>>12400226>maybe even look for signs of alien lifeYou mean by polluting the hell out of it with human germ first?
It would actually be more efficient to keep the human in orbit and remote-control robots.
Also Mars resources are only good to build in-situ, it's another appeal for some fanboy because asteroid to them equate to salary job.
IMHO if you want to do something useful you should put your money on asteroid/moon first. It won't happen in you life-time anyway so you can feel good knowing you encouraged the actually useful infrastructure.
>>12400214Say the one with no arguments except a wishful belief that Mars is inhabitable because it kinda look like a mere desert instead of a -50°C cold hell with very thin atmosphere. You are not going to land there and start converting conveniently concentrated surface minerals into the thousand alloy and organic compounds required for anything useful. Printing dirt house on Mars won't be useful for more than research.
>By what framework are you proposing this? What's the legal precedent for "Emperor of Mars"?Read again, I'm not proposing anything, I'm saying there WILL be regulation to prevent that from being possible at all even figuratively.
We already have plenty of example here of companies abusing or disregarding laws even in top tier countries and you only have your earnest assumption they won't try "because rocket are honorable" or just abuse a monopole.
I said this because Mars dreamers are often under the belief that Mars is 'meant' to become an politically independent new frontier, somehow free of all the stuff they hates.
Competence or not, if the person who pay for everything want a statue of himself built there, he might get it.
I hope I answered you, but it will be constructive if you tell us where you stand:
Which order for: Asteroid, Moon, Mars?
Independent colonies?
What's the biggest technical/economical/political problem before those happen.
This thread or the next.
