Mars Colonization and the Moon and Mars as the 51st and 52nd state of the Union?

[Airlick]

Yeah. They are. Hell I'd start a damn war over it. Letting anyone get that territory is a bad idea.

In the end you won't be dealing with one or two countries, you could see China, Russia and the rest join up to stop you getting Mars or the moon

I don't know, I'm not a fan of 'Murica and I would like to see any country, even USA, colonize the Moon and Mars.

[Mormolyce]

Manifest destiny all the way to the moon?

The moon is not the property of any nation under the terms of the Moon Treaty of 1979. Which no nation with a space program signed. And which of course, is just a piece of paper.

So yeah sure maybe.

[Adamas102]

Ha, that would be funny. Even more funny when said colonies decided to take a page from the history of their founders and break away from the ol' ball and chain back here on Earth.

Sorry, America! We got to the party late and missed out on the big colonization craze (not like it really panned out for most of the countries involved). Why would generations born in space identify with our nationalities back here on Earth anyway? Sure, maybe we could be the first to set things up there, but assuming such colonies were both self sufficient and had something to leverage (natural resources, ports between other future colonies) it would only be a matter of time before they decided to become autonomous.

[Emageht Tsoluoy]

This idea seems like a great way to start a war.

[Noradin]

This is a majority US community. We allow a few others in because of white guilt.

Nah, this is an EU community, we allow others because we are friendly like that

And no you wouldn't claim those as states, even if you got them they would become "territories" not "member states", just like all those others.
The US are imperialistic like that.

[Ryme]

But if or when we have the technology to truly colonize it, who is going to stop us from taking over the moon?

I believe it's actually illegal by a global treaty the US not only signed but helped bring into action. Additionally, no country is allowed to perform any kind of military operation on any celestial body, including things like nuclear tests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

[Deleted]

I think these people with their one way trip are the closest ones to make it:
http://www.mars-one.com/
And we get to vote who will be sent first!

[Unalorian]

But if or when we have the technology to truly colonize it, who is going to stop us from taking over the moon?

Common sense.

Dont need to go to outerspace to find a similar example: check the Antarctic continent, technology to colonize it has been available for decades already (most probably all mostly developed by the US) and still it is governed by a Treaty system.

[Shige]

From what I know, everything outside Earth is mankind's. (This is the simple version). Plus Man's arrogance..

There is nothing stopping you from going to the moon, building a house and claiming it as your own. But there is also nothing stopping me from going to your land and claim it as my own too.

The only difference between Earth and the Moon in this aspect is that if I invade your house and claim it as mine, you have the law on your side. Where if I invade your land in the Moon, there would be no police, no law to secure your self proclaimed property.

[Gsara]

I think these people with their one way trip are the closest ones to make it:
http://www.mars-one.com/
And we get to vote who will be sent first!

There is no voting on who goes, they outline the selection process pretty well. Unless of course you work for mars-one or are part of the international mission advisory board.

OT, It would be the worst idea ever for the US to try to stong arm its way to owning mars or the moon. Besides, at this point most of everything to do with space is an international effort and would serve no purpose to break any of that up.

[Deleted]

It is easier to destroy then it is to create.
It is easier to copy/reverse engineer/steal technology if you are not the first to create it.

In the worst case scenario Russia, China, India and the EU would all be able to create a weapon to destroy your moonbase extremely cost efficiently. i mean how are you even gonna defend a fledgling moonbase that is not fully operational yet? Let's not forget colonization of the moon with current day tech would cost trillions even for a antartica sized research station.

If i were up against you i would just launch a few tonnes of metal with some rockets on it into space, accelerate it to your moonbase at a few thousand miles per second, watch your helpless base turn into a small crater, and release some propaganda of say accident deploying a new satelite that crashed into your base on accident.

And what are you gonna do about it? start a war you cannot win or afford after you spend trillions on your moonbase?

[Pengekaer]

I doubt any country would risk a major war over Mars or the moon. Honestly what right do they have to stop us? First come first served. If they want a piece of the pie, they will have to colonize a portion before we get there first.

- - - Updated - - -



All the treaties and laws won't mean jack shit if they can't be enforced.

I can follow this argument. To be honest, the US is also the country that has, by and far, invested the most in space-research (in % of GDP, it is possible that Russia invests more, though) and generally been the most serious about space research. As the European nations and China have only just begun to take space research seriously while the US have been taking it very seriously for 50 years, I believe the US should be allowed to reap the benefits if they can. That being said, being an engineer myself of sorts (Biotech, so not hardcore mechanics xD), I doubt it is feasible to transport the resources through space unless it's something REALLY valuable on a per kilogram basis like gold, platinum etc. That is, of course, assuming that a refinery can get up and running. Incredible technological achievements have been made before and this one - a refinery in space - would top it.

- - - Updated - - -

In the worst case scenario Russia, China, India and the EU would all be able to create a weapon to destroy your moonbase extremely cost efficiently.

If i were up against you i would just launch a few tonnes of metal with some rockets on it into space, accelerate it to your moonbase at a few thousand miles per second, watch your helpless base turn into a small crater, and release some propaganda of say accident deploying a new satelite that crashed into your base on accident.

And what are you gonna do about it? start a war you cannot win or afford after you spend trillions on your moonbase?

True enough. I don't know about India, but China, Russia and Europe certainly could launch a nuke from space and destroy the moonbase (in fact, with the Rosetta Mission, the Europeans have demonstrated nothing short of stunning accuracy in space xD ). On the more serious note, starting what is defacto a nuclear war with the US is not the best idea IMO. I got a feeling it would hurt. Everybody. On the planet. Somehow.

[Deleted]

There is no voting on who goes, they outline the selection process pretty well. Unless of course you work for mars-one or are part of the international mission advisory board.

OT, It would be the worst idea ever for the US to try to stong arm its way to owning mars or the moon. Besides, at this point most of everything to do with space is an international effort and would serve no purpose to break any of that up.

No it says like this on the website:
"Several months before the first human departure, the Mars One selection committee will determine which groups in training are ready to depart to Mars. It is expected that at least six groups will be ready for the trip. Because this mission is humankind's mission, Mars One has the intention to make this a democratic decision. The whole world will have a vote which group of four will be the first humans on Mars. - See more at: http://www.mars-one.com/faq/selection-and-preparation-of-the-astronauts/which-group-of-astronauts-will-go-first#sthash.lamwjJ4W.dpuf"

[Deleted]

True enough. I don't know about India, but China, Russia and Europe certainly could launch a nuke from space and destroy the moonbase (in fact, with the Rosetta Mission, the Europeans have demonstrated nothing short of stunning accuracy in space xD ). On the more serious note, starting what is defacto a nuclear war with the US is not the best idea IMO. I got a feeling it would hurt. Everybody. On the planet. Somehow.

Why use a nuke when a lot of old satelites, an old car, or some hunk of space junk accelerated to fairly normal orbital speeds will do much much more damage?

I'm sure you have seen some meteor impacts, now imagine one of those things with a higher density then rock and no atmosphere to slow it down.

[Gsara]

No it says like this on the website:
"Several months before the first human departure, the Mars One selection committee will determine which groups in training are ready to depart to Mars. It is expected that at least six groups will be ready for the trip. Because this mission is humankind's mission, Mars One has the intention to make this a democratic decision. The whole world will have a vote which group of four will be the first humans on Mars. - See more at: http://www.mars-one.com/faq/selection-and-preparation-of-the-astronauts/which-group-of-astronauts-will-go-first#sthash.lamwjJ4W.dpuf"

Ok, I thought you meant something else other than voting on the pre selected people they have already selected for the trip.

[Imnick]

Trying to claim the moon as your exclusive property would be a bizarre decision as there's nothing there, and it would start a fight that America has absolutely no reason to be in.
So while maybe America could, America wouldn't.

[Independent voter]

They can apply to the union to become a state, but I suspect the population of Mars and the Moon to be largely Democrat so the Republicans would never approve.

[Kuntantee]

The treaty may be revised in the future but claiming Mars without the consent of other major powers is quick way to weaponization of outer space.

[Deleted]

You would actually force others into a war by doing so. Perhaps even make other powerfull countries work together to stop you.
Also don't forget how vulnerable the transportation to the colonies would be for missile interception.

[Pengekaer]

Why use a nuke when a lot of old satelites, an old car, or some hunk of space junk accelerated to fairly normal orbital speeds will do much much more damage?

I'm sure you have seen some meteor impacts, now imagine one of those things with a higher density then rock and no atmosphere to slow it down.

Well, a man made object would still need fuel to reach the velocities of which you speak. An engine cannot extract more energy out of the fuel than it's maximum theoretical combustion value [kJ/kg]. Methyl-Hydrazine has a heat of combustion of about 28 gigajoule/kg (1300 kJ/mole - 1 mole @ 46 g. On a kg basis, that is 1300 kJ/mole x [(1000 g/kg)/(46 g/mole)] = 28x10^6 gigajoule/kg for metylhydrazide). This fuel-latent energy would still have to be converted into kinetic energy for the projectile to be efficient (a process that is not 100 % effective - far from).
A modern 1 megaton TNT equavalent nuke harbors over 4 petajoule. It would take thousands and thousands of metric tonnes of methyl-hydrazine to match the energy of a nuke - the fuel would have to be burned to grant the spacejunk kinetic energy. So, fuel-driven spacecraft (used as a projectile weapon) would still be limited by the chemistry of its fuel, whereas the nuke-carrying missile would need much smaller amounts of fuel while still carrying a warhead much more powerful than the kinetic energy of any object we could accelerate with our current technology.
A 1 megaton nuke (about 4x10^15 joule) carries 65 times the energy of a 50000 kg object travelling at 200000 km/h (Assuming the simple formula E-kin = v^2 x 0.5 x m).
So I doubt we humans could accelerate an object to velocities capable of out-leveling a nuke in terms of energy. But its true that many meteors are way ahead of even the largest nukes in terms of destructive energy, but I think that is due to their massive mass (often hundres of thousands, even millions of tonnes) and they have been accelerated by gravity for a long time.
That being said, I see ur point. xD Even a small piece of space-junk accelerated to a fair velocity hitting, for instance, the power supply on a moon base would do the same job as a nuke essentially, but without starting an actual nuclear war against the Moon-colonizers. xD