It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should SpaceX have PMC forces accompany its missions to Mars?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   
As we've all seen over the last few hundred years, private individuals and companies traipsed off to distant lands and continents and established trading relationships and settlements before nations then came after and declared them territories, colonies and possessions.

In this vein, therefore, should SpaceX either set up its own PMC offshoot or have PMC forces accompany its manned missions to Mars (et al), lest the United States Government later wander in and claim parts of SpaceX settled Mars as "US possessions" etc?




posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII
...In this vein, therefore, should SpaceX either set up its own PMC offshoot or have PMC forces accompany its manned missions to Mars (et al), lest the United States Government later wander in and claim parts of SpaceX settled Mars as "US possessions" etc?


Well, then what's to stop SpaceX (or any corporation) from potentially being able to claim their bases on mars as their own territories -- and have the armed military forces on the ground to back up that claim?



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Currently, I believe that may be the (rather outdated) Outer Space Treaty...

Something else needs to replace the OST - and quickly too...



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Currently, I believe that may be the (rather outdated) Outer Space Treaty...

Something else needs to replace the OST - and quickly too...


Isn't that same treaty meant to prohibit countries and governments from claiming Mars territories?

So if we are worried that a country might ignore that treaty, then shouldn't we be equally worried that a company -- one who takes an armed military force to Mars -- might also ignore that same treaty?

By the way, the part of the OST that would cover this is the "Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", which say that the Moon and other celestial bodies, such as Mars, are international property and not to be claimed by any one government or organization as their own.

However, that agreement has never been ratified by countries with space capabilities.



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   
IF (and this is a big "if") a colony is established on Mars and eventually becomes self-sustaining, they will declare independence anyway.



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 11:42 AM
link   
How do you enforce the Outer Space Treaty anyway? Send in Sergeant Apone and the Colonial Marines?



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's not even just the issue of enforcement. It's also the issue of rights, usage etc. What happens, for example, when asteroid/extrasolar mining chugs into full flow? These are just some of the reasons why the Outer Space Treaty needs to be updated/replaced.
edit on 29-4-2019 by AnakinWayneII because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Yes and we will call them MACOs.



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Any colony or base dependent on suppliers from earth in some way isn't going to be independent earthbound governments.

There will not be a sovereign nation of mars or moon for a long, long time. I have real doubts of there ever being a true settlement on Mars. What would they trade? Is there anything of value there that can't be found in asteroids?



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII
As we've all seen over the last few hundred years, private individuals and companies traipsed off to distant lands and continents and established trading relationships and settlements before nations then came after and declared them territories, colonies and possessions.

We did? Could you present some examples of that?


In this vein, therefore, should SpaceX either set up its own PMC offshoot or have PMC forces accompany its manned missions to Mars (et al), lest the United States Government later wander in and claim parts of SpaceX settled Mars as "US possessions" etc?

What's a "PMC"?



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
However, that agreement has never been ratified by countries with space capabilities.

It was, what wasn't ratified was the Moon Treaty of 1979.



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

PMC stands for Private Military Contractor.



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Once they leave this planet, we are not responsible to go pick those people up if their ship breaks down. They are no longer earthlings let alone citizens. I would bet that they cannot live long outside of the electromagnetic field influence of the earth that governs their DNA replication, they may come back looking like little gray men.



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Not at first, just a few security guards will do till there is something worth defending.



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
However, that agreement has never been ratified by countries with space capabilities.

It was, what wasn't ratified was the Moon Treaty of 1979.


Thanks!

But still, if the idea is that SpaceX should be worried about a country (say the U.S.) breaking the treaty and taking Elon Musk's Mars colony and calling it a U.S. territory, then why shouldn't we be equally worried that a corporation (such as SpaceX or another corporation) could also break with the spirit and intent of that treaty and claim their base as a territory?

It just seems to me that if the corporation takes an armed private army with them, it becomes more likely that the corporation might claim their base as their own territory.



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


How do you enforce the Outer Space Treaty anyway? Send in Sergeant Apone and the Colonial Marines?


But what are they going to use? Harsh language?




posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
trade? Is there anything of value there that can't be found in asteroids?


A - relatively- heavy gravity field for one thing...

Something we haven't even come close to being able to do without for extended periods.



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 11:12 PM
link   
If I recall, much of OST (outer space treaty of 1967) is based on maritime law. Furthermore it is stipulated that any party to the OST is responsible for oversight of any government or non-government operation that originates in their country. This is mostly in relation to WMDs, but does not bar the militarization of space.

The specifications made in the Moon Treaty state that all militarization of space is banned, and also includes stipulations on the not altering or exploiting resources on non-earthly bodies. Which is why so many countries have not ratified it, and even some signatories have not ratified it as of yet.

So overall, if Space X were to colonize Mars, they would do so under US government oversight baring a new treaty and changes to the OST.



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse
you may be interested in this article.

www.popsci.com...




Although SEIS had picked up other seismic signals in previous weeks, they were smaller and shorter than the Sol 128 event, and their origins were even more ambiguous. But let’s not overemphasize the significance of the findings. The truth is, the SOL 128 seismic event is quite small. “It’s small enough that we wouldn’t have seen it [from] an Earth station because of the higher noise on Earth,” says Panning. Right now, the InSight team estimates it will be about a magnitude 3 event, and it’s currently difficult to be more accurate without knowing the distance to the actual quake. Based on the data so far, Panning says the recorded signal is “far below what a human can feel.”



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join