'Sorry, a flag won't cut it': Why India has a shot at owning Mars first
Produced by: Mohsin Shaikh
Manifest Destiny
Donald Trump had boldly declared America’s ‘manifest destiny’ to plant the U.S. flag on Mars, envisioning the Red Planet as part of the nation’s territorial expansion.
Space Treaty
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty explicitly prohibits any country from claiming sovereignty over celestial bodies, putting Trump’s vision in direct conflict with international law.
Credit: Pexels
Musk Alliance
Backed by SpaceX founder Elon Musk, Trump’s administration pushed for a Mars colony, igniting debates on private companies' roles in extraterrestrial expansion.
Legal Hurdle
Dr. Jill Stuart, a space law expert from LSE, clarified that planting a flag on Mars is symbolic, not a claim to ownership, as seen with flags on the Moon.
Private Loophole
Some speculate that private companies like SpaceX could exploit legal ambiguities in the treaty to operate freely, though international law holds states accountable for their actions.
Safety Zones
The U.S. Artemis Accords introduced "safety zones," effectively granting territorial-like control over areas without claiming sovereignty, raising concerns about resource conflicts.
Water Conflict
Both the U.S. and China are targeting the Moon’s south pole for its frozen water reserves, showcasing how vague laws may fuel disputes over extraterrestrial resources.
Split Laws
Dr. Fabio Tronchetti warned that diverging interpretations of space law among nations could lead to fractured governance, tensions, and possible conflicts.
Colonial Firsts
With no clear ownership rules, Mars might fall under the control of whoever establishes the first base, making the ‘race to Mars’ a literal land grab in space.