Will US achieve world domination with lunar and Martian colonies?

[Vahe231991]

If Elon Musk's vision for travel to the Moon and Mars becomes a reality and the US sets up over 200 colonies on the surface of the Moon and Mars, will the US become the first country in history to achieve world domination?

[spacenut]

Not world domination, but maybe Martian or the moon domination, even then the moon not so much.  China plans to go to the moon.  Both will be expensive to build and maintain until they can mine or produce more than they cost in order to trade for things they don't have.  This may take 50-100 years after the first colony is established.  When I say established, able to maintain a human presence  for a long period of time. 

[Jim]

If Elon Musk's vision for travel to the Moon and Mars becomes a reality and the US sets up over 200 colonies on the surface of the Moon and Mars, will the US become the first country in history to achieve world domination?

Musk colonies do not equal to US colonies.

[Robotbeat]

Elon may actually currently be the defacto US and world leader at the moment.  Once he gets to the Moon or Mars is an arbitrary event and just a formality. 

It is really a personal decision whether you accept Elon into your heart as your own personal world leader of the multiplanetary human species. 

When you have such a high level title as his, it is important to have a unique vehicle to travel the world or in this case, the inner solar system.  I would really expect his next big announcement to unveil his plans for a Presidential Starship.

That’s Elon of Earth, to you.

[laszlo]

Follow the Tang

On Twitter?

[edkyle99]

"1.  The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
2.  Outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
3.  Outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
Etc..
https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html

Think of it this way.  Mars and the Moon = Antarctica.

 - Ed Kyle

[Slarty1080]

The US will achieve domination of the Moon and Mars in the same sense that it has domination of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

[spacenut]

I don't think Musk cares where the colonists come from, as long as they can contribute something to the colony.  Musk has a lot of supporters in English speaking countries.  He is a citizen of the US, Canada, and South Africa.

When Musk through SpaceX sends crews to Mars, he will probably end up having a lot of help from NASA, which will make it a defacto American colony.  ESA may want to join in as well as Japan.  Mars may end up being like the ISS sans Russia. 

[guckyfan]

When Musk through SpaceX sends crews to Mars, he will probably end up having a lot of help from NASA, which will make it a defacto American colony.  ESA may want to join in as well as Japan.  Mars may end up being like the ISS sans Russia.

I see this very different. I do hope and expect there will be a NASA/JAXA/ESA Mars station established using Starship. SpaceX will generate revenue and profit a lot from their expertise. But a Mars settlement as envisioned by Elon Musk is outside the scope of those space agencies. They will not be involved in the settlement process unless there is a huge change of policy.

That is my opinion, independent of Mars science base and settlement are colocated or separate.

[Coastal Ron]

If Elon Musk's vision for travel to the Moon and Mars becomes a reality and the US sets up over 200 colonies on the surface of the Moon and Mars, will the US become the first country in history to achieve world domination?

The answer to the question is an emphatic NO!

In fact the question is not based on any semblance of reality, including:

1. The U.S. Government does not have a policy for colonization anywhere in space, and there is no public support for expanding humanity out into space. Certainly not with the taxpayers paying for it.

2. Elon Musk is not planning on colonizing the Moon.

3. Elon Musk is not planning to colonize Mars to benefit the U.S. Government, he is doing it to benefit humanity.

And most importantly:

4. Creating a colony on the Moon, Mars, or anywhere in our solar system would not force a change in world politics, so how in any way would the U.S. somehow "dominate" the world? 

[TomH]

N.........O.........

[deadman1204]

Since there are no astronauts currently training for a mission to the Moon or Mars, it’s a safe bet that anyone’s plans for colonization are just rhetoric. 

But let’s just pretend for a moment.

The US president wakes up and wants to colonize the solar system. This is of course to prove that the US is not only the world leader, but the supreme leader over the solar system. 

So the colonization training begins.  A thousand candidates are selected to begin living on Mars.  But once they land at the Moon or Mars, the next president gets into office, the entire mission is scrubbed.

Considering that the current party out of office wants nothing more than to make sure anything the president tries to do fails, there is a problem with this...

[RoadWithoutEnd]

"World domination"?  It doesn't really work like that.

Of the Colonial Age powers (Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Britain, and France), none remains a superpower, and only one child of any of them became one.  Although they all still do quite well in the world.

The United States will not (sustainably) expand its sovereignty to the Moon and Mars.  What it will do is have offspring civilizations there, and the strongest of them may inherit our leading position in "the family" on Earth (the West) in the same way the United States inherited Britain's.

China won't invest at all in self-sustaining offworld civilizations, and will prefer to maintain tight control of a few small, highly dependent facilities that can justify their symbolic or immediate economic value for terrestrial agendas.

Hopefully there will be some wild cards among the middling powers who do unexpected things Out There.  Portugal and the Netherlands came out of nowhere when they became players in the Colonial Age, and maybe there will be new examples.

[JohnFornaro]

Creating a colony on the Moon, Mars, or anywhere in our solar system would not force a change in world politics, so how in any way would the U.S. somehow "dominate" the world?

Well, no change in world politics at first.  My original contention was that, had we started colonizing the Moon in 1969, I feel that today, forty years later, we would have a colony of perhaps 100,000, clamoring for political independence, and this may be the real reason why colonization hasn't been attempted. 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15838.msg363920#msg363920

Fortunately or unfortunately, that size of a colony does not exist, and won't exist for quite some time, even under the rosiest of scenarios.

But if humans and terrestrial life can thrive in other than one-gee environments, and if those colonies are established, then yeah, world politics would change. 

Those are some pretty big "ifs" tho.

And BTW, what happened to Mr. Scott's posts?

[high road]

Creating a colony on the Moon, Mars, or anywhere in our solar system would not force a change in world politics, so how in any way would the U.S. somehow "dominate" the world?

Well, no change in world politics at first.  My original contention was that, had we started colonizing the Moon in 1969, I feel that today, forty years later, we would have a colony of perhaps 100,000, clamoring for political independence, and this may be the real reason why colonization hasn't been attempted. 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15838.msg363920#msg363920

Fortunately or unfortunately, that size of a colony does not exist, and won't exist for quite some time, even under the rosiest of scenarios.

But if humans and terrestrial life can thrive in other than one-gee environments, and if those colonies are established, then yeah, world politics would change. 

Those are some pretty big "ifs" tho.

And BTW, what happened to Mr. Scott's posts?

Is there any historical example of a colony with a mere 100.000 inhabitants becoming politically independent? With the execption of tax haven/free ports that mainly exist to evade certain regulations? And how does that settlement generate enough wealth to keep 100000 people living comfortably so it can cut financial ties to the main sponsor? The latter is both why space has not yet been settled and how any nation becomes independent.

[JohnFornaro]

(1)Is there any historical example of a colony with a mere 100.000 inhabitants becoming politically independent? With the execption of tax haven/free ports that mainly exist to evade certain regulations? (2) And how does that settlement generate enough wealth to keep 100000 people living comfortably so it can cut financial ties to the main sponsor? (3) The latter is both why space has not yet been settled and how any nation becomes independent.

1.  Well somebody's gotta be first!

2.  And this is the brazillian dollar question.  The first economic wealth generator would be tourism, but it's hard to imagine tourism supporting such a population. 

A common example of wealth generation is propellant manufacture from the volatiles in the permanently shaded polar craters.  This industrial base would be largely robotic, but there would have to be a human population to serve the robots' mechanical and repair needs.

3. Build it and they will come is often trotted out as an argument for settling space.  We'll see if that argument ever comes to be.

[DanClemmensen]

Is there any historical example of a colony with a mere 100.000 inhabitants becoming politically independent? With the execption of tax haven/free ports that mainly exist to evade certain regulations? And how does that settlement generate enough wealth to keep 100000 people living comfortably so it can cut financial ties to the main sponsor? The latter is both why space has not yet been settled and how any nation becomes independent.

The Greenland Norse were effectively independent for 450 years.  Most of the Polynesian islands were independent, as were the islands of the Caribbean.

[high road]

Is there any historical example of a colony with a mere 100.000 inhabitants becoming politically independent? With the execption of tax haven/free ports that mainly exist to evade certain regulations? And how does that settlement generate enough wealth to keep 100000 people living comfortably so it can cut financial ties to the main sponsor? The latter is both why space has not yet been settled and how any nation becomes independent.

The Greenland Norse were effectively independent for 450 years.  Most of the Polynesian islands were independent, as were the islands of the Caribbean.

Are you talking about the Viking settlers? Well, they still paid their 'taxes'. It's only when (well after a while) they stopped sending them, that the king sent an expedition and found out they were gone.

The Polynesians would be more 'under the radar'. If 'frontier justice' is what is meant by 'independent' then, sure. I can imagine that.

[DanClemmensen]

Is there any historical example of a colony with a mere 100.000 inhabitants becoming politically independent? With the execption of tax haven/free ports that mainly exist to evade certain regulations? And how does that settlement generate enough wealth to keep 100000 people living comfortably so it can cut financial ties to the main sponsor? The latter is both why space has not yet been settled and how any nation becomes independent.

The Greenland Norse were effectively independent for 450 years.  Most of the Polynesian islands were independent, as were the islands of the Caribbean.

Are you talking about the Viking settlers? Well, they still paid their 'taxes'. It's only when (well after a while) they stopped sending them, that the king sent an expedition and found out they were gone.

The Polynesians would be more 'under the radar'. If 'frontier justice' is what is meant by 'independent' then, sure. I can imagine that.

To me, political independence means that the colony is governed autonomously and the mother country has no effective means to enforce any control. This requires sufficient physical and temporal separation, and it requires the colony to be self-sufficient for all critical resources. Once these things are achieved, the colony is effectively independent regardless of the legalities. A horrible case in point: Australia was basically self-governed by the "rum corps" for more than a decade.

[high road]

Is there any historical example of a colony with a mere 100.000 inhabitants becoming politically independent? With the execption of tax haven/free ports that mainly exist to evade certain regulations? And how does that settlement generate enough wealth to keep 100000 people living comfortably so it can cut financial ties to the main sponsor? The latter is both why space has not yet been settled and how any nation becomes independent.

The Greenland Norse were effectively independent for 450 years.  Most of the Polynesian islands were independent, as were the islands of the Caribbean.

Are you talking about the Viking settlers? Well, they still paid their 'taxes'. It's only when (well after a while) they stopped sending them, that the king sent an expedition and found out they were gone.

The Polynesians would be more 'under the radar'. If 'frontier justice' is what is meant by 'independent' then, sure. I can imagine that.

To me, political independence means that the colony is governed autonomously and the mother country has no effective means to enforce any control. This requires sufficient physical and temporal separation, and it requires the colony to be self-sufficient for all critical resources. Once these things are achieved, the colony is effectively independent regardless of the legalities. A horrible case in point: Australia was basically self-governed by the "rum corps" for more than a decade.

Ah, yes. Once a lunar or Martian colony can produce all ECLSS replacement parts for themselves, including electronics, fertilizer for food production, replacement parts for any in situ production process and inputs for those, or create value to pay for those imports from other countries than the main sponsor, they can become independent. That's not a low bar.

So not like the Vikings in Greenland, 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.