The Battle for Mars: How Elon Musk, Blue Origin and the U.S. The first will be able to establish an outside world government

The moment when the first human set foot on Mars is getting closer. NASA predicts that the distance between Earth and the Red Planet will be broken by 140 million miles in the next two decades.

Most recently, the space agency announced plans for its Artemis lunar mission – aimed at 2024 – that could establish a lunar base on the moon as a step before the first planetary orbit.

For some, however, just taking the first step on an alien planet may not seem to be enough in the future. Once a community is organized on Mars, there will be a need to discuss how it rules and how it works. Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX, is one of those people who seems to be planning for such a future, and it seems that he is already building support in terms of service of the company’s current products.

The governing law department states that for services rendered to Mars, or for transport to Mars by starship or other colonization spacecraft, the parties recognize Mars as a free planet and have no earthly government authority or sovereignty over Mars eclipse activities.

“Accordingly, at the time of the Murcian settlement, disputes will be settled by principles established in good faith, self-governing.”

Multiple attempts by SpaceX for more information have not been answered Independent, But experts suggest that the addition of this segment may indeed have two purposes: first it is a joke; The second is the work based on the constitution of Mars – based on how much the existing laws for space exploration are permissible.

According to Randy Segal of law firm Hogan Loveles, the Musk department added, “I have a bit of a tongue in cheek with his agreements … This constitution refers to the constitution he will draft,” according to Randy Segal, a law firm. Hogan Loves. “He’s trying to get involved in his business terms … how you’re complying with applicable law.”

The law applicable here is the 2020 Artemis Accord and the 1957 Outer Space Treaty (by which the signatories of the Artemis Accord say they will comply). The law contains the sentence: “External space is not subject to national allocation by a claim to sovereignty, by use or occupation, or by any other means.” As a result, these treaties stop space exploration from becoming a “land grab”, as Segal describes.

The rules, however, are, in general, “maternity and apple pie,” says Segal – an American phrase that means no reasonable person can disagree, such as emergency assistance provisions relating to transparency, interpersonalism and space exploration.

Says Segal, “The whole space law thinks that all of us on this planet share the right and responsibility to create something in space that we can all share together.

“Normally, if a clause is illegal, you will read the rest of the agreement to be enforceable and stand alone. He added a section regarding Mars services (which is not being provided today, so it has no effect), but in five or 10 years “he could improve his contract.

“I don’t know if a provision like this is anything other than being humorous and narratively noticeable that does anything to the rest of the contract. He could try some basics to offer an independent constitution … like he did for electric cars and reusable vehicles. Does it have any undo or execution? The answer I would say is clearly no; But if you say something enough, people can come around. “

While Musk’s agreement is not legally forceful (or “gibberish”, as one professor believes him to be), he is likely to start a conversation about how legislators should plan for a Mars constitution. This is something that the General Council of SpaceX, David Anderman, is already investigating.

“Our goal is to be able to send 1000 starships with 100 of them every two years,” Anderman said, according to Business Insider.

“We’ll start with 100, then a hundred, then 100,000, and then a million until we have a truly sustainable settlement. It’s going to happen in my lifetime. Faster than you think.”

He also said he expects SpaceX to “impose its own rule of law,” but that it will be “interesting to see if it works under the control of terrestrial governments.” Did not respond to several requests for comment from Anderman. Independent Before publication.

While colonization may be the way SpaceX and other companies think about exploration of the outside world, Musk is more likely to legally create a community than a colony, as it will still be under U.S. rule.

“A community is a group of individuals with common interests and characteristics. A colony is a legal term subject to the sovereignty and jurisdiction of a colonial state, “said Professor Saeed Mosesher, director of the London Institute for Space Policy and Law. Independent.

Currently, if SpaceX or Musk will create a community on Mars, its activity will be subject to United States rule. However, it may happen that in the future, legislators see the need for a constitution that rules Mars entirely, rather than dividing laws into geographical jurisdictions, as they do now.

It remains to be seen exactly how he will play. In 2001, Musk said his intentions for a Martian government would be direct democracy, where people, as we now do, vote on issues rather than being ruled by politicians under representative democracy.

“So those people will vote directly on the issues. And I think it’s probably better, because the likelihood of direct corruption against a representative democracy is significantly reduced.

“I think it might be wise to recommend a little adjustment to the inertia of the laws. It’s likely to be removed rather than legislated. It should be easier,” Musk said. “I think it’s probably a good thing, because laws have eternal life unless they’re taken away.”

Like many government systems on Earth, such a system has many advantages and disadvantages, and experts suggest that the most beneficial Martian government on Mars is likely to be decided on Tuesday.

In addition to SpaceX, Jeff Bezos and other spacefaring rivals such as Blue Origin are likely to explore similar proposals – “in something more relevant and logical than SpaceX,” says Professor Von der Dunk, an expert in space law. College of Law of Nebraska, said Independent.

“It is very appropriate to consider the possibility of conflict arising out of the need for a legal settlement. In the end, of course, SpaceX and all the other companies can only go so far. He added that while companies can set the agenda, it will ultimately be up to the government to adopt it.

Blue Origin’s intentions to rule Mars are unknown. Its founder, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, has been a bit critical of his ideas about outside life, predicting an “incredible culture” where one trillion people live in the same bucolic colonies as imagined by physicist Gerard O’Neill.

“They are not what you imagine. I mean, they will have farms and rivers and universities; They may have a million people. They are cities. “But Bezos has said, but I also want to be able to come back to Earth,” but Kasturi is taking a purposefully slower approach into space. In terms of the law, Blue Origin said Independent Nor was it a topic he spoke about.

For what the future of those laws might be, the bizarre legal cases of the past can provide some guidance. It has already been suggested that the killings in the Arctic, where the lack of legal jurisdiction was such that the killer was acquitted of all charges, could provide grounds for laws other than where the Earthbound jurisdiction could not be reached.

Anderson said there is also a mental impulse to create stability by law Independent, And will consequently create pressure for a structure that cannot be applied to the entire planet in a way that cannot be done on Earth due to geological and cultural boundaries.

Should Musk – or any other astronaut-leading – get a convenient arrangement to ensure that the law they want is enforced, there are many ways available.

Counties like Luxembourg are already eyeing space privatization, while others like New Zealand and the UAE are attractive for potential space launches due to their geographical location and tax benefits, respectively. Although neither SpaceX nor Blue Origin seem particularly promising as home to the launch site – as both companies are deeply immersed in the U.S. industrial ecosystem for the production of spacecraft – it presents an opportunity for clearly non-American domination outside of us. Planet, Anderson hypothesis.

While ultimately and logically the most important, the question of when Mars can become self-sufficient from its own legal system, lawyers are unclear – but it is possible that once the first community is established it will be able to try to be more self-regulating. Quickly due to the difficulties of inter-plan communication.

Professor Von der Dunk says, “I have to postpone the true scientists here, some of whom can claim 10 years, others a century or more. “I probably place myself safely somewhere in the middle.”