Hey guys,

I think that this discusion makes no sense at all.

Why trying to colonize Mars OR the space? Why there
has to be an "OR".

I think the best way is going for both!

Colonize Mars "AND" the Space.

That way there will be sinergy between both projects.

Colonizing space is going to take a lot of resources
and time so we have to exploit every single
opportunity up there. Including tourism, minning, SPS,
and whatever appears in the future.

Let's be PRO-BOTH (Mars AND Space settlements at the
same time)

Regards,

Omar Vega

--- Richard wrote:

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, omar vega wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I think that this discusion makes no sense at all.
>
> Why trying to colonize Mars OR the space? Why there
> has to be an "OR".
>
> I think the best way is going for both!
>
> Colonize Mars "AND" the Space.
>
> That way there will be sinergy between both projects.
>
> Colonizing space is going to take a lot of resources
> and time so we have to exploit every single
> opportunity up there. Including tourism, minning, SPS,
> and whatever appears in the future.
>
> Let's be PRO-BOTH (Mars AND Space settlements at the
> same time)
>
> Regards,
>
> Omar Vega
>
Actually I prefer the shotgun approach. Try several things and see
what works. I like space settlements best, but we've never tried any yet.

I hope they work and they look like they'll work. But that's just my
opinion. I try not to overrate them because they are my opinions.

Rick Brooks

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, omar vega wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I think that this discusion makes no sense at all.
>
> Why trying to colonize Mars OR the space? Why there
> has to be an "OR".

Unless you live in George Bush's America, there is always an "or"
because we all have to live within our means. It's unlikely that we
can afford to do both visions. Yet, even if we could do both, we're
still left with the unanswered question, of "why terraform Mars."
There are plenty of reasons to develop orbital infrastructure but none
for Mars other than romantic fantasies.

TangoMan

Hi TangoMan

I think terraforming Mars is not what is needed to
make use of that cold planet. Perhaps with some
genetic engineering it could be possible to develop
plants that survive in mars by themselves, without
terraforming anything. And without waiting for a
millenium to see the results.

The challenge for the scientists is:

Don't make Mars similar to Earth in order to growth
plants. Make plants that can survive in Mars as it is
now!!! For what reasson? Food for asteroid minners
could be one.

Impossible? May be not. I see it as a problem of
engineering.

(See this weird tale, if you got time, of course:

http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue122/hand_god2.html)

Besides, I think the future of space will not be just
an american enterprise. The chalenge is so huge that I
doubt the United States could do it alone. I think
what will be needed is the colaboration of most of the
industrialized world. That is the way fusion energy is
going now, and I thing space will follow the same
path.

Regards,

Omar Vega

--- victoriatangoman wrote:

www.solarviews.com/eng/mars.htm provided the following information:

"The interior of Mars is known only by inference from data about the surface
and the bulk statistics of the planet. The most likely scenario is a dense
core about 1700 km in radius, a molten rocky mantle somewhat denser than the
Earth's and a thin crust. Data from Mars Global Surveyor indicates that
Mars' crust is about 80 km thick in the southern hemisphere but only about
35 km thick in the north. Mars' relatively low density compared to the other
terrestrial planets indicates that its core probably contains a relatively
large fraction of sulfur in addition to iron (iron and iron sulfide)."

I also looked up the comparison of the densities of various planets (in
grams per cubic centimeters):

Earth 5.52
Mercury 5.43
Mars 3.91
Luna 3.34

If I were looking to establish an economically viable settlement, I'd look
to Mercury rather than Mars. Mercury has a density nearly the same as the
Earth's, but it is much smaller. This could mean a lot less rock to dig
thru to get to the ore.

But, if Luna can provide us with raw materials, then I see no reason why
Mars can't.

Looking over some of the posts (virulent and otherwise) regarding sending
people to Mars, all I can say is that if it takes a romantic notion like Man
Setting Foot On The Red Planet in order to get the public excited about
space travel, then it is well worth the money. And as someone else pointed
out, it is the Market which will decide where the settlements are
established.

> From: Michael Capriola [mailto:capcartoonist@...]
> But, if Luna can provide us with raw materials, then I see no
> reason why Mars can't.

Mars can. For that matter Earth can. But beyond a certian point it becomes
wasteful and inefficient. In addition Earth is going to be the centre of the
solar system for a very long time to come. Luna is much nearer which makes
it much more practical and useful for many reasons.

John

From: omar vega [mailto:oevega@...]

> For what reasson? Food for asteroid minners could be one.

This is an argument that Zubrin has used. But it proceeds from an
assumption that Earth and Mars are the only two locations in the solar
system where food crops can be grown. But if O'Neill's projections are
correct, asteroid miners will live permanently in the Belt inside of
habitats perfectly capable of growing their own food.

Regards,

Mike Combs

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> From: omar vega [mailto:oevega@y...]
>
> > For what reasson? Food for asteroid minners could be one.
>
> This is an argument that Zubrin has used. But it proceeds from an
> assumption that Earth and Mars are the only two locations in the solar
> system where food crops can be grown. But if O'Neill's projections are
> correct, asteroid miners will live permanently in the Belt inside of
> habitats perfectly capable of growing their own food.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs

As a farmer, I was interested in alcohol fuels. The grain ends up in
about thirds. The sugars and starches convert into alcohol. The
second third is Distiller's Dried Grains and Solubles which has a lot
of the food value and was sold as cattle food. The third third was
carbon dioxide.

And crops tend to grow better in a high CO2 atmosphere. So I think
the majority of food for a space habitat could be grown separately in
a high CO2 atmosphere.

I don't think there would be problems in eating DDGS. I had a biology
teacher in high school that used to tell us of the insect impurities
in canned food.

Growing up on a farm, I've seen where most foods come from. I don't
think about it during meal times.

Rick Brooks