In A City On Mars, biologist #KellyWeinersmith and cartoonist @ZachWeinersmith@mastodon.social set out to investigate the governance challenges of the impending space settlements they were told were just over the horizon. Instead, they discovered that humans aren’t going to be settling space for a very long time, and so they wrote a book about that instead:

https://www.acityonmars.com/

1/

  • Cory Doctorow@mamot.frOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    The Weinersmiths have such an account in defense of space law: namely, that space law, and its terrestrial analogs, constitute a durable means of resolving conflicts that would otherwise give to outcomes that are far worse for science, entrepreneurship, human thriving or nation-building than the impediments these laws represent.

    13/

    • Cory Doctorow@mamot.frOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      What’s more, space law is enforceable. Not only would any space settlement be terribly, urgently dependent on support from Earth for the long-foreseeable future, but every asteroid miner, Lunar He3 exporter and Martian potato-farmer hoping to monetize their products would have an enforcement nexus with a terrestrial nation and thus the courts of that nation.

      14/

      • Cory Doctorow@mamot.frOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        But the Weinersmiths aren’t anti-space. They aren’t even anti-space-settlement. Rather, they argue that the path to space-based scientific breakthroughs, exploration of our solar system, and a deeper understanding of our moral standing in a vast universe cannot start with space settlements.

        Landing people on the Moon or Mars any time soon is a stunt - a very, very expensive stunt.

        15/

        • Cory Doctorow@mamot.frOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          These boondoggles aren’t just terribly risky (though they are - people who attempt space settlement are *very* likely to die horribly and after not very long), they come with price-tags that would pay for meaningful space science. For the price of a crewed return trip to Mars, you could put *multiple* robots onto every significant object in our solar system, and pilot an appreciable fleet of these robot explorers back to Earth with samples.

          16/

          • Cory Doctorow@mamot.frOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            For the cost of a tiny, fraught, lethal Moon-base, we could create *hundreds* of experiments in creating efficient, long-term, closed biospheres for human life.

            That’s the crux of the Weinersmiths’ argument: if you want to establish space settlements, you need to do a bunch of other stuff first, like figure out life-support, learn more about our celestial neighbors, and vastly improve our robotics.
            17/

            • Cory Doctorow@mamot.frOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              If you want to create stable space-settlements, you’ll need to create robust governance systems - space law that you can count on, rather than space law that you plan on shoving out the airlock. If you want humans to reproduce in space - a necessary precondition for a space settlement that lasts more than a single human lifespan - then we need to do things like breed multiple generations of rodents and other animals, on space stations.

              18/