Agree, I&#x27;m interested in the political aspect of this as well.  For most of modern history (past WWII lets say) exploration of unknown frontiers (Antartica, space, the moon etc) has been done under nation states with various levels of funding from governments either at 100% public or a public&#x2F;private mix.  This exploration is done usually with the end goal of expanding human knowledge or sometimes for national defense as in the space race and the moon.<p>What makes me SUPER uneasy about what SpaceX is trying to do with Mars is the 100% private nature of this, at least from an ownership perspective.  Is SpaceX trying to claim ownership to Mars, or a least a part of it?  Who or what gives them the right to make this claim?  Wouldn&#x27;t humanity as a whole be better served to see Mars the same way we see Antartica?<p>Additionally, why does SpaceX get to say who goes to Mars and who doesn&#x27;t?  Shouldn&#x27;t we choose who gets to go on missions to Mars based on expertise in technical and scientific fields vs how much one can pay for a ticket?  Why should the ability to go to Mars be based capital?  Does a little child who wants to be an astronaut also need to be a billionaire?  Ultimately, what gives the super rich the right to leave this planet for a colony on Mars while the rest of us try to figure out how to survive on the planet that they had a large hand in destroying in the first place.  Why should we, as a society, even support a colony on Mars that will take many years to be self sustaining in the above configuration.<p>Hopefully our international bodies wake up and start taking the privatization of space seriously and at least start enacting and enforcing some guidelines, regulations, and treaties around space and bodies in our solar system.