> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:23:17 -0000
> From: "Dan Wylie-Sears"
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1288
>
>>>... as a penal colony?
>>
>> Well, thats a possibility. Do you have any objections?
>
> It's too expensive, compared to just locking them up here: we'll
> never get governments to spring for it. Colonizing Australia was
> fairly cheap and the colonists could send back some wool. However,
> I will grant you that serving as a penal colony is one area where
> Mars does have an advantage over HEO: from Mars you can't readily
> escape or drop kinetic-bombs on Earth.

G'day,

We don't know how expensive or cheap a Mars colony will be. Lets be
clear. Space travel has to get a *lot* cheaper otherwise there will be no
Space
Colonies, Mars colonies or much else.

Anyway, you misunderstand Australian history. Wool had nothing to do with
the first
settlement. Botany was set up as a penal colony for the British to get rid
of their underclass.
They could have built more gaols in Britian if they wanted too but they
wanted the people
as far away as possible. They used to ship them to America but after the
American Revolution
that was out so Sir Joseph Banks , a botonist who came to Australia with
Cook, suggested
Australia. From the British point of view Australia had the great advantage
of being even
further away the America.

After settlement began the government gave land grants to various free
settlers. Including
people like John and Elizabeth Macarther. They realised that sheep could be
raised in
Australia profitably. So Macarther brought Merino sheep here *illegally*
Sir Joseph Banks
, who could be regarded as an Australia Zubrin, did not believe a wool
industry was possible
in Australia. The pioneers had to go behiind the governments back.

But that wasn't the end of it. Governor Bligh (of Bounty fame) tried to but
a stop to the entrepreneurs
but they revoluted in the Rum Rebellion and throw him out.

The lessons for Mars or Space settlement are clear to me

1). Don't expect to know what industries can or won't proper in a new
frontier .
2) Let the settlers work that out.
3) Give land grants and inforce property rights.
3) Don't hinder entrepreneurs.

ta

Ralph

I agree that the colonists should be free to take the initiative on
exactly what gets sent back. But we're not issuing orders around
here: we're prognosticating about what may happen, or we're working
out what can be used as the backdrop of a story without running into
too many holes, or at most we're advocating what to start.

The British had experience of getting goods back from colonies.
They didn't have any idea that it would be wool from australia, but
they did have reasonable expectations of benefits from having
another colony.

And note that the one started just for the sake of having a penal
colony was not the first. After they were in the colony business,
then deporting people was a use: it wasn't what got them into
colonization to begin with.

We don't know how expensive a colony will be, but we can see what
each option will require and what raw materials are there. Mars
does not fare well: it has ordinary rocks with a lot less geology
than earth to generate concentrated ores. The asteroids, otoh, are
better than earth: metal, rock, ices, and carbonaceous material all
already separated and available, with the siderophile elements
accessible instead of many kilometers buried. Then there's
gravity. Planets suck, so you have to spend a lot of energy on
launches from them, whereas from an asteroid you could throw a
baseball around the solar system just with your arm if you're
willing to wait a hundred years for it to get there. (Not inward or
outward any appreciable amount, but around relative to your starting
orbit.)

For the moon as a source of high-volume/low-value materials, versus
all from asteroids and earth, we don't know: it depends on details
of what technologies we use. But for Mars versus HEO, moon, or
asteroids as a first colony, it's more like someone in 1620 deciding
between Terra Australis Incognita and a landless patch of the
Sargasso Sea. There just is no case for Mars. It has no
advantages, and the others have them all.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ralph buttigieg"
>
> > Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:23:17 -0000
> > From: "Dan Wylie-Sears"
> > Subject: Re: Digest Number 1288
> >
> >>>... as a penal colony?
> >>
> >> Well, thats a possibility. Do you have any objections?
> >
> > It's too expensive, compared to just locking them up here: we'll
> > never get governments to spring for it. Colonizing Australia was
> > fairly cheap and the colonists could send back some wool.
However,
> > I will grant you that serving as a penal colony is one area where
> > Mars does have an advantage over HEO: from Mars you can't readily
> > escape or drop kinetic-bombs on Earth.
>
> G'day,
>
> We don't know how expensive or cheap a Mars colony will be. Lets be
> clear. Space travel has to get a *lot* cheaper otherwise there
will be no
> Space
> Colonies, Mars colonies or much else.
>
> Anyway, you misunderstand Australian history. Wool had nothing to
do with
> the first
> settlement. Botany was set up as a penal colony for the British to
get rid
> of their underclass.
> They could have built more gaols in Britian if they wanted too but
they
> wanted the people
> as far away as possible. They used to ship them to America but
after the
> American Revolution
> that was out so Sir Joseph Banks , a botonist who came to
Australia with
> Cook, suggested
> Australia. From the British point of view Australia had the great
advantage
> of being even
> further away the America.
>
> After settlement began the government gave land grants to various
free
> settlers. Including
> people like John and Elizabeth Macarther. They realised that
sheep could be
> raised in
> Australia profitably. So Macarther brought Merino sheep here
*illegally*
> Sir Joseph Banks
> , who could be regarded as an Australia Zubrin, did not believe a
wool
> industry was possible
> in Australia. The pioneers had to go behiind the governments
back.
>
> But that wasn't the end of it. Governor Bligh (of Bounty fame)
tried to but
> a stop to the entrepreneurs
> but they revoluted in the Rum Rebellion and throw him out.
>
> The lessons for Mars or Space settlement are clear to me
>
> 1). Don't expect to know what industries can or won't proper in a
new
> frontier .
> 2) Let the settlers work that out.
> 3) Give land grants and inforce property rights.
> 3) Don't hinder entrepreneurs.
>
> ta
>
> Ralph
>
> >> By finding a product or service which they can export back to
> > Earth.
> >
> > So now we're back to the original question. What will they be
doing
> > on Mars? What product will
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ralph buttigieg"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Message: 10
> >> > Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:54:27 -0000
> >> > From: "Dan Wylie-Sears"
> >> > Subject: Re: Digest Number 1286
> >> >
> >> >> Same thing settlers in America and Australia did. Earn a
living.

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Wylie-Sears

> There just is no case for Mars.
> It has no advantages, and the others have them all.

Yes, I've sometimes made this argument: There are certain advantages of
doing things on Earth; you don't have to manufacture your air or provide
pressurization, you don't have to mine your water, you don't have to
concern yourself with protection from radiation, etc. Anyone who has
read O'Neill knows there are certain advantages of doing things in
orbit. But to go to Mars would be to surrender all of the advantages of
being on Earth without gaining a single one of the advantages of being
in space.

Regards,

Mike Combs

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Wylie-Sears" wrote:

> There just is no case for Mars. It has no advantages, and the
others > have them all.

You said this much more diplomatically and non-offensively than I ever
could. A good job.

TangoMan