Hi all.

Iam a new member of this list: a PhD student at
Georgia Tech in Aerospace. We've a little group here
that has been doing work in this area for the last
couple of years or so; basically in trying to solve
the details of getting people to live in space.

Do check out our group's website at
http://www.ae.gatech.edu/research/windtunnel/nmb/nmbhome.html

We also had a paper accepted at the 2nd Space Resource
Utilization Round Table Conference, a month ago. You
can look at the presentation at

http://www.adl.gatech.edu/presentations/RoundTable.htm

We're also hoping to present a paper at the Space
Congress in May at Florida. I hope to interact
constructively with this bunch of talented
individuals.

Thanks, Ganesh.

I joined this group on Tuesday and thought a few words on my reasons
for doing so might be appropriate.

I have believed for most of my adult life that space settlements
should be built but the extent of my personal involvement to date has
been to sit on the sidelines and kibbutz.

In this vein, I joined the L-5 Society in the expectation of cheering
from a front row seat as great things happened. The L-5 Society
merged with another organization to form the National Space Society
but I am still waiting for great things to happen.

I have also been an avid supporter of NASA for all of my adult life
but I have slowly come to believe that public money will never be the
answer for a source of funds to build a space settlement.

I recently heard of an organization called the Eye of the Needle
Foundation, or EON. Its symbol of a camel going through a needle's
eye is indicative of a somewhat humorous purpose of creating a
loophole for the super rich to enter the Kingdom. The 100
"Do-Good" projects described in a proposed EON catalog would
have price tags ranging from 100 million dollars to 50 billion
dollars. If this concept if of interest, the web at
http://www.futurist.com/FuturistNews_EON_Brin.htm has more
information.

Just today I sent an email to EON's founder, the science fiction
writer David Brin, inquiring if an Earth-based prototype of a
Stanford Torus type of space settlement might be an appropriate EON
project.

I have a MBA but I do not enjoy the adversarial, competitive
environment found in conventional businesses. Nevertheless, I do
realize that a business network might be an alternate way to fund an
Earth-based prototype of a Stanford Torus.

For about the last year I have been developing the business concept
of Alpha Space Products (see http://www.alphaspaceproducts.com). By
my own reckoning, during the last year I have completed about 80% of
a business plan suitable for attempting a Private Placement to SEC
qualified sophisticated investors. Given the present constraints on
my time (I have a day job) and wallet (this is all out-of-pocket), I
have projected that it will take about four more years to finish the
final 20%. At that time, I expect to retire so I can then devote full
time to Alpha Space Products and the Alpha Space Foundation.

My hope is that I will be able to get constructive criticisms from
members of this forum on the proposed foundation/business approach.

Best Regards,

Leon Neihouse

Hi, I just joined. I think we'll eventually get settled in some kind
of space domes or whatever in space and eleviate the problems on
earth like over population.

Jennifer

--- In spacesettlers, "Jennifer Burns" wrote:

> Hi, I just joined. I think we'll eventually get settled in some
> kind of space domes or whatever in space and eleviate the problems
> on earth like over population.
>
> Jennifer

Welcome aboard, Jennifer! It is nice to hear the idea (which I
believe history will regard as obvious) that we can solve some of the
Earth's problems with space rather than hearing the monotonous drone
of "we shouldn't go into space until we solve all the problems of
Earth." In other words, you seem to be one of us. Again, welcome
aboard. Mike's site should be of interest to you.

http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/settle.htm

And, least I miss a chance at a shameless plug,

Here you can find stuff on weightless gymnastics, a team game called
z-golo, and some links.

Xenophile ("I'll lay $20 on the Blue Devils to beat the Comets in
Saturday's z-golo play-off")

So do you have any idea what we mean by settlement?

--- Jennifer Burns wrote:

Please meet new members with courtesy, lest you drive them away.

Ryan Healey
11/15/01 12:13 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] new member

So do you have any idea what we mean by settlement?

--- Jennifer Burns wrote:

do you mean like living some place else other than here on earth?

Jennifer

From: Ryan Healey
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 21:13:57 -0800 (PST)
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] new member

>
> So do you have any idea what we mean by settlement?
>
> --- Jennifer Burns wrote:
> > Hi, I just joined. I think we'll eventually get settled in some kind
> > of space domes or whatever in space and eleviate the problems on
> > earth like over population.
> >
> > Jennifer
> >

--

Actually quite a bit more specific then that.

The settlements would have to be in space, not on the surface of a planet or
moon.

--- Jennifer Burns wrote:

Jennifer Burns wrote:

>> do you mean like living some place else other than here on earth?

Then Ryan Healey wrote:

> Actually quite a bit more specific then that.

There are many ideas of how to live off-Earth. The ones that gett
the most press are about building domed cities on the Moon or Mars,
or perhaps terraforming Mars (and maybe Venus as well) to make them
more liveble and Earthlike.

Neither of which is what this group is about. These are interesting
ideas, and worthy of discussion, but here we favor large objects in
free space that people would live in. Such as hollow globes a mile
across, or cylindars four miles across and twenty miles long. These
would not be *on* a planet or moon, but rather could be thought of as
an *artificial planet* of sorts.

> The settlements would have to be in space, not on the surface of a
> planet or moon.

Mike's site does a good job of explaining the whole thig, and has
several images that should be seen for their beauty as much as for
their value in illustrating the concepts.

http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/settle.htm

Xenophile

i just joined this site. i truely feel that it is important to
atleast begin trying to lay a foundation for humans to colonize
space, we nasa wont do it. another group on this yahoo chat net
work, luf-team, is actually attemping to make a start, a couple of
members are living on some uninhabited land in texas. i think it is
important for all of us interested in colonization to work together,
then we may actually get somewhere

check this site out

hello,

I have joined your group,it look pretty interesting.
dude10142004

Hi, I'm new here. I do think that colonization and terraforming are
a good idea, but I also think we should establish space stations.
Until our space stations are truly self-sufficient and we know that
humans can live for prolonged periods in space, I think we'll need to
have colonies on planets. I'm a member of the National Space Society
and I helped to fund the Center for Lunar Research.

Check out these groups, too:

I'm glad to be here.

Collin

From: Collin R. Skocik [mailto:acclarkefan2001@verizon.net]

> Until our space stations are truly self-sufficient and
> we know that humans can live for prolonged periods in
> space, I think we'll need to have colonies on planets.

This seems to proceed from an assumption that establishing settlements
on planets will be easier than in space. What do you see as the reasons
for this?

Regards,

Mike Combs

"Combs, Mike" wrote:
>
> From: Collin R. Skocik [mailto:acclarkefan2001@...]
>
> > Until our space stations are truly self-sufficient and
> > we know that humans can live for prolonged periods in
> > space, I think we'll need to have colonies on planets.
>
> This seems to proceed from an assumption that establishing
> settlements
> on planets will be easier than in space. What do you see as the
> reasons
> for this?
>

::: raising my hand ::: Possibly, because you don't have to start
construction of a planet from scratch?

Steve

From: Steve Long [mailto:longsteven@...]

> "Combs, Mike" wrote:
> >
> > This seems to proceed from an assumption that establishing
settlements
> > on planets will be easier than in space. What do you see as the
> > reasons for this?
>
> ::: raising my hand ::: Possibly, because you don't have to start
construction of a planet from scratch?

True, but then we have to ask the question: What does the planet provide
us with for free that has to be engineered in space?

Pressurization? The lunar surface is a near-vacuum, and air pressure on
Mars is 1% Earth-normal. The atmosphere of Mars will in no significant
way mitigate the difficulties of engineering large, pressurized volumes.
On the other hand, the atmosphere is sufficient to raise up dust, so it
can be a nuisance. We can derive carbon from the atmosphere, but is
this a big cost savings? Compared to the total mass of what we need for
a functional habitat, what percentage of it is carbon? The NASA Space
Settlement studies estimated less than 1%, even when leaving out the
mass of the radiation shield.

Protection from radiation? The surface of the moon might see about 1/2
the radiation as free space; the Martian surface might see 1/3 as much.
So in neither case are we freed from the requirement to engineer
radiation shields. Martian radiation shielding might only require about
1/3 the mass as orbital, but how much more will it weigh? (Trick
question; the more-massive orbital radiation shield won't weigh
anything.)

Gravity? Unfortunately both the moon and Mars provide the wrong amount
needed to keep us healthy (or at best, not enough to ensure problem-free
visits to Earth). If there were some extraordinary expense associated
with setting an orbital habitat rotating, or keeping it rotating,
preexisting gravity might be an advantage, but there's no reason to
expect this.

Pre-established ecology? None exists beyond Earth. So all created
beyond Earth must be built from scratch.

Day-night cycle? Major problems with this on the moon, though Mars is
pretty much ideal. But this would only be an advantage if there were
some extraordinary expense associated with artificially providing this
in orbit. In comparison with everything else we need to do in either
case, building mirrors out of aluminized Mylar and then tilting them on
a set schedule doesn't seem an especially-expensive proposition.

I'll just paste in a paragraph from one of my articles:

It's difficult to avoid thinking that surely there's some savings in not
having to build the very ground beneath one's feet. It surprises many to
find that in an O'Neill habitat, the loading on the structure from the
centrifugal force acting on the interior soil and furnishing is
significantly less than the loading from the internal air pressure. Once
you've engineered the required pressure vessel hull (which we must do in
either case), you don't have that much further to go to engineer
something safe to landscape and build houses on.

It's true that Mars already exists, and we don't need to build the
planet. But we do need to build large, pressurized volumes with
habitable conditions inside to live there. So the proper comparison
isn't between the planet and Island One, it's between a pressurized dome
on Mars and a pressurized sphere in orbit. Almost everybody takes if
for granted without much thought that the former is easier or cheaper
than the latter, but I don't think anybody's ever done the side-by-side
comparison on a level playing field (with equal outcomes) needed to put
hard numbers to this.

I can only think of one significant advantage for Mars. The ore needed
can be moved from the mining site to the building site via means that
don't involve space travel. But it's important to remember that moving
a pound of ore from the moon to HEO, or from a NEO to HEO, will involve
a much simpler and easier variety of space travel than the kind we're
usually accustomed to discussing: namely from where we presently sit to
orbit. I'm sure ore transportation costs will be a significant part of
the expense of setting up habitats in HEO. But I'm also sure there will
be significant additional expenses associated with operating at the much
greater distance of Mars. I don't think anyone can authoritatively say
that the latter might not equal the former.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Mike,

Do you have your concepts these concepts in a paper or
in the web, so I could reference it? I would like to
distribute it to some friends, and also I would like
to cite you, if you don't mind.

Omar Vega

--- "Combs, Mike" wrote:

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

> Mike,
>
> Do you have your concepts these concepts in a paper
> or in the web, so I could reference it? I would like
> to distribute it to some friends, and also I would
> like to cite you, if you don't mind.

You bet. The paragraph I just copied into the previous posting came
from this article:

Somewhere Else Entirely - To what extent does planetary chauvinism bias
our thinking when considering space projects? This article illustrates
this tendency with specific examples.
http://members.aol.com/howiecombs/somewhere_else.htm

I also talk about planets versus orbital locations for settlement here:

The Case for Space - Would we be better off building settlements on the
surface of Mars, or in free space? This article provides a side-by-side
comparison.
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/case_spc.htm

Regards,

Mike Combs

Thanks Mike,

I will publish your information in a Spanish writers
circle.

Regards,

Omar Vega

--- "Combs, Mike" wrote:

Your arguments are very valid, and by no means do I think that it
will be easier to set up a planetary colony than a space station --
the gravity well alone introduces great difficulty. But assuming
Mars can be terraformed, which I think it can be relatively easily
within half a millennium (some of us may be around to see it!),
certainly living on the surface of a pressurized planet will be more
permanent and more easily maintained than living aboard a space
station. Once Mars is terraformed, a radiation blockage will be
comparable to Earth's. Gravity is only a third of Earth, but humans
can adjust to that -- even rotating space stations will probably
give us Mars or Moon gee. Some denitrifying bacteria, some clever
hydroponics and agricultural development and in time, Mars won't
require continual supply runs from Earth, thus eliminating the need
for constant space launches (of course, if we build a space
elevator...). If disaster were to strike a planetary colony on a
terraformed Mars, the inhabitants would have almost a guarantee of
survival, while inhabitants on a space station would have virtually
no chance.

My basic point is that colonizing Mars won't be easier than building
a space station -- the ISS is proof of that -- but will be easier to
maintain once it's done. A space station is a temporary setting, in
my opinion, and unless there's a fundamental step forward in our
ability to contruct space stations, will always so remain.

By the way, Mike Combs, your name is very familiar. I see you've
written articles -- what magazines are they in? Any books?

Collin

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> From: Steve Long [mailto:longsteven@c...]
>
> > "Combs, Mike" wrote:
> > >
> > > This seems to proceed from an assumption that establishing
> settlements
> > > on planets will be easier than in space. What do you see as
the
> > > reasons for this?
> >
> > ::: raising my hand ::: Possibly, because you don't have to
start
> construction of a planet from scratch?
>
> True, but then we have to ask the question: What does the planet
provide
> us with for free that has to be engineered in space?
>
> Pressurization? The lunar surface is a near-vacuum, and air
pressure on
> Mars is 1% Earth-normal. The atmosphere of Mars will in no
significant
> way mitigate the difficulties of engineering large, pressurized
volumes.
> On the other hand, the atmosphere is sufficient to raise up dust,
so it
> can be a nuisance. We can derive carbon from the atmosphere, but
is
> this a big cost savings? Compared to the total mass of what we
need for
> a functional habitat, what percentage of it is carbon? The NASA
Space
> Settlement studies estimated less than 1%, even when leaving out
the
> mass of the radiation shield.
>
> Protection from radiation? The surface of the moon might see
about 1/2
> the radiation as free space; the Martian surface might see 1/3 as
much.
> So in neither case are we freed from the requirement to engineer
> radiation shields. Martian radiation shielding might only require
about
> 1/3 the mass as orbital, but how much more will it weigh? (Trick
> question; the more-massive orbital radiation shield won't weigh
> anything.)
>
> Gravity? Unfortunately both the moon and Mars provide the wrong
amount
> needed to keep us healthy (or at best, not enough to ensure
problem-free
> visits to Earth). If there were some extraordinary expense
associated
> with setting an orbital habitat rotating, or keeping it rotating,
> preexisting gravity might be an advantage, but there's no reason to
> expect this.
>
> Pre-established ecology? None exists beyond Earth. So all created
> beyond Earth must be built from scratch.
>
> Day-night cycle? Major problems with this on the moon, though
Mars is
> pretty much ideal. But this would only be an advantage if there
were
> some extraordinary expense associated with artificially providing
this
> in orbit. In comparison with everything else we need to do in
either
> case, building mirrors out of aluminized Mylar and then tilting
them on
> a set schedule doesn't seem an especially-expensive proposition.
>
> I'll just paste in a paragraph from one of my articles:
>
> It's difficult to avoid thinking that surely there's some savings
in not
> having to build the very ground beneath one's feet. It surprises
many to
> find that in an O'Neill habitat, the loading on the structure from
the
> centrifugal force acting on the interior soil and furnishing is
> significantly less than the loading from the internal air
pressure. Once
> you've engineered the required pressure vessel hull (which we must
do in
> either case), you don't have that much further to go to engineer
> something safe to landscape and build houses on.
>
> It's true that Mars already exists, and we don't need to build the
> planet. But we do need to build large, pressurized volumes with
> habitable conditions inside to live there. So the proper
comparison
> isn't between the planet and Island One, it's between a
pressurized dome
> on Mars and a pressurized sphere in orbit. Almost everybody takes
if
> for granted without much thought that the former is easier or
cheaper
> than the latter, but I don't think anybody's ever done the side-by-
side
> comparison on a level playing field (with equal outcomes) needed
to put
> hard numbers to this.
>
> I can only think of one significant advantage for Mars. The ore
needed
> can be moved from the mining site to the building site via means
that
> don't involve space travel. But it's important to remember that
moving
> a pound of ore from the moon to HEO, or from a NEO to HEO, will
involve
> a much simpler and easier variety of space travel than the kind
we're
> usually accustomed to discussing: namely from where we presently
sit to
> orbit. I'm sure ore transportation costs will be a significant
part of
> the expense of setting up habitats in HEO. But I'm also sure
there will
> be significant additional expenses associated with operating at
the much
> greater distance of Mars. I don't think anyone can
authoritatively say

Hi Collin,

Just an oppinion. I read in the "High Frontier" (the
Bible of space settlement) that the resources
available in the asteroids could sustain a population
a billion times the one the Earth has right now. Of
course, given that the colonization is done by the use
of space settlements.

In the best case scenario Mars could only sustain a
population about the same Earth has right now.
Yes, Mars can be terraformed but I believe the long
term impact will be almost nill if compared with the
space settlements' civilization to be stablished in
the solar system.

Regards,

Omar Vega

--- "Collin R. Skocik"

From: Collin R. Skocik [mailto:acclarkefan2001@verizon.net]

> But assuming Mars can be terraformed, which I think
> it can be relatively easily within half a millennium
> (some of us may be around to see it!),

Wow, sounds like you're anticipating some pretty radical advances in
longevity!

I think here is another area where O'Neill's concepts remain more
attractive than the planetary settlement scenario. We might could get a
Mars base going on a relatively short timescale. But for permanent
settlers, I think Mars could only offer a lifestyle comparable to living
out in the open here on Earth at the end of the terraforming process.
Orbital settlements could offer even more Earthlike conditions
(including "gravity" and sunlight levels) on a much nearer timescale.
NASA's Space Settlement study concluded that the first habitat could be
completed 22 years after beginning the project. Keeping in mind that
"everything takes longer and costs more", the real answer might be
closer to 30-50 years. But even if so, that's a timescale about 1/10th
what you proposed for Mars terraforming, and is inside the lifetimes of
humans at present-day longevity levels.

> certainly living on the surface of a pressurized planet
> will be more permanent and more easily maintained than
> living aboard a space station.

It would depend on how permanently you engineered the orbital structure.

> Gravity is only a third of Earth, but humans can adjust
> to that -- even rotating space stations will probably give
> us Mars or Moon gee.

CAN give us Mars or Moon gee if that's what we want, but not NECESSARILY
those lower levels of gravity. If it turns out that those lower levels
of gravity are no problem, than we can have that in orbital structures,
and engineer at a smaller scale. But if our luck should come up short
in this area, and we find via experience that nothing short of a full 1
G of gravity will prevent serious health issues, then we can provide
that via rotation.

> Some denitrifying bacteria, some clever hydroponics and
> agricultural development and in time, Mars won't require
> continual supply runs from Earth, thus eliminating the need
> for constant space launches

In my opinion, neither proposal can fly without elimination of virtually
all needs for material resupply from Earth. Closed ecologies can be an
advantage for orbital habitats as well as for planetary ones.

> If disaster were to strike a planetary colony on a
> terraformed Mars, the inhabitants would have almost a
> guarantee of survival, while inhabitants on a space station
> would have virtually no chance.

What kind of disaster are you thinking of?

I've considered the disaster of a major asteroid strike. First, it's
important to make valid comparisons. So we shouldn't compare the entire
planet of Mars to a single space habitat, but instead to a swarm of
habitats with land area equal to that of Mars. An ELE would be the same
bad news on a terraformed Mars as it has been on Earth, and for the same
reason: a planetary ecology is an interconnected whole.

Now imagine that same asteroid tearing through an orbiting ring of 216
million Stanford Tori. Those in the direct path of the asteroid would
become incandescent vapors. Many very close to the path would sustain
catastrophic impacts from sputtering debris. But any habitat just a few
miles out of the direct path of the asteroid would get by completely
unscathed.

A Martian living even on the opposite side from an ELE would at the
least have to contend with the ecological upheaval.

> A space station is a temporary setting, in my opinion,
> and unless there's a fundamental step forward in our
> ability to contruct space stations, will always so remain.

I think you're making a correct argument, but only for carefully
choosing your terminology to make it true. You keep saying "space
station"; and for that term, I'm sure you're right. But I don't think
permanent settlements on Mars should be compared with present-day space
stations but instead with permanent space habitats.

> By the way, Mike Combs, your name is very familiar. I see
> you've written articles -- what magazines are they in? Any books?

I've never been paid for my writing. If you're a member of the Space
Frontier Foundation, you might have seen a couple of my articles in
Space Front, but that would be about it.

Regards,

Mike Combs

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik"
wrote:

> But assuming Mars can be terraformed, which I think it can be
> relatively easily within half a millennium

Why would we want to do this?

What purpose is served by having people live on Mars? I can understand
scientists who are researching planetary origins and their support
staff, but what use is there for a sheet metal worker, an interior
designer, a financial trader, a sculpter, a rocket engineer, a cabinet
maker, etc?

You haven't yet specified your reasons for advocating planetary
settlements, but most other people seem to me to be fixated on the
neat technology of terraforming and have no clue about the why of it
all, unless they muster some rationalization for harkening back to the
pioneer spirit of our forefathers and how that would be good for our
society. Balderdash! (Heh, I've always wanted to use that word, LOL)

Mars will be a giant fiscal sinkhole that'll make the ISS seem like
the wisest gov't procurement program ever conceived.

How will Mars pay it own way? Why would people rather live there than
on Antarctica?

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik"
> wrote:
>
> > But assuming Mars can be terraformed, which I think it can
be
> > relatively easily within half a millennium
>
> Why would we want to do this?

Maybe you're right that people would be no more willing to move to
Mars than they would be to move to Antarctica. I just don't know.
It's puzzling that some parts of Earth are chokingly overcrowded,
hopelessly stressful and fast-paced, and disgustingly polluted, yet
there are deserts, oceans, and a continent where no one seems to be
attempting to build infrastructure. But I think there'll be a lot of
people who would jump at the chance to live on another planet, to
tame a new world. Just look at how much people are willing to shell
out just for suborbital flights or some time aboard the ISS. In a
Mars colony, there'd be a need for just about every vocation --
engineers, farmers, architects, technicians, chemists, pharmacists,
meteorologists, programmers, doctors, biologists, geologists -- etc.,
etc....
>
> You haven't yet specified your reasons for advocating planetary
> settlements, but most other people seem to me to be fixated on the
> neat technology of terraforming and have no clue about the why of it
> all, unless they muster some rationalization for harkening back to
the
> pioneer spirit of our forefathers and how that would be good for our
> society. Balderdash! (Heh, I've always wanted to use that word,
LOL)

Well, ummm, yeah. It would be nice if people could have something to
believe in again. I don't see why that's balderdash. Seems to me
having no frontiers left to conquer has put us in quite a kerfuffle.
It would also be nice to have somewhere to go if things don't work
out for you on Earth. The well-known Turner Thesis. You know that
expression "stop the world and let me off." It'll be quite a while
before that's really a practical alternative, but it seems a
worthwhile enough objective to start investing in it now. After all,
we start preparing for our retirement when we're in our early 20s!
It's a way to make space open to everyone, rather than just
scientists, engineers, and pilots.
>
> Mars will be a giant fiscal sinkhole that'll make the ISS seem like
> the wisest gov't procurement program ever conceived.

Going back to the space elevator...if only we could eliminate launch
costs, colonization of Mars would be no more difficult than building
a space station.
>
> How will Mars pay it own way? Why would people rather live there
than
> on Antarctica?

The idea would be that Mars will eventually be Earth-like --
temperate Earth, that is. As it is now, just the novelty of living
on another planet will attract lots of people. We've already seen
the beginning of that with space tourism.

If it's not to be, I'd be willing to accept space cities as a
substitute for planetary colonization, just as long as we're not
confined to this planet forever. As for me personally, I'd rather
hop aboard a spaceship and go explorin'!

Collin

victoriatangoman wrote:
>
> What purpose is served by having people live on Mars? I can
> understand
> scientists who are researching planetary origins and their support
> staff, but what use is there for a sheet metal worker, an interior
> designer, a financial trader, a sculpter, a rocket engineer, a
> cabinet
> maker, etc?
>

None of those people (with the possible exception of the sheet metal
worker and the rocket engineer) would serve much purpose on a
scientific expidition to Mars; but once the change from "expedition"
through "colony" and then to "society" occurs, there will be room for
those. As well as artists, musicians, sculptors, actors, dancers,
pizza delivery persons, schoolteachers, and even lawyers.

> You haven't yet specified your reasons for advocating planetary
> settlements, but most other people seem to me to be fixated on the
> neat technology of terraforming and have no clue about the why of it
> all, unless they muster some rationalization for harkening back to
> the
> pioneer spirit of our forefathers and how that would be good for our
> society. Balderdash! (Heh, I've always wanted to use that word,
> LOL)
>

Is it possible that the some people are also just as fixated on the
neat technology of building livable constructs unassociated with
planetary surfaces?

I'm certain lots of people said "Balderdash" on the docks of Europe as
the ships sailed into the West. The fact that this side of the world
is populated at all (I'm not just speaking of Europeans here) is
indicative of a "pioneer spirit" that seems to be a part of being
human. I believe that we cage that spirit at our peril. The people
who want to make their own rules and live by their own wit and
strength always need a place to go.

> Mars will be a giant fiscal sinkhole that'll make the ISS seem like
> the wisest gov't procurement program ever conceived.
>

So maybe Mars should be privatized? Let the governments of Earth
offer tax incentives but otherwise stay away?

> How will Mars pay it own way? Why would people rather live there
> than
> on Antarctica?
>

Maybe Mars will be settled the way Australia was: by sending Earth's
undesirables there. That will be payment enough, as it was to England
to ship its marginal citizens to Botany Bay rather than waste good
land and money incarcerating them locally. What a great idea that
was! Look what a wonderful place Oz has become since then!

For that matter, why would people rather live in 50-kilometer soup
cans than on Mars? The answers seems to be the same for both. For
the glory, man! Because we can! Because it's there! Because it's
new, and different, and filled with unthought-of possibility!

My feeling is, that we'll probably (if we don't get bound up in trivia
beforehand) do both. Space habitats will most likely come before any
but simple settlements occur on Mars. Inhabiting Mars will have to
wait until Mars is habitable, and half a millenium is probably close
to the length of time it would take to terraform enough atmosphere
(200 millibars or so) to allow water to melt without sublimating, and
to allow the inhabitants to at least go outdoors in long-johns and an
oxy mask instead of a full pressure suit.

I don't think we can wait 500 years to start moving people off Earth's
surface, so we'll have to begin with space habitats.

And as awe-inspiring as living in a
thirty-five-thousand-cubic-kilometer human construct would be, there's
something incredible about watching a sunrise ...

Steve

--- In spacesettlers, Steve Long wrote:

> For that matter, why would people rather live in 50-kilometer soup
> cans than on Mars?

Because you have whatever gravity level you like.

Because you have instant access to space.

Because you have access to *different* gravity levels in close
proximity.

Because it doesn't take 500 years (in which time you can build enough
habitats to exceed the entire surface area of Mars).

Because you can start small and work your way up to the 50-kilometre
models (while you only have one Mars to practice with).

Glad you're talking about the big habitats, though, instead of "space
stations."

> The answers seems to be the same for both. For the glory, man!
> Because we can! Because it's there! Because it's new, and
> different, and filled with unthought-of possibility!

I agree wholeheartedly (as might be expected of somebody who goes
around calling himself Xenophile).

> My feeling is, that we'll probably (if we don't get bound up in
> trivia beforehand) do both. Space habitats will most likely come
> before any but simple settlements occur on Mars. Inhabiting Mars

Agreed on both counts. Though I wonder if Mars might be what is
called "para-terraformed." This would be, say, roofing over a 100 Km
stretch of the Vallis Marinaris and "terraforming" that.

> will have to wait until Mars is habitable, and half a millenium is
> probably close to the length of time it would take to terraform
> enough atmosphere (200 millibars or so) to allow water to melt
> without sublimating, and to allow the inhabitants to at least go
> outdoors in long-johns and an oxy mask instead of a full pressure
> suit.

With the poles too cold, oceans covering at least part of the planet
(meaning you now have less land area than Earth), and gravity at one
third whether you like it or not. By which time there could be
habitats with a total land area exceeding ALL of Mars, and maybe
exceeding ALL of the Earth.

> I don't think we can wait 500 years to start moving people off
> Earth's surface,

I sure hope not.

> so we'll have to begin with space habitats.

Works for me.

> And as awe-inspiring as living in a thirty-five-thousand-cubic-
> kilometer human construct would be, there's something incredible
> about watching a sunrise ...

No reason a well-designed habitat couldn't have that, too.