You might be interested in this PROJEX being created
by serious people for a serious purpose:

BOOTSTRAPPING FROM EARTH TO MARS
by Terry Ryan Kok

The way I see it, the path between here and Mars is
going to be a business. Just like any other business,
it raises money and invests that money back into
itself to form a solid foundation upon which it may
continue to build. This is called bootstrapping.
Each stage lays the groundwork for the next. This
paper is about forming a cooperatively owned and
operated business capable of bootstrapping itself
from Earth to Mars.

The game plan starts here, on Earth, right where
we currently and actually reside; while aiming
literally towards Mars. We are not embarrassed by
this out there impulse to explore and settle the
Red Frontier. It is a far-reaching vision, entirely
natural: a force of nature, a living planet preparing
to replicate itself. Other authors have adequately
explained the many varied and valid reasons why
humankind should extend itself beyond the cradle.
These points have been noted and accepted by this
author plus other researchers better qualified to
make the decision. The decision was made years
ago. Humankind is going to Mars. We are going to
bring it alive. The question is not if but when do we
go? Our mission here is to speed up the process.

Many people might question the wisdom of such an
endeavor, especially in the light of global climate
change and our ailing global life-supporting
ecosystems. There are an appalling number of
people living in poverty, suffering from dehydration
and malnutrition, encountering disease on a regular
basis, lacking clean water, fresh air, and proper
waste treatment and resource recycling. We are
going to do something practical to change that.

I assert that solving the root of these problems goes
hand in hand with settling Mars. Mars offers both a
pristine environment (free of the
mechanical/chemical/radioactive signature of
industrial civilization) and one which is far harsher
and more challenging than any natural place on the
surface of Earth. Sustainable life support is
essential. Hardware and software designed to
operate in extremely harsh environments may be
adapted to less harsh environments, mass produced,
and distributed globally for common use. In order to
design and construct the Mars-bound versions, it is
best to start with what is known to be true and then
build from there, innovating, experimenting,
constructing what will work on Earth first. Then,
using all that we have thus far learned, we build the
advanced transportable versions.

The plan of action that you are about to discover is a
work in progress. It is designed to be a basic
template, a solid yet flexible framework in which
free and sovereign individuals may pool resources to
build a viable and wholesome future; not alone, as
ego-driven rugged individualists bent on carving
out a self-centered personal path through the
proverbial jungle with a very sharp machete and a
fossil fueled bulldozer. Thats not the sort of
positive future I envision. Competing for dwindling
resources is not a good biosphere survival
strategy. Cooperating peacefully with each other,
pooling resources for mutual aid and support, and
learning how to recycle everything seems like a
more productive path. Sharing responsibility for
stewardship is a worthy goal. Group problem
solving think tanking has a solid success track
record. Were going to do that and more. Think
about it as a fun and potentially profitable
email-based game that could become a much desired
physical reality.

And - Dont be afraid to present your scientific and
engineering accomplishments with a bit of
old-fashioned theatrical showmanship! Thats
important if we wish to engender popular support
and let our hair down while we do so. We arent
doing this to recreate another previously tried
system of social, political, and/or religious order.
We
are not trying to duplicate the existing
establishment.
We are augmenting it, providing a fresh approach to
problem solving, and entertaining the public and
ourselves while we do so.

This PROJEX that Im speaking about is strictly
experimental in nature, designed to push the
envelope. It is non-discriminatory, being open to all
people regardless of their gender, gender preference,
genetic heritage, cultural background, nation of birth
or residence, economic condition, religious and/or
spiritual beliefs or disbeliefs, or even physical age.
Anyone and everyone with regular email access may
play together in the big sphere. Hiving off to create
sub-spheres takes a bit more dedication.

But, I may be boring you with the sales pitch, this
long self-scribed foreword to my further ramblings.
Techno-wizards have a tendency to move rapidly
from subject to subject - but they always come back
around to connect the data on the next higher spiral.
If you have questions feel free to contact me via
email: biostar_a@...

PROJEX - introduction - August 21, 2001 CE

The PROJEX is a hands-on experiment in
consensual cooperative consciousness based on the
theory that free people, sharing a common dream,
can and will work together synergistically, given the
opportunity and structure in which to do so. It is
also an experiment to see whether or not many
sovereign spheres (composed of free and equal
people working together for mutual aid and support)
can scale up or form a larger organism in which all
spheres may cooperate with each other to achieve
mutually beneficial goals. PROJEX is a virtual game
which may be actualized, especially if spheres
successfully create a product, commodity, service,
or function which is useful to other spheres and has
value to the viability of the whole and the physical
manifestation of the common dream: the regreening
of Spaceship Earth and the human settlement of
Mars.

Every game starts with a set and setting, a goal to
obtain, a plan or path by which it might be obtained,
and a body of rules which all players must follow in
order to continue playing the game. The goal is the
regreening of Spaceship Earth and the human
settlement of Mars. The starting rules are posted
below. The current set and setting is Earth in the
present day, as it actually is. Each potential player
is
a real individual, complete with their
accomplishments, arts, talents, skills, crafts,
vocations, professions, occupations, businesses,
and/or connections.

starting path-plan by which the goal may be
obtained:

How do we, as sovereign and free individuals (often
separated by great distance, communicating with
each other via email) get from here to Mars?
Teleportation is not yet an option. Being realistic,
we have many steps to make one step at a time.
Each step leads to another challenge. Many people,
taking a steps in coordination with each other, may
be visualized as a stable many legged creature
traveling rapidly up the path. How rapidly depends
on how serious each player is about turning fantasy
into reality; and how well the spheres can coordinate
their plans and activities, this being a primary
challenge within the PROJEX game.

It is a far journey from Earth to Mars.
Transportation costs are immense. We need
considerable capital. The largest money making
ventures make money because they provide a
product or service which is popular. We need to do
the same in order to obtain our goals. Popular
culture, in the 21st Century, travels further and
faster and may prove to have a deeper effect on
commerce than either politics or religion. Here is
our vehicle. We need to capture the imagination and
tap the resources of the public by providing them
with something of value. Yet, while doing so, we
must not deviate from our goal: the regreening of
Spaceship Earth and the human settlement of Mars.
We must please the public while pleasing ourselves.
Having fun can become a profession.

Spaceship Earth is our home planet and we are
becoming co-pilots. To do so, we need an
appropriate education including hands-on training in
the arts and sciences of sustainable systems.
PROJEX needs a training center, an EARTH BASE,
a space-age eco-village. We also need quite a bit of
R&D (research and development) in both the
hardware and software realms. Then we need to play
hard on and with the equipment, push it to the limit,
and improve its design and execution, especially in
the realm life-support. We arent going to be able to
regreen the Earth or settle Mars without a constant
and sustainable source of fresh air, clean water,
wholesome food, waste treatment and resource
recycling. Well be living with ecobubbles or
CELSS (Closed Ecological Life Support Systems) -
no outside utilities required - no pollution
generated! We need to build and live in CELSS test
beds on Earth before we attempt to transport them
elsewhere.

Besides CELSS, there are thousands of potentially
vital technologies which need to be developed
and/or experimented with. For the purposes of our
PROJEX, designing, constructing, and inhabiting
EARTH BASE ONE (EB-1), also known as Andor
(Earthgate), is the first step. Many of the inventions
we perfect can be licensed for manufacture, an
excellent money making venture.

We will transform the Earth from the garbage pit of
civilization into its rightful place as the
breadbasket
of the solar system, plant propagator, green
machine, exporter of food to the Moon, Mars, and
worlds beyond!

Some of the elder PROJEX players may wish to
share information and expertise with the youth.
EB-1 will provide not only an essential R&D testing
ground, it has the potential of becoming a first-rate
sustainable settlement education center, a place
where people can be trained to make the jump.
There is the possibility of hosting high school field
trips, publishing and selling training manuals,
operating an Earth to Mars camp and scouting
program, offering internships, etc.

If we want to be really popular, we need to open our
doors to the public. We need to become a desirable
destination, a tourist magnet. Think about the
revenues of the Disney empire and Disneyworld,
especially EPCOT Center. Have you ever been
there? It is a masterful blend of entertainment,
education, consciousness raising, and money
making. The gift shops, refreshment stands, and
restaurants are packed. The theme park aspect of
EB-1 should not be overlooked. It is a big potential
money maker. The private space industry needs a
showcase. We could provide. I want to try the
Martian gravity simulator! Lets learn how to drive
the rover!

Think about it. Besides the above, we could use the
grounds to throw 3-day space-art & techno-music
festivals. At $50 per head with 5000 people in
attendance, the gross profit from the admission
tickets (not to speak of the food, drink, t-shirt
sales,
etc.) is $250,000. After expenses, we would make
about $200,000 per festival. We could make a movie
and an animated cartoon. How about a virtual reality
game? There are many possibilities of what we
might do with EB-1. The proceeds from one festival
could purchase the land for EARTH BASE TWO
which could throw an event to purchase the land for
EB-3. This project could really grow. The PROJEX
game begins with designing EB-1 from top to
bottom. We proceed from there towards our
eventual destination: Mars.

Are you interested in playing? All it costs you is
time
and attention communicating via email with other
players. Who knows, if it grows, it might make you
a living making your dreams come true. Most of all,
it can be fun learning to work cooperatively with
each other. That, in itself, will be a major
accomplishment. The following outline provides a
framework in which we may begin to realize what
might be needed to create and operate EB-1: Is
there one or more spheres in which you would like
to play? These are real suggestions:

A. BUSINESS SPHERES

1. FINANCIAL
a. maintain legal bookkeeping database and
publish public access quarterly financial
reports
b. handle money in: membership dues, event
fees, leases, merchandise sales, banking
c. handle money out: land, insurance, and
other
bill payments, taxes and legal forms,
petty
cash, banking
d. maintain legal archives and membership
database
e. responsible for leases, rentals,
consignments,
and all other contractual relationships

2. COMMUNICATIONS
a. create and maintain a public access website
b. create and maintain email discussion and
announcement groups
c. generate and distribute audio-visual and
printed public promotional materials
d. generate and distribute press releases,
public
service announcements, and other
media-related promotional materials
e. maintain a telephone-based events hotline
f. provide heralds/criers and parking
assistants
during large public events

3. OPERATIONS
a. organize and operate educational events,
programs, workshops, and tours
b. organize fund-raising festivals, fairs,
concerts, and special events
c. book/schedule musicians, artists,
entertainers, workshop presenters,
speakers
d. operate sound, lighting, special effects,
and
audio-visual systems
e. provide communications with event
schedules/promo for distribution

B. ECOTECHNIC SPHERES
(nature/machine interface)

1. GREENHOUSES
a. construct and operate high density
hydroponic/aquaculture integrated food
production greenhouses/CELSS
b. save seeds and preserve food surplus

2. POWER SUPPLY
a. create and maintain non-polluting power
generation systems
b. create and maintain a power storage and
delivery system
c. design, install, and maintain all public
access
heating and cooling systems

3. ESSENTIAL SERVICES
a. maintain and distribute a constant supply
of
fresh potable water
b. construct and maintain showerhouses,
laundries, and privies
c. construct and maintain wetlands waste
treatment and composting systems

C. TERRACULTURE SPHERES
(nature/human interface)

1. AGRICULTURE
a. plant and maintain production food and herb
gardens
b. save seeds and preserve food and herb
surplus
c. plant and maintain ornamental flower beds
d. construct and maintain garden waste
composting piles

2. FORESTRY
a. plant and maintain fruit and nut tree
nursery
and orchards
b. build and maintain bee hives, bat houses,
and
bird houses
c. plant and maintain wild forest groves and
animal habitat
d. plant and manage a construction and
firewood woodlot and sawmill

3. FIELDS & ROADS
a. create and maintain campground lawns and
fire/cooking pits
b. create and maintain parking lots, roads and
paths
c. create and maintain recycle stations and
trash
disposal systems
d. create and maintain roadside drainage
ditches and culverts

D. ROBIOTIC SPHERES
(machine/human interface)

1. COMPUTING
a. create and maintain the operational status
of
all computer hardware and software
b. compile and maintain an on-line technical
library including active links to other
pertinent on-line libraries and databases
c. create and maintain staff to staff
on-site
personal communications system
d. develop computing hardware and software
for all automation projects

2. MECHANICS
a. maintain in working condition and check
out/in all hand and power tools
b. maintain mechanical elements of all
automated systems and special effects
c. create and maintain an internal on-site
human/materials transportation system

3. SHELTER
a. design, construct, and maintain on-site
public
access shelters
b. inspect and certify plans and construction
procedures of private structures

PROJEX - STARTING RULES
August 21, 2001 CE

1) Any person, before being accepted into a LEVEL
#1 sphere may freely, without spamming or flaming,
participate in the LEVEL #0 email sphere where all
consensus decisions made in any and all spheres
must be posted and shared.

2) All LEVEL #1 sphere decisions/votes must be by
affirmative consensus (which is defined as a
unanimous vote minus 1 of all members of that
sphere). Sphere members may abstain from voting.
Abstentions are counted as neither yea or nay.
Sphere members may vote on any/all issues brought
before the sphere by members of that sphere
including the spokesperson for that sphere. Any
member of any level may bring up a topic for
discussion in their sphere. No person may be a
member of more than three LEVEL #1 spheres at
the same time.

3) Anyone may petition to join and may join any
LEVEL #1 sphere upon affirmative consensus of
that sphere. Anyone may freely resign from any
sphere at any level at any time.

4) Each LEVEL #1 sphere must be composed of at
least 3 people and may grow in size to 12 or more
members, at which point, or at any point there-after,
the sphere may decide to divide into 2 or more
LEVEL #1 spheres, each of these spheres also
containing 3 or more people per sphere.

5) When LEVEL #1 spheres divide, individual
sphere members may freely choose which new
sphere they will join. The parent sphere may choose
to remain but is dissolved if less than 3 members
remain in that sphere.

6) A person may be stripped of membership in a
sphere by affirmative consensus of the sphere in
which they are a member. If stripped of LEVEL #1
membership, the person may petition to join any
other LEVEL #1 sphere.

7) All on-line discussions, within any sphere of
any level, are encouraged to be monitored but may
not be participated in by any other sphere or the
members of that sphere, at any level, except by
special invitation of a sphere, in which case the
sphere doing the inviting may set the rules for
participation.

8) Each LEVEL #1 sphere must elect a single
spokesperson for that sphere who may speak for the
consensus of that sphere in a LEVEL #2 sphere.
These spokespersons retain their membership and
participation in their LEVEL #1 sphere, are
answerable to that sphere, and may be removed from
the position by an affirmative consensus of the
sphere. Spokespersons to all levels must retain
membership in at least one LEVEL #1 circle.

9) LEVEL #2 spheres are composed of 6 or more
LEVEL #1 spokespersons and otherwise follow the
same rules as LEVEL #1. LEVEL #2 spheres may
generate LEVEL #3 spheres when 9 or more
LEVEL #2 spokespersons exist to meet the
minimum membership requirement of 9 people per
sphere for LEVEL #3. This process may continue to
generate new levels as need be, each level subject to
the same rules as LEVEL #1 while the minimum
membership requirements per level continue to
increase by 3 per level: LEVEL #1 = 3, LEVEL #2
= 6, LEVEL #3 = 9, LEVEL #4 = 12, LEVEL #5 15, and so forth.

10) When a spokesperson from a lower level sphere
(#1 being the lowest level) is chosen to be a
spokesperson for the next higher sphere level, they
may do so but are no longer a spokesperson for the
lower level. The vacant position is then filled by the
lower sphere(s) electing a new spokesperson. For
example: When a LEVEL #1 spokesperson to
LEVEL #2 is elected by LEVEL #2 to be a
spokesperson to LEVEL #3, they relinquish their
spokesperson position in LEVEL #1.

11) These rules may be changed by an affirmative
consensus of the highest existing sphere, after the
decision is discussed and ratified by an affirmative
consensus of the next lower sphere level.

12) All spheres, at all levels, must have a level code
and sphere name for use in all sphere on-line email
communications. For example: L1 CELSS
greenhouse or L2 MARS settlement procedure
(the sphere name followed by the topic being
discussed) is placed in the topic/subject line of an
email communication.

13) Each LEVEL #1 sphere must have or be
focused on creating and/or providing a product,
commodity, service, or function which is useful to
other spheres and has value to the sustainability of
the whole.

FINANCIAL & LEGAL SUGGESTIONS &
ISSUES

What happens when we begin making money? Who
controls it? How do we get paid? These are good
questions worthy of serious sphere discussion. I
would suggest that we figure this out very soon in
the game. It must be in place before establishing
EARTH BASE ONE.

Is it possible to incorporate as a profit or a
non-profit organization without being trapped in the
standard president-secretary-treasurer triarchy
mode? Remember, we are not trying to recreate
another previously tried system of social, political,
and/or religious order. We dont want to produce a
clone. This is a new converging evolution so our
internal business structure needs to reflect our
operating system of spheres, as given in the starting
rules.

Yes, it is possible to write bylaws which reflect our
way in common. The US government (the most
probably country of origin) requires corporations to
have the president-secretary-treasurer triarchy in
order to exist. So, we write a clause into our bylaws
which says that no one may be elected to these
positions who already and actually do the job. And,
that these three people, who are elected to these
positions (by affirmative consensus of the highest
level of sphere containing lower level
representatives), may not do the job for which they
were elected. This legal trick provides the
government with the triarchy they require while
creating an internal check and balance system in
which the elected officials primary purpose (besides
signing legal documents) is to watchdog over the
entire operation and issue Triarchy Alerts if
anything appears to be out of order. Their legal
limited-liability is at stake in keeping things
honest.
The magic trick has been tried before and it works.

Profit or non-profit? I see room for both. A
non-profit with federal 501-C-3 status could be the
best way to go. As an educational support
organization we would be eligible to receive grants
and accept tax-free donations. The PROJEX
requires a certain amount of group work for group
benefit. If the staffs work load is spread fairly and
equally, then group work might be considered to be
taxes which can end up paying for most (if not all)
of our basic life support needs: air, water, waste
treatment and resource recycling, food, shelter,
power supply, mass transportation &
communications systems, education, and
entertainment. Thats quite a load off the individual
(good pay for services rendered). There will be more
than enough free time for private business ventures.
They are fully encouraged. But, you would need to
pay the PROJEX a percentage if you use the name
or logo.

What happens to inventions which are designed,
engineered, fabricated, and tested by a LEVEL #1
sphere or a collaboration of spheres? The potential
patents should be held by the PROJEX (since the
work was done for the PROJEX) and then should be
licensed to private persons/companies for
manufacture, with preference given to the
originators if they wish to exploit their work for
personal wealth and gain.

PARTICIPATING IN THE PROJEX GAME

Everyone is welcome to subscribe to the LEVEL #0
sphere and join in the discussion. There is no
fee/charge for playing. When posting, remember to
follow the rules and place (in the subject line) an
L#0 code before the actual topic. I suggest that we
spend some time focusing on the issues/procedures
raised here before hiving off to create or to join
any LEVEL #1 sphere(s). Follow the directions
below to subscribe:

Simply send an email to
the-PROJECT-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

In order to view the PROJEX website at
you need to have a yahoo ID. Go to
yahoo ID. If you have any problem doing so please
contact hedwig@... so she can help.

====Terry Ryan Kok - scientist, ecotechnician, wizard
Elf Lore Family ELDER - Sanctuary Rock facilitator
Green CELSS Task Force focalizer
Starlight Technology: (812) 275-0694
biostar_a@...

Terry Kok wrote,

"The decision was made years ago. Humankind is going to Mars. We are going
to bring it alive."

This kind of focus on Mars and terraforming is unfortunate, and will delay
the breakout of humanity into space. Please see www.ssi.org for more
details.

From: rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]

Terry Kok wrote,

"The decision was made years ago. Humankind is going to Mars. We are going
to bring it alive."

This kind of focus on Mars and terraforming is unfortunate, and will delay
the breakout of humanity into space. Please see www.ssi.org for more
details.

As it happens, he posted this to the SSI maillist as well. My comment there
was:

Please do not presume to speak for the entire human race. There has been no
single, universally agreed upon decision made here. One would expect anyone
who has come into sufficient contact with SSI to join their mailing list
would be aware of the fact that there are alternatives to Mars.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]
Terry Kok wrote,
"The decision was made years ago. Humankind is going to Mars. We are going
to bring it alive."
This kind of focus on Mars and terraforming is unfortunate, and will delay
the breakout of humanity into space. Please see www.ssi.org for more
details.

As it happens, he posted this to the SSI maillist as well. My comment there was:

Please do not presume to speak for the entire human race. There has been no
single, universally agreed upon decision made here. One would expect anyone
who has come into sufficient contact with SSI to join their mailing list
would be aware of the fact that there are alternatives to Mars.

Regards,
Mike Combs

I think going to an asteroid first and then to Mars would be cheaper,
and probably faster, than going straight to Mars.

Terraforming, if it works, would probably take hundreds of years..
and then I wonder about the long term quality of life with its being
nearer to Jupiter ("trash can of the solar system") and the Belt.

This is up to the would-be Mars people. If they want to and they can
get the bucks, they most likely will do it.

But I'm all for exploring it, of course.

George

George

--- In spacesettlers@y..., rmenich@m... wrote:
>
> Terry Kok wrote,
>
> "The decision was made years ago. Humankind is going to Mars. We
are going
> to bring it alive."
>
> This kind of focus on Mars and terraforming is unfortunate, and
will delay
> the breakout of humanity into space. Please see www.ssi.org for
more

From: George Perkins [mailto:cygonaut@...]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 10:47 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: PROJEX launched

I think going to an asteroid first and then to Mars would be cheaper,
and probably faster, than going straight to Mars.

There were a couple of planetary scientists who about a year ago were
advocating manned missions to NEOs prior to Mars. They had some very
logical points, but they were lone voices crying out in the wilderness.

I agree with you that asteroids should have priority. Both because they may
be more relevant from a space resources use point of view, and because
there's interesting science to be done there as well. Mars advocates scoff,
and argue that there could be no life on an asteroid, but I would submit we
cannot yet know the likelihood of finding life on Mars.

Terraforming, if it works, would probably take hundreds of years..
and then I wonder about the long term quality of life with its being
nearer to Jupiter ("trash can of the solar system") and the Belt.

Since I advocate living inside the Belt itself, I'd probably emphasize the
timescales issues more than the proximity to the Belt. But there may well
be quality of life issues associated with the fact that you're attempting to
live on a planet which has been shifted from its state of natural
equilibrium. There will certainly be quality of life issues associated with
reduced sunlight intensity and gravity, problems which folks in orbital
habitats needn't face.

This is up to the would-be Mars people. If they want to and they can
get the bucks, they most likely will do it.

But Mars advocates can never suggest compelling economic opportunities on
Mars, so it's questionable where the money is going to come from. Sometimes
they say property sales, but I think that's circular logic. It presumes
what we're trying to justify in the first place: a compelling economic
reason for needing to be on the surface of Mars.

But I'm all for exploring it, of course.

I think we can all agree that scientific exploration of Mars is worthwhile.
I only come into disagreement with people who insist that Mars is the
inevitable or sole alternate home for humanity.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
George Perkins [mailto:cygonaut@...]
Sent:
Thursday, August 30, 2001 10:47 AM
To:
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: PROJEX launched
I think going to an asteroid first and then to Mars would be cheaper,
and probably faster, than going straight to Mars.

There were a couple of planetary scientists who about a year ago were advocating manned missions to NEOs prior to Mars. They had some very logical points, but they were lone voices crying out in the wilderness.

I agree with you that asteroids should have priority. Both because they may be more relevant from a space resources use point of view, and because there's interesting science to be done there as well. Mars advocates scoff, and argue that there could be no life on an asteroid, but I would submit we cannot yet know the likelihood of finding life on Mars.
Terraforming, if it works, would probably take hundreds of years..
and then I wonder about the long term quality of life with its being
nearer to Jupiter ("trash can of the solar system") and the Belt.

Since I advocate living inside the Belt itself, I'd probably emphasize the timescales issues more than the proximity to the Belt. But there may well be quality of life issues associated with the fact that you're attempting to live on a planet which has been shifted from its state of natural equilibrium. There will certainly be quality of life issues associated with reduced sunlight intensity and gravity, problems which folks in orbital habitats needn't face.
This is up to the would-be Mars people. If they want to and they can
get the bucks, they most likely will do it.

But Mars advocates can never suggest compelling economic opportunities on Mars, so it's questionable where the money is going to come from. Sometimes they say property sales, but I think that's circular logic. It presumes what we're trying to justify in the first place: a compelling economic reason for needing to be on the surface of Mars.
But I'm all for exploring it, of course.

I think we can all agree that scientific exploration of Mars is worthwhile. I only come into disagreement with people who insist that Mars is the inevitable or sole alternate home for humanity.

Regards,
Mike Combs

There's nothing wrong with exploring Mars per se. If Mars exploration and
asteroid exploration were completely independent, then I would have nothing
against Mars exploration at all.

But funding for planetary probes is finite and Mars has already been
explored to a much greater degree than the minor planets. Dozens of probes
have been hurled at Mars, and there have been at least three successful
U.S. landers. The Mars Global Surveyor keeps beaming back incredibly
detailed pictures of the surface each day. And more Mars probes are
already in the works to be launched in the next few years.

By contrast, we don't even know where most of the NEOs are, much less their
compositions. There have been a handful of asteroid flybys, but mostly by
probes that were on their way to somewhere else. There has been one
landing on a NEO (Near Schumaker), and that probe wasn't originally
intended to do that at all.

There is and has been a tremendous imbalance in research money between that
spent on Mars versus NEOs. We know a lot about Mars already, and next to
nothing about NEOs. Funding is finite, and there is some flavor of a
zero-sum game. NEOs can potentially impact the Earth and kill us, but
Mars can't. And NEOs offer tremendous promise as resources for humankind's
breakout into space.

Given all of this, it is really tough for me to get enthusiastic about
further Mars exploration expenditures. It's not that Mars exploration is
bad per se. But I really think it's time to balance the scales, at least a
little bit.

Ron Menich

"Combs, Mike"

com> cc:
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: PROJEX launched
08/30/01 12:21
PM
Please respond
to
spacesettlers

...
But I'm all for exploring it, of course.
I think we can all agree that scientific exploration of Mars is worthwhile.
I only come into disagreement with people who insist that Mars is the
inevitable or sole alternate home for humanity.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]

NEOs can potentially impact the Earth and kill us, but
Mars can't. And NEOs offer tremendous promise as resources for humankind's
breakout into space.

And Mars does not, due to its steep gravity well.

You raise many good points.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]
NEOs can potentially impact the Earth and kill us, but
Mars can't. And NEOs offer tremendous promise as resources for humankind's
breakout into space.

And Mars does not, due to its steep gravity well.

You raise many good points.

Regards,
Mike Combs

< Since I advocate living inside the Belt itself, I'd probably
emphasize the timescales issues more than the proximity to the Belt. >

Timescales is what's used by planeteers. I generally discount this
as being unscientific because of the small pool of samples especially
with the huge rocks. There just wasn't enough of them to base an
estimate on of when the next one will hit.

I'm in favor of belt settlements too.

A stronger argument, besides the tremendous wealth they hold (which
may be the best argument (lol) ), is the ability to evacuate in time
compared to the likelihood of evacuating a planet fast enough.

George

I agree, but we have to admit that if there were a vote, Mars would
be President, the moon would be Vice President, and an asteroid would
be Speaker of the House.

Somehow that has to change or some strategy that includes Mars or the
moon needs to be added.

Educating others about asteroids is happening a little with impact
crisis thinking, but more clearly has to be done to point this out as
well as the logical, cost-effective, economical, positive sides.

George

From: George Perkins [mailto:cygonaut@...]

A stronger argument, besides the tremendous wealth they hold (which
may be the best argument (lol) ), is the ability to evacuate in time
compared to the likelihood of evacuating a planet fast enough.

Or alternately, moving out of the way of an impactor. Try doing that with a
planet.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
George Perkins [mailto:cygonaut@...]
A stronger argument, besides the tremendous wealth they hold (which
may be the best argument (lol) ), is the ability to evacuate in time
compared to the likelihood of evacuating a planet fast enough.

Or alternately, moving out of the way of an impactor. Try doing that with a planet.
Regards,
Mike Combs

I'd be more worried about the low gravity then the proxmity of jupiter.

--- George Perkins wrote:

< I'd be more worried about the low gravity then the proxmity of
jupiter. >

They're for mining, not living on. Nearby would be spin gravs for
their health and food variety.

The rocks are used for extracting life support volatiles, fuel, and
materials to process or manufacture items for commerce.

Trade with earth will be needed for some time to keep up to date
about, and to implement, any technological advancements we may need
or want.

George

I was refering to mars.

Maybe I misread you somewhere.

--- George Perkins wrote:

Oh. Sorry, Ryan.

Yes, the lower gravity of Mars is a negative, most likely, and
terraforming isn't going to change this. Spinning systems on Mars
would be costly and may not work well having too much of a "leaning-
to-the-edge" effect - certainly, if at all helpful, very unlike earth
which many Mars advocates think they can replicate.

George

In fact we don't even know how easy it would be to live in lower gravity. For
all we know a person who lives on mars for five years could suddenly die even
in the lower gravity from heart failure.

There would be ways to counteract the lower gravity. But it would be a lot
easier to just create some gravity in space (creating it on mars would be quire
troublesome).

Space Settlement would be more earth like then any planet other then earth even
could be. They will also improve on earth (earth v2.0).

--- George Perkins wrote:

I'm not a fan of settlements on Mars, but let's be fair to the Mars
advocates. I think that if they did create rotating habitats on Mars, that
they would engineer them so that the floors of the habitat would be normal
to the vector that results from the addition of the natural gravity force
of Mars plus the rotational acceleration. If the surface of Mars were
"flat" underneath the habitat, then the floors of the rotating habitat
would not be parallel to it. Indeed, I would expect the floors of such a
habitat to change angle relative to the ground as the distance from the
rotational axis increases --- nearly parallel to the ground close to the
rotational axis, and more inclined at the edge.

I could be wrong, but presently I'm not convinced that the
"leaning-to-the-edge" effect that you mention is an important detractor.

But clearly, a rotating habitat on Mars would still be much more of an
engineering headache than a rotating habitat in free space. So I agree
that a spinning habitat on Mars would be more costly than a comparable one
in free space --- your original point.

Ron Menich

"George
Perkins" To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
ilbag.com> Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: PROJEX launched

08/31/01 04:48
AM
Please respond
to
spacesettlers

Oh. Sorry, Ryan.

Yes, the lower gravity of Mars is a negative, most likely, and
terraforming isn't going to change this. Spinning systems on Mars
would be costly and may not work well having too much of a "leaning-
to-the-edge" effect - certainly, if at all helpful, very unlike earth
which many Mars advocates think they can replicate.

George

Such a system would have to cope with air resistance from the martian
atmosphere as well as mechanical wear on the bearings which would have to be
able to take a lot of load.

The tilting of the floor is actually quite a minor point. In fact it has been
suggested that being able to rotate the sections of a torus while spinning it
down and increasing the acceleration of a space ship may be the best way to
design starships.

--- rmenich@... wrote:

Ryan Healey wrote :

>Such a system would have to cope with air resistance from the martian
>atmosphere

If the habitat is not multiple kilometers high, it will need
a radiation schield. Because the radiation shield will be heavy
it will be better not to make it part of the rotating section,
but to build the radiation shield as second stationary outer hull.
You could then just as well make the inside between the outer
hull and the rotating inner hull vacuum.

>as well as mechanical wear on the bearings which would have to be
>able to take a lot of load.

You could use electromagnetic bearings which do not experience
mechanical wear.

But still, space remains the best place for a rotating habitat.

Ryan Healey wrote:
> Such a system would have to cope with air resistance from the martian
> atmosphere as well as mechanical wear on the bearings which would have to be
> able to take a lot of load.

They could use hydrostatic bearings (for those not familiar it's kinda
like a hovercraft effect). These bearings don't really have significant
wear and can take plenty of load. Needs some energy to run but not a
massive amount.

> --- rmenich@... wrote:
>
>>I'm not a fan of settlements on Mars, but let's be fair to the Mars
>>advocates. I think that if they did create rotating habitats on Mars, that
>>they would engineer them so that the floors of the habitat would be normal
>>to the vector that results from the addition of the natural gravity force
>>of Mars plus the rotational acceleration. If the surface of Mars were
>>"flat" underneath the habitat, then the floors of the rotating habitat
>>would not be parallel to it. Indeed, I would expect the floors of such a
>>habitat to change angle relative to the ground as the distance from the
>>rotational axis increases --- nearly parallel to the ground close to the
>>rotational axis, and more inclined at the edge.
>>
>>I could be wrong, but presently I'm not convinced that the
>>"leaning-to-the-edge" effect that you mention is an important detractor.
>>
>>But clearly, a rotating habitat on Mars would still be much more of an
>>engineering headache than a rotating habitat in free space. So I agree
>>that a spinning habitat on Mars would be more costly than a comparable one
>>in free space --- your original point.
>>
>>
>>Ron Menich
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "George
>>
>> Perkins" To:
>>spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>>>>
>> ilbag.com> Subject: [spacesettlers] Re:
>>PROJEX launched
>>
>>
>> 08/31/01 04:48
>>
>> AM
>>
>> Please respond
>>
>> to
>>
>> spacesettlers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Oh. Sorry, Ryan.
>>
>>Yes, the lower gravity of Mars is a negative, most likely, and
>>terraforming isn't going to change this. Spinning systems on Mars
>>would be costly and may not work well having too much of a "leaning-
>>to-the-edge" effect - certainly, if at all helpful, very unlike earth
>>which many Mars advocates think they can replicate.
>>
>>
>>George
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)

"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological
civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill

--- Henri Kluytmans wrote:
> Ryan Healey wrote :
>
> >Such a system would have to cope with air resistance from the martian
> >atmosphere
>
> If the habitat is not multiple kilometers high, it will need
> a radiation schield. Because the radiation shield will be heavy
> it will be better not to make it part of the rotating section,
> but to build the radiation shield as second stationary outer hull.
> You could then just as well make the inside between the outer
> hull and the rotating inner hull vacuum.

Quite possible, although we would have to deal with gravity when building it
which could complicate things.
>
> >as well as mechanical wear on the bearings which would have to be
> >able to take a lot of load.
>
> You could use electromagnetic bearings which do not experience
> mechanical wear.

Would probably work but if the power goes out and the bearings lose their
magnetisim the centrifuge could crash onto the ground. That would not be very
good.

> But still, space remains the best place for a rotating habitat.

Yeah, not as much trouble.