Author Topic: Will US achieve world domination with lunar and Martian colonies?  (Read 12840 times)

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4318
  • Likes Given: 1759

So not like the Vikings in Ukraine, who disappeared as problems in the home country interrupted the constant supplies they needed to eke out an existence there (and paid for with furs and ivory), or Roanoke, or the many, many colonies and ghost towns that failed, even though the bar to clear for economic selfreliance was a lot lower.
Yep, many, many colonies failed.

"Vikings in Ukraine": Were you referring to the Kievan Rus?
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27
Those Vikings dominated Eastern Europe and were eventually assimilated into the elite, and that wasn't a colony, it was more like an invasion. Their hegemony eventually morphed into the countries of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. I was referring to the Greenland Norse which was a colony that lasted for 450 years, which is longer than the the USA has existed and longer than the Roman occupation of Britannia. The Greenland Norse were driven out by climate change and the superior technology of the Inuit who arrived later, not by lack of support from the homeland, of which they were independent. See
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed
Which is a really good book and has many other relevant examples for a discussion of independence of colonies.

No, history does not repeat, and newer technologies will result in major differences in detail, but attempting to control a distant colony by coercion will eventually fail.



Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
To me, political independence means that the colony is governed autonomously and the mother country has no effective means to enforce any control.

This is the common meaning of the term "political independence" in this context. As to the relatively small number of moonizens [Lunizens?] involved, even after the forty to fifty year time frame of "colonization", the new "country" would still be relatively expensive to visit.  Over that time frame, political differences between the mother countries and the colony would develop.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4318
  • Likes Given: 1759
To me, political independence means that the colony is governed autonomously and the mother country has no effective means to enforce any control.

This is the common meaning of the term "political independence" in this context. As to the relatively small number of moonizens [Lunizens?] involved, even after the forty to fifty year time frame of "colonization", the new "country" would still be relatively expensive to visit.  Over that time frame, political differences between the mother countries and the colony would develop.
I should have added that I don't think it's a colony until at least half the population were born there or intend to reside there permanently. Before that, It's an outpost or a research station, historically roughly equivalent to McMurdo or to a Hudson Bay Company trading post. If you expect to "go back home", of course you are still subject to coercion from "home".

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152

So not like the Vikings in Ukraine, who disappeared as problems in the home country interrupted the constant supplies they needed to eke out an existence there (and paid for with furs and ivory), or Roanoke, or the many, many colonies and ghost towns that failed, even though the bar to clear for economic selfreliance was a lot lower.
Yep, many, many colonies failed.

"Vikings in Ukraine": Were you referring to the Kievan Rus?
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27
Those Vikings dominated Eastern Europe and were eventually assimilated into the elite, and that wasn't a colony, it was more like an invasion. Their hegemony eventually morphed into the countries of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. I was referring to the Greenland Norse which was a colony that lasted for 450 years, which is longer than the the USA has existed and longer than the Roman occupation of Britannia. The Greenland Norse were driven out by climate change and the superior technology of the Inuit who arrived later, not by lack of support from the homeland, of which they were independent. See
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed
Which is a really good book and has many other relevant examples for a discussion of independence of colonies.

No, history does not repeat, and newer technologies will result in major differences in detail, but attempting to control a distant colony by coercion will eventually fail.

No, I was refering to the Greenland ones as well. That must be 6 months of reading up on Ukraine slipping in.

The Greenland Norse overlapped with the Inuit considerably, sometimes trading and sometimes competing with them and describing them as savages (with the Inuit sources calling them aggressive and poorly adapted, even in the settlement's prime) AIUI. they survived the onset of the mini ice age quite well, until trouble back home stopped the supplies from coming in. It's like an earthquake destroying a city. If the economy's healthy, the city gets repaired. If the economy is limping along, it's the straw that breaks the camel's back.

There's even a story about an ISRU boat, quite a monstrosity due to the lack of wood and metal, that managed to cross the ocean once and sunk shortly after. That should be mandatory reading material for Mars enthousiasts. Together with John Smith's rude reply.
« Last Edit: 08/24/2022 05:36 pm by high road »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
I should have added that I don't think it's a colony until at least half the population were born there or intend to reside there permanently. Before that, It's an outpost or a research station...

In my original speculation, I feared that terrestrial governments, with good reason, would be hesitant to welcome a new off-world country.  Because competition.   In the last couple of years, I realized that the real devil in the details is terrestrial life thriving in other than one-gee environments.   The colony would have to have a vote, in an ideal situation, on whether they wanted independence.  But yeah.  Babies would have to be involved.

Which opens up a new [to this thread] subject about whether Moonies could ever come back to one gee, what with muscle atrophy and all.  But someone else can start that thread.

Moving back to the topic, if several nations, US, China, Russia, and India all have colonies of various sizes up there, what then?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Slarty1080

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2740
  • UK
  • Liked: 1871
  • Likes Given: 814
I should have added that I don't think it's a colony until at least half the population were born there or intend to reside there permanently. Before that, It's an outpost or a research station...

In my original speculation, I feared that terrestrial governments, with good reason, would be hesitant to welcome a new off-world country.  Because competition.   In the last couple of years, I realized that the real devil in the details is terrestrial life thriving in other than one-gee environments.   The colony would have to have a vote, in an ideal situation, on whether they wanted independence.  But yeah.  Babies would have to be involved.

Which opens up a new [to this thread] subject about whether Moonies could ever come back to one gee, what with muscle atrophy and all.  But someone else can start that thread.

Moving back to the topic, if several nations, US, China, Russia, and India all have colonies of various sizes up there, what then?
I don’t think that past colonial experience on Earth provides much of a guide to any future Lunar or Martian colony despite the apparent similarities. The analogy is just too tenuous. The focus on any off world colony would have to be on robust design, recycling and self sufficiency as the cost (even with SpaceX) of resupply will be very high.

Apart from all the technological hurdles a colony may not even be possible on Mars or the Moon depending on the effects of low gravity on child development. But if they are possible, the way they become established will be very different from Earth colonies of old. They will need massive up front expenditure followed by a trade-off between self sufficiency and growth with no return.

I would hope that the initial funding push would see the colony through to a sufficient degree of self sufficiency to allow the cost to be easily managed. But it will probably take another far future Martian Musk to force a Mars colony to be (at least in extremis) truly self sufficient.

If there are multiple colonies from multiple nations then I wouldn’t expect anything different to happen that fast and I doubt that any such colonies will ever become a lucrative source of revenue. At best they will evolve their own autarkic Martian economy largely separate from the Earth.

These colonies would be prestige enterprises for the foreseeable future and are unlikely (IMO) to be of any significant size for hundreds of years (if at all).
My optimistic hope is that it will become cool to really think about things... rather than just doing reactive bullsh*t based on no knowledge (Brian Cox)

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 920
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 530
I don’t think that past colonial experience on Earth provides much of a guide to any future Lunar or Martian colony despite the apparent similarities.

You're so right, except for the existence of similarities. i don't think that there are any at all. Earth colonies had air, food, water and could be settled using neolithic rock-banging technologies. The transportation was low tech - built of trees and plants and found rocks. Many of the sites were inhabited by indigenous people who could provide assistance and trade right until they were enslaved and exploited. There were materials that were highly desired in the home countries that could routinely be sold for a great profit above the cost of colonial production and transportation. Absolutely none of that applies to any possible off-world colony today. All this discussion of off-world colonies has been shaped by sci-fi writers with superficial training in history and science.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
I don’t think that past colonial experience on Earth provides much of a guide to any future Lunar or Martian colony despite the apparent similarities.

You're so right, except for the existence of similarities. I don't think that there are any at all. Earth colonies had air, food, water ...

The scientific consensus around here also posits that the lunar and martian colonies would also have  "air, food, and water".

Quote from: lazlo
... and could be settled using neolithic rock-banging technologies.

True, an off-world colonization effort that relied on that old tech would not last very long.

Quote from: lazlo
The transportation was low tech - built of trees and plants and found rocks.

ISRU will be employed in any new off-world colonies.

Quote from: lazlo
Many of the sites were inhabited by indigenous people who could provide assistance and trade right until they were enslaved and exploited.

The definition of off-world colonization does not depend upon the existence of alien life.

Quote from: lazlo
There were materials that were highly desired in the home countries that could routinely be sold for a great profit above the cost of colonial production and transportation. Absolutely none of that applies to any possible off-world colony today. All this discussion of off-world colonies has been shaped by sci-fi writers with superficial training in history and science.

"Any possible off-world colony today" begins with the first step.  Any possible off-world colony of tomorrow will have to provide a positive balance sheet, for sure.

Tourism and scientific observations can fund the beginnings of such a colonization effort, but are probably not sufficient to achieve a self sustaining colony.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0