As there has never been a time in history that humans occupied a non-owned entity such as other planets, — L'éléphant

Antarctica.

We know that the US, Russia, China have galactic ambition — L'éléphant

I'm not sure what this means. Meaningful galactic ambition depends on the ability to travel faster than light. Current science says that's not possible.

But what if we could actually create human habitat on Mars? Should territories be created and laws established on Mars similar to Earth? What about ownership? Economy? — L'éléphant

Questions -

• Is there anything in space worth going after. Probably. Raw materials. Scientific knowledge.
• If yes, where is it? Is it on a large celestial object - planet or moon - or on a smaller one - asteroid?
• Is it economical to go after the materials?
• Is the best way of getting the materials by using fixed bases?

If it turns out space is worth going after, rules could be decided by 1) International treaty or 2) First come/best military first served. Method 2 is how it worked on Earth.

Should we outlaw wars, terrorism, overpopulation, and pollution? — L'éléphant

If we could have, we probably would have already.

Antarctica. — T Clark

Antarctica is a continent on a planet that's already organically occupied by humans. When I said "entity" I meant a separate body of a planet. Sorry for this neglect.

I'm not sure what this means. Meaningful galactic ambition depends on the ability to travel faster than light. Current science says that's not possible. — T Clark

Space exploration, to put it bluntly.

Questions -

Is there anything in space worth going after. Probably. Raw materials. Scientific knowledge.
If yes, where is it? Is it on a large celestial object - planet or moon - or on a smaller one - asteroid?
Is it economical to go after the materials?
Is the best way of getting the materials by using fixed bases? — T Clark

That's why this thread is a thought experiment but not without basis -- like I said, there's already been a treaty made back in 1979 in hopes that if someday we could harvest the resources there, we already have governance in place. No treaty for settlement yet -- this is wishful thinking.

2) First come/best military first served. Method 2 is how it worked on Earth. — T Clark

Okay, so this is your answer.

If we could have, we probably would have already. — T Clark

Peace is part of the Moon Treaty. And why we couldn't have the same on Earth is obvious. But, I think that settlement on another planet would be just like on Earth -- or would it be a big lab like Antarctica? I believe, though, with increasing intelligence, as I have already been told in this forum by other forum members, humans will try to figure out a way to carve out another settlement somewhere. If Antarctica melts, and as big as it is -- much bigger than the US size, that could be a possibility. But guess what, 7 nations already claimed territories on Antarctica.

Antarctica is a continent on a planet that's already organically occupied by humans. — L'éléphant

I think Antarctica might a good model for how it could work in space.

Space exploration, to put it bluntly. — L'éléphant

If there is nothing to be gained in space other than knowledge, I don't see why anyone will care what happens there. If there is no economical way of bringing resources available in space back here to earth, the only value of space will be military.

Okay, so this is your answer. — L'éléphant

It wasn't an answer.

Space exploration, to put it bluntly. — L'éléphant

So far, humans have traveled 250,000 miles from earth to the moon. Mars is about 34,000,000 miles away. The galaxy is 107,000 LIGHT YEARS in diameter. Successfully traveling to our nearby moon does not make us a space-faring civilization, as depicted in science fiction.

IF and when something we want or need is found on a moon planet, or asteroid, someone will try to go get it, space treaties or not. Common heritage? We have dumped shit on heritage sights that are a lot closer than the moon.

All of our problems have to be solved under the sky that is overhead. The solutions are to be found here, not there, or they won't be found.

BTW, I like science fiction, and I like reading about humankind traveling to other solar systems. Of course, in some books, we run into beings more powerful than us who end up eating our lunch. Or, we turn out to be more powerful and we eat somebody else's lunch.

Or, another theme in science fiction: we travel for a very long time in space and never find anyone else.

But what if we could actually create human habitat on Mars? — L'éléphant

The new melting pot: Mars.

Antarctica. — T Clark

I thought Antarctica is already owned by Nazi Germany.

I think Antarctica might a good model for how it could work in space. — T Clark

No, because Antarctica was never earmarked for settlement, only scientific exploration. Second, only those who have the means to go to the chosen planet could lead the international treaty. (If settlement is already a possibility),

If there is nothing to be gained in space other than knowledge, I don't see why anyone will care what happens there. If there is no economical way of bringing resources available in space back here to earth, the only value of space will be military. — T Clark

I said, if a planet could be inhabited. Which implies that it is fit for human habitat. Could you guys try to envision this scenario?

It wasn't an answer. — T Clark

What was it then? You said it would be first come first served -- we already know which countries have the means to go. In reality.

Or, another theme in science fiction: we travel for a very long time in space and never find anyone else. — Bitter Crank

Humor me.

The new melting pot: Mars. — Metaphysician Undercover

You think so, but no.

You think so, but no. — L'éléphant

Why not? Hasn't the International Space Station already turned into a sort of melting pot, with people of all different nationalities going there? Wikipedia: "As of 30 December 2021, 251 people from 19 countries had visited the space station, many of them multiple times."

The ISS is a scientific lab. Like Antarctica. Not a settlement or habitat. Wait until a planet is habitable. Then you get the same attitude as on Earth.

Here's a passage from nasa.gov/centers on Space Colonization:

Once the exclusive province of science fiction stories and films, the subject of space colonization has rapidly moved several steps closer to becoming a reality thanks to major advances in rocket propulsion and design, astronautics and astrophysics, robotics and medicine. The urgency to establish humanity as a multi-planet species has been re-validated by the emergence of a worldwide pandemic, one of several reasons including both natural and man-made catastrophes long espoused in the pro-colonization rhetoric.

The long-term habitation of the International Space Station by rotating teams of astronauts, scientists and medical professionals has provided us with a wealth of data to establish parameters for keeping humans alive and healthy for long periods in the harsh environment of space. Here on earth there have been several ambitious projects attempting to duplicate as close as possible the conditions of off-world habitation to test the limits of human endurance.

Or, another theme in science fiction: we travel for a very long time in space and never find anyone else. — Bitter Crank

Please read the above post. Thanks.

Wait until a planet is habitable. — L'éléphant

I think that the other planets are known to be fundamentally uninhabitable, any colonization would be within an artificial structure, just like the space station. You appear to be dreaming about something which will never happen.

I think that the other planets are known to be fundamentally uninhabitable, any colonization would be within an artificial structure, just like the space station. You appear to be dreaming about something which will never happen. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I actually was thinking of something similar to Earth habitat. But yes, artificial structure would be more realistic. Nonetheless, if that's the case, there is a possibility of creating one since ISS has already established that long term stay is possible in such structure. It's just a matter of time. So, obviously not in the near future. But still my question about the political consequences of such arrangement. We're not going to escape the political and economic domination as we are experiencing on Earth. There's not going to be a utopia.

Being confined to an artificial structure in an extremely hostile outside environment is definitely not my idea of utopia. Many of the political issues on earth would not be applicable out there, where people would have to live together to survive. But there would be other problems derived from being cooped up with others, for a long duration, mental health problems like anxiety and depression, or one person annoys another, and the annoyance becomes intolerable. I don't see overpopulation as a problem.

I don't see overpopulation as a problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

Death by exposure would become fashionable again.

For starters, perhaps something like this, from the film The Martian:

I've been thinking about laws on Mars. There's an international treaty saying that no country can lay claim to anything that's not on Earth. By another treaty if you're not in any country's territory, maritime law aplies. So Mars is international waters. Now, NASA is an American non-military organization, it owns the Hab. But the second I walk outside I'm in international waters. So Here's the cool part. I'm about to leave for the Schiaparelli Crater where I'm going to commandeer the Ares IV lander. Nobody explicitly gave me permission to do this, and they can't until I'm on board the Ares IV. So I'm going to be taking a craft over in international waters without permission, which by definition... makes me a pirate. Mark Watney: Space Pirate.

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

And again from the same film:

They say once you grow crops somewhere, you have officially “colonized” it. So technically, I colonized Mars.