me, let alone cheap.
As for social/political freedom, as long as there is more than one human, then they have to learn to live with each others (or kill each others), ie establish social rules/customs/procedures to makes the group survival possible (especially in such an hostile environment).
So that in essence is a basic social contract, which involves freedoms, but also duties, just like in any social environment on earth.
It may be called "Mars Mining Conglomerate Coorporate Rules", "Mars bridge club code of conduct", or "Democratic Republic of Jolly Martians", it's the same thing. One will have rules to follow to live in the group, just like here. Don't how it could be more "free" than life on earth.
Freedom doesn’t mean the right to do whatever you want with no consequences, and in this case he’s referring to the opportunity to create new societies, with different laws and customs, rather than being stuck with those of Earth. There’s no reason to expect we have reached the pinnacle of good governance.
 
Space colony? One that's not a company town.
Good luck with that.

All the living space will be owned by someone before you lease your spot. If you're lucky you will be able to have your own greenhouse for life support (oxygen/CO2 cleanup), with guaranteed power and water supplies because it's life support.

Doesn't matter if it's SpaceX Marstown or the EU Mars Colony.



Maybe, maybe not. When the lives of everyone on the station are on the line, though, such distinctions might not prove important. but actual villainous types need to be weeded not just from the population but the gene pool. Sending them elsewhere might mean their corrupted gene code propagates.
The people psychologically incapable of being inside a tin can need to be returned to Earth, though, they cannot just get sent to a different tin can to go insane. They'll probably spend the entire return flight stoned out of their gourd for everyone's safety, sedated and in an "I love me" jacket if they're panicking.

I'm talking previously-undiagnosed claustrophobes, etc.

I'd assume there'd have to be some medical evacuation insurance in place for this. Make the people who do the testing pay for the return trip, it will encourage them to be thorough.

Actively malevolent shitheads can be fed into the equivalent of a wood chipper, as they're an immediate danger to themselves and others. The entire colony of others. I'm talking the residents creating an "anti-riot" of volunteers in lockstep shieldwall beating rioters unconscious before Station Security even shows up.

There's not going to be much tolerance of graffiti, either, if it covers up vital information. There's going to be millions of miles of pipes with all sorts of different things inside them, tens or hundreds of millions of miles of wire and fiber-optic, all of it labeled for what it is and where it's going.

Earthside example? railroad cars. If the "artist" covers up the data stencils, that car is going straight into the paint shop to be re-painted. If the "artist" leaves the data stencils alone or masks over them, though, that art will stay.

Hell, I'd expect that Station Admin will end up "coming to an understanding" with the station moonshiners, so that the "unofficial" stills are on the plans and properly marked. Because ain't nobody going to tolerate unmarked fluid lines!



If higher G proves necessary for pregnancy and/or childhood, several solutions are available other than returning to an overloaded Earth: not only can centrifuges be built on the surface of Luna or Mars, but habs can be put into orbit over those worlds.
Don't forget that you also need significant radiation shielding, too. Which greatly increases the mass of your spin-grav habitats. Though if you mostly use water for that, you're talking about 1-3m worth of water thickness wrapped around the lived-in areas.




If economics was the main driving force of a Mars colonization, from where would the potential profits come ? Mining ?
What is there that could be more abundant/cheaper to mine/transport and sell than something we have here ? Seriously asking, I have no idea...

If there is profit to be made, I can understand something of the size of oils rigs or small mining town could be done. But these only last as long as there is something to extract there.
Almost all mining-for-export will be asteroids, not planetside. The only mining planetside I'd expect would be for local use, and it may still be cheaper to drop iron from orbit than to build refineries.

The purpose of planetary colonies would be lebensraum.


edit: fixed spelling.


Well, they provide a lot of non-direct resources. Most valuable - easy to construct living space, not aligned with any existing nation. Essentially the social/political freedom, not achievable on Earth anymore.
Like I said, any space colony will have to have a very regimented and/or self-disciplined population that has more in common with the working crew of a cruise ship than with a hippie commune.
 
Last edited:
Freedom doesn’t mean the right to do whatever you want with no consequences, and in this case he’s referring to the opportunity to create new societies, with different laws and customs, rather than being stuck with those of Earth. There’s no reason to expect we have reached the pinnacle of good governance.
Never said that. That is why I'm talking about inevitable social contract when living in society. As for creating new type of better governances with different laws and customs when it comes to freedom, why would humans come with better ideas for that specially on Mars ? Why would they become suddenly more wise or inventive about that than we here have been trying for thousands of years ?
 
Never said that. That is why I'm talking about inevitable social contract when living in society. As for creating new type of better governances with different laws and customs when it comes to freedom, why would humans come with better ideas for that specially on Mars ? Why would they become suddenly more wise or inventive about that than we here have been trying for thousands of years ?
Having a situation where being "un-neighborly" gets everyone killed means that you have a much higher chance for weeding out all the violent assholes and work shirkers. "if you don't clean the ventilation filters, everyone here dies horribly."
 
Having a situation where being "un-neighborly" gets everyone killed means that you have a much higher chance for weeding out all the violent assholes and work shirkers. "if you don't clean the ventilation filters, everyone here dies horribly."
Oh you mean ONLY "good/disciplined/wise people" would be allowed to go and live there :D ?
 
Further to that, Le Corbusier, in Vers Une Architecture (usually inaccurately translated into English as Towards New Architecture) argued that habitats should refer to the archetype of the vehicle, in the case he described, the ocean liner. His Unité d'habitation was the fulfilment on earth of this ideal. With proper internet access, you should have no reason to step outside into the almost airless, toxic environment.


(By the way, I'm not endorsing ideas that I present here, just describing how other people have proposed them. Personally, I'd like a nice cottage in the Scottish highlands with several cats, so there.)
The problem with Le Corbusier is that none of his ideas worked outside of his own projects. Brutalism was a nearly universal architectural disaster, aside from providing dystopian settings for movie locations.
 
The purpose of planetary colonies would be liebensraum.
@martinbayer can correct me, but there’s some unintentional humor here in that you basically wrote ‘love space.’ The word you’re looking for is Lebensraum.
Never said that. That is why I'm talking about inevitable social contract when living in society. As for creating new type of better governances with different laws and customs when it comes to freedom, why would humans come with better ideas for that specially on Mars ? Why would they become suddenly more wise or inventive about that than we here have been trying for thousands of years ?
I didn’t say you did. As for why people on Mars could do it, are you at all familiar with historical colonization, going back from the ancient Phoenicians to the settling of the United States? It isn’t a guarantee that will happen, no - it’s a guarantee that there is the opportunity, because the existing authorities usually take a dim view to their system being challenged, but if troublemakers are far off, who cares? It’s not necessarily coming up with new ideas, either, but it could be applications of existing ideas in new ways, whether they’ve been tried before, or not.

Otherwise: consider that virtually all territory on Earth is controlled by one power or another, or off limits to new settlements. This goes back to what I said before - usually governments are not happy about competing governments arising on the territory they control. Ergo, you need new territory to make the attempt.
 
Oh you mean ONLY "good/disciplined/wise people" would be allowed to go and live there :D ?
Or maybe only sufficiently obedient, compliant people. With 24/7 surveillance and a sufficiently loyal security service, obedience could be assured. A company town capital punishment.
 
@martinbayer can correct me, but there’s some unintentional humor here in that you basically wrote ‘love space.’ The word you’re looking for is Lebensraum.

I didn’t say you did. As for why people on Mars could do it, are you at all familiar with historical colonization, going back from the ancient Phoenicians to the settling of the United States? It isn’t a guarantee that will happen, no - it’s a guarantee that there is the opportunity, because the existing authorities usually take a dim view to their system being challenged, but if troublemakers are far off, who cares? It’s not necessarily coming up with new ideas, either, but it could be applications of existing ideas in new ways, whether they’ve been tried before, or not.

Otherwise: consider that virtually all territory on Earth is controlled by one power or another, or off limits to new settlements. This goes back to what I said before - usually governments are not happy about competing governments arising on the territory they control. Ergo, you need new territory to make the attempt.
Agree, new empty (meaning not being already owned by a country/Gov..ect...) lands may give new opportunities of testing stuffs that may have may have failed elsewhere.
But it's still very different from colonizations that happened on Earth (which were never in truly empty lands btw...). It was done here by willingly moving to the new land, or being forced to move there due to famine/war/shitty life/deportation or prospect of making profit.

But I don't see people moving to Mars, to live there, unless it is very well paid, or being forced (but then forget about freedom), and for that, we're back to the question of what business on Mars would be profitable enough to pay billions to get the people there and sustain the cost of them living there ?

I mean, Antarctica is less hostile than Mars, it is much cheaper to go there, you'd only have to deal with penguins, there is likely some minerals/fossil fuels to get there (true, treaties forbids that... but until when...), but there is still only few scientific stations and only 1500 peoples staying there permanently. Peoples don't move to Antarctica to raise a family and start a new civilisation :)
So why Mars?
 
Last edited:
yeah, here We have Mars city vs O'Niel Cylinder, i hope Bezos turn speed up at Blue Origin
other wise with current slow progress Blue Origin start the Cylinder build in year 3000...

On China, the U.N. and Rest of World
There U.N. charter about the use of Moon were Staates are prohibit to claim Territory there
This Paper has some loopholes like missing the right of private companies to claim Territory !
As charter was issue, the communist China republic was not recognised member of U.N.

But if the states respect this U.N. charter is doubtful.
The Moon has FREE raw material like rare earth element or oxygen and some water
And here Politicians don't care about U.N.

There even loophole in US laws to claim territory, if those are cartography by US agency.
Thanks NASA there details Maps of Moon and Mars.
but you need to get there to claim it.
What become reality with Starship, NOVA, New Armstrong and China copycat rockets...
Whoever can hold it, owns it. UN paper?

jRm8q5.gif
 
People *can't* move to Antarctica. If someone tried, military forces would come in and make them leave. You can't set up your own nuclear reactor or mining operations or Kentucky Fried Penguin franchise.

And putting politics aside, there wouldn't be much point in moving to Antarctica. It would be simply moving into one last remaining corner of the map. Moving to Mars means moving *off* the map. Expanding the frontier. Getting away from the cops. Spreading outwards.
They don't because it it would be stupid. There have been settlers on remote islands near Antarctica at the time of whale hunting, there were no cops or governments to forbid them to do so, but it only lasted the time the whale business lasted, and life there was miserable, they hardly stayed there the whole year.

I agree "Spreading outwards" would be cool and all, but only if the environment permits it and the place is livable. So that happened with the Americas, because it was an all new livable and rich continent, but not with Antarctica, because it is a shitty place to live. How the heck would Mars be better ?
 
They don't because it it would be stupid. There have been settlers on remote islands near Antarctica at the time of whale hunting, there were no cops or governments to forbid them to do so, but it only lasted the time the whale business lasted, and life there was miserable, they hardly stayed there the whole year.

I agree "Spreading outwards" would be cool and all, but only if the environment permits it and the place is livable.
So. . . .wait until we discover another blue planet and FTL travel?
 
So. . . .wait until we discover another blue planet and FTL travel?
Nah... I don't say we'll never get there. But to have a new Human Martian civilisation flourish there seem to me far fetched... Some scientific stations at most. Maybe robotic mining... Still cool.
Dunno what FTL travel is...
 
Nah... I don't say we'll never get there. But to have a new Human Martian civilisation flourish there seem to me far fetched... Some scientific stations at most. Maybe robotic mining... Still cool.
Dunno what FTL travel is...
Which other body in the solar system, other than Mars, is more suitable for life? (FTL = faster than light)
 
Which other body in the solar system, other than Mars, is more suitable for life? (FTL = faster than light)
Earth.
I remember reading of life on balloons on Venus too... ?
Other than that, yes until we find ways to travel to a place where the environment is very similar to our (still have to find that...), I don't see humans willingly settling permanently over generations and generations elsewhere than here.
 
Earth.
I remember reading of life on balloons on Venus too... ?
Other than that, yes until we find ways to travel to a place where the environment is very similar to our (still have to find that...), I don't see humans willingly settling permanently over generations and generations elsewhere than here.
Nobody is saying you have to leave Earth.
 
People *can't* move to Antarctica. If someone tried, military forces would come in and make them leave. You can't set up your own nuclear reactor or mining operations or Kentucky Fried Penguin franchise.
Chile and Argentina try in 1980s to put settlements in Antartica to claim as Territory.
They failed
Mostly lack of budget for this project, technical challenge like lack of Power production and harsh condition of Antartica.

Now will come the argument, if they failed in Antartica, they will certain fail on Mars !
Mars is not Antartica, there no 6 months of darkness in winter, either wind with hurricane speeds (IGNORE the Martian )
You need airtight habitants and greenhouses with airlocks, yes but it far better as barracks in Antartica...
 
Agree, new empty (meaning not being already owned by a country/Gov..ect...) lands may give new opportunities of testing stuffs that may have may have failed elsewhere.
But it's still very different from colonizations that happened on Earth (which were never in truly empty lands btw...). It was done here by willingly moving to the new land, or being forced to move there due to famine/war/shitty life/deportation or prospect of making profit.
If you think there were no empty lands, then I suggest you're falling for recency bias, and not considering the same time scale as I am. As for 'willingly moving,' I see no reason to expect that the majority, if not all, people going to Mars for many years will be willing.

But I don't see people moving to Mars, to live there, unless it is very well paid, or being forced (but then forget about freedom), and for that, we're back to the question of what business on Mars would be profitable enough to pay billions to get the people there and sustain the cost of them living there ?
Why not? I suspect based on some of your comments that you may see the point of life as seeking comfort. That is the case for many, and those types won't go to Mars until long after settlements have grown there. But that's not everyone on Earth. As for being forced, it is ridiculous to assume anyone will be forced to go to Mars any time soon. What would be the point? Given the expense (even with dramatically reduced transportation costs), it would be more reasonable to keep people here on Earth, or send them to the Moon if you must get them off planet. As for what would be profitable, I've answered that already.

I mean, Antarctica is less hostile than Mars, it is much cheaper to go there, you'd only have to deal with penguins, there is likely some minerals/fossil fuels to get there (true, treaties forbids that... but until when...), but there is still only few scientific stations and only 1500 peoples staying there permanently. Peoples don't move to Antarctica to raise a family and start a new civilisation :)
So why Mars?
Antarctica is more hostile than Mars, being less resource-rich, blocked from settlement by treaties, and with far less accessible solar energy. And again, it's still too close to existing governments.

Earth.
I remember reading of life on balloons on Venus too... ?
Other than that, yes until we find ways to travel to a place where the environment is very similar to our (still have to find that...), I don't see humans willingly settling permanently over generations and generations elsewhere than here.
Most people won't. That's fine. But I would caution you against assuming nobody would go, as there are millions who would do so if the opportunity was available. I would also caution you against assuming that environments must be exactly like what we live in now, because if that were genuinely the case, humanity would have never left Africa. It is our technology that allows us to thrive in new environments; that will be even more forcefully the case beyond Earth, whether one is living in orbit, in the Belt, on Mars, or somewhere else entirely.
 
Chile and Argentina try in 1980s to put settlements in Antartica to claim as Territory.
They failed
Mostly lack of budget for this project, technical challenge like lack of Power production and harsh condition of Antartica.

Now will come the argument, if they failed in Antartica, they will certain fail on Mars !
Mars is not Antartica, there no 6 months of darkness in winter, either wind with hurricane speeds (IGNORE the Martian )
You need airtight habitants and greenhouses with airlocks, yes but it far better as barracks in Antartica...
I don't say they "certain fail on Mars", but a start of a civilisation there is highly unlikely, just like in Antarctica. Maybe some permanent settlements of few hundreds, only, only if there is profit to be made or a a political will to keep scientific stations there to pay for it (but then, we are far from the "spreading outward where there's no cops" dream), and we aren't sure these conditions would be met.

As for comparing the places, you'd most likely live underground on Mars so with artificial light like during the 6 month of darkness at Earth's poles, so would be quite similar to Antarctica stations. Going out for fresh air is not recommended. It is also a very cold place. There are storms there too. Radiations from solar wind and cosmic rays also poses question, cause Martian atmosphere doesn't stop it as well as on Earth.
But most of all, it's the distance.
 
I don't say they "certain fail on Mars", but a start of a civilisation there is highly unlikely, just like in Antarctica. Maybe some permanent settlements of few hundreds, only, only if there is profit to be made or a a political will to keep scientific stations there to pay for it (but then, we are far from the "spreading outward where there's no cops" dream), and we aren't sure these conditions would be met.
Don't mistake the interest in settling Mars as 'getting away from cops.' While some people who go there may want anarchy, I don't think that would be a strong motivation for many, especially those most likely to be successful.
As for comparing the places, you'd most likely live underground on Mars so with artificial light like during the 6 month of darkness at Earth's poles, so would be quite similar to Antarctica stations. Going out for fresh air is not recommended. It is also a very cold place. There are storms there too. Radiations from solar wind and cosmic rays also poses question, cause Martian atmosphere doesn't stop it as well as on Earth.
But most of all, it's the distance.
Radiation is easy to deal with. People throughout much of the northern hemisphere live mainly indoors in winter already, and it's quite cold across large spans of Earth's surface.
 
Who in his right mind would willingly go to mars be stuck inside forever? If anything people will be forced to go there concentration camp style.
 
I mean, Antarctica is less hostile than Mars, it is much cheaper to go there, you'd only have to deal with penguins, there is likely some minerals/fossil fuels to get there (true, treaties forbids that... but until when...), but there is still only few scientific stations and only 1500 peoples staying there permanently. Peoples don't move to Antarctica to raise a family and start a new civilisation :)
So why Mars?
Basically because Antarctic Treaty. And the pre-existing claims on the continent parts, so even if the Treaty would expire and not be prolonged (which is possible) there still would be no "free land". Only nationally-claimed territories, where nations could relatively easily exercise their control.

On Mars, on the other hand, national control of Earth would be... extremely handicapped. The travel time make direct control unreasonably costly. The communication lag made data-based control inefficient. So Martian colonies situation would be determined mainly by the local, Martian politics - not by Earth.
 
Who in his right mind would willingly go to mars be stuck inside forever? If anything people will be forced to go there concentration camp style.
I would go. Sure, I’d miss the outdoors, but the recompense in intelligent, interesting colleagues, work, and shared challenges would be valuable too.

Why would governments waste their time sending people to Mars? What’s in it for them? If one wants a prison camp off Earth, you may as well build it either in space or on the Moon.
 
If you think there were no empty lands, then I suggest you're falling for recency bias, and not considering the same time scale as I am. As for 'willingly moving,' I see no reason to expect that the majority, if not all, people going to Mars for many years will be willing.
You were referring to the colonization of the Americas earlier, true, was not populated by billions, and there was vast empty places, but there was still some people there too. That's what I was referring too.

Why not? I suspect based on some of your comments that you may see the point of life as seeking comfort. That is the case for many, and those types won't go to Mars until long after settlements have grown there. But that's not everyone on Earth. As for being forced, it is ridiculous to assume anyone will be forced to go to Mars any time soon. What would be the point? Given the expense (even with dramatically reduced transportation costs), it would be more reasonable to keep people here on Earth, or send them to the Moon if you must get them off planet. As for what would be profitable, I've answered that already.
I suspect based on some of your comments that you like to have the last word... We both are starting to know each other.
As forcing people to go there, well yes unlikely, just as unlikely people would move there willingly to start an happy family, but you started making comparisons with historical colonizations, and it happened. If one (or severals) absolutely want some people to settle in some place they don't want to, to make a "new society" as he likes, and if he finds the means, its a possibility.
As for profitability, and thus ultimately possible long term human settlement there, thanks for your comprehensive answer, but there are still quite a lot of unknowns about that. Just thinking about the transport for one...

Antarctica is more hostile than Mars, being less resource-rich, blocked from settlement by treaties, and with far less accessible solar energy. And again, it's still too close to existing governments.
At least it's a place where you can breathe. A miserable place to live, but I don't see mars as better, sorry.
Funny, what makes you think that on Mars you'd not have to deal with a government (and what's the problem with having a government anyway) ? I mean, as I mentioned earlier, you'd still have to deal with some kind of authority, thus some kind of governance, ie a government in effect. be it a Martian coorporation or something related to some authority from Earth.

Most people won't. That's fine. But I would caution you against assuming nobody would go, as there are millions who would do so if the opportunity was available.
Sure there would be, I mean, I would go for a week , as for STAYING there, that's another question. But anyway, all this is completely hypothetical ...

I would also caution you against assuming that environments must be exactly like what we live in now, because if that were genuinely the case, humanity would have never left Africa. It is our technology that allows us to thrive in new environments; that will be even more forcefully the case beyond Earth, whether one is living in orbit, in the Belt, on Mars, or somewhere else entirely.
True.
 
Last edited:
Don't mistake the interest in settling Mars as 'getting away from cops.' While some people who go there may want anarchy, I don't think that would be a strong motivation for many, especially those most likely to be successful.
Was referring to this comment .
Indeed if there ever was a settlement there, the rules for the survival of the colony would be quite strict. It implies laws and order, thus some kind of governance, thus (surprise surprise) what is in effect a government.

Radiation is easy to deal with. People throughout much of the northern hemisphere live mainly indoors in winter already, and it's quite cold across large spans of Earth's surface.
Well Ok then, problem solved...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom