A reason to go to Mars (lugging ressources)

On Dec 13, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Kevin Burgess wrote:

> > > Putting all of that together into habitable homes, where
> > > humankind maybe nurtured is more than several hundred years
> > > into the future.
> >
> > How do you arrive at that figure?
>
> I extrapolated from the time of first Lunar landing, to the first
> planned long-term occupation. Note that I didn't say settlement.
>

OK, that's an interesting approach. I'm a bit skeptical of it though
-- there are many reasons to think that Apollo was an aberration,
rushed quite ahead of its "natural" time by the particular
circumstances of the day.

Of course such things do happen, but rather than a simple
extrapolation, a better comparison might be the European colonization
of the Americas. Columbus's expedition was in 1492; first major
permanent settlements were in the late 1500s; in the 16th century,
some 240,000 Europeans entered American ports. So far, our space
record seems pretty comparable to me.

> Building an O'Niel habitat out of dust or planetoids will take much
> longer, based upon history. Sadly.
>

Longer than the first lunar base? Agreed (and this is fairly obvious,
since a robust cislunar economy is pretty much required in order to
take on a project that size).

> The technology & funds exist, and I'd be the first in line to wrench
> & load launch vehicles, if the powers that be would back our effort.*
>

Well, I think suborbital tourism, orbital tourism, lunar base, lunar
tourism, cislunar fuel depots, and exploitation of NEAs, all need to
come first. But we're making progress.
> > Your toddler (and mine)
> > are in much greater danger of dying on Earth from a car wreck.
>
> ...Or war, general pollution & overcrowding... However, with the
> conventional parents resources daily child rearing is easier in a
> place where life is less fragile.
>

I'm still not convinced there's any significant difference there.

> If not decompression, then carbon oxide poisoning, extreme heat or
> cold, not to mention the bone-debilitating nature of microgravity.
>

It's good not to mention that, since it doesn't apply. Nor would
extreme heat or cold. Atmospheric imbalance or contamination IS a
greater risk in a space habitat than on Earth, that's true... unless
you have equipment in place to monitor such things, and people whose
job it is to make sure the air is always good, as would certainly be
the case.

> > I don't, that's the whole point. Space colonies have whatever
> > level of gravity we decide is best (which could be 1.0 G).
>
> As a scientist might say prove the theory, and as an engineer (and
> Parent) I insist on proof in performance before trust.
>

What is it you're arguing? That our physics of angular momentum and
acceleration are wrong? These are laws of motion that HAVE been
proven, zillions of times. Any child can spin a yo-yo around their
head and observe the effect. Please propose a way in which this might
NOT work to produce 1.0 G exactly as the equations say it should.

> As a Parent, I can tell my toddler NOT to turn off daddys' Server
> farm, or turn on mommys' hot oven, and that crawling under the SUV is
> only for accredited auto mechanics...
>

Ah yes, good point. In addition, pizza is tastier with pepperoni, and
non sequiturs look best in purple.

> > See above. You're imagining a nonsensical situation, and then
> > arguing against it.
>
> LOL, if you call toddlers 'non-sensicle' then I would have to agree,
> however that's a very real argument against overwhelming population
> migration to microgravity environments, exposed to the hardships of
> space.
>

Perhaps I was too subtle. The nonsensical situation is space
colonists living in microgravity. They won't. They'll live in
whatever level of gravity we deem is most healthy and beneficial --
classic studies have always assumed 1.0 G, though I suspect we'll
discover that 0.8 or even 0.5 G is perfectly fine even for growing
children. (That's just speculation, of course; we don't have that data
yet -- but we DO have plenty of data on living in 1.0 G, and so worst
case, that's what we'll do.)

> REALITY CHECK:
> The strawman argument was the suggestion that human diaspora will
> resolve in more people living outside of gravity wells than
> planetside.
>

No, the strawman argument was that people will live in MICROGRAVITY.
Perhaps I'm assuming too much. Have you not actually looked at any of
the space colony designs? Do you really think that anyone (apart from
Marshall Savage, perhaps) is proposing that people might live in
microgravity in large numbers?

I have to ask because you seem to be equating "living in
space" (outside a gravity well) to "living in microgravity" -- and
that's just silly. An orbital colony is a large rotating structure;
you live on the inside, and feel an acceleration towards the outside,
which can be equivalent to whatever level of gravity you desire.

> No matter how you slice it, that just ain't gonna happen.
>

That many people living in microgravity, sure (unless of course
technology provides some way to avoid all the biological ill effects,
but let's ignore that possibility for now).

But more people living outside of gravity wells than planetside? Yes,
of course that IS going to happen. It's inevitable; the vast majority
of the solar system's accessible resources are not on planets, and
economics strongly favor not living at the bottom of a well anyway.
The only way I can imagine this not being the case within a few
hundred years, is if civilization collapses somehow.

> Anyone suggesting otherwise is really far-removed from children, to
> have forgotten these practical nightmares enough to casually suggest
> exposing pre-teens to the rigors of surviving space.
>

You seem to think you're pretty special with regard to the parental
perspective. But I don't think that's founded either. I'm a father
of two. My oldest wants to be a NASA engineer when he grows up and
design space colonies some day. I couldn't be prouder (even though by
the time he's grown up, NASA probably won't be where the real action
is... and he'll probably change his mind a dozen times before he gets
that far, but that's fine too).

> I'm saying we need to get working adults out there, establishing a
> beachhead safe enough, before trying to 'child proof' the outlets.
>

OK, sure. This seems obvious. So?

> The general public (who pay the taxes used by NASA, and purchase the
> commercial products produced by corporations who will enter space
> enterprise) DO NOT CARE ABOUT ROBOTS IN SPACE.
>

NASA isn't purchasing the space tourism tickets, and I think that's
the next big economic driver for space development. However, I'm not
sure what your point is here. Weren't we talking about living on Mars
vs. living in orbit?

> Like us, they DO care about boots & flags!
>

Please speak for yourself -- I don't care much about boots & flags. I
*do* care about infrastructure and economic development. Stunt
missions are relevant only insofar as they prove the possibility of
something that has never been done before. Boots on a NEA would be
very relevant, for example, since those are going to be important
sources of resources in the near future. But probably even more
relevant, near-term, would be some communications & positioning towers/
satellites on/around the Moon and the Lagrange points.

> Put boots & flags back on the Moon, on to Mars, or even L5, and you
> will have the hearts & wallets of the public support we so
> desperately need.
>

I don't know about that -- the general public had already lost
interest after half a dozen Apollo missions. Missions 17-20 were
pretty much ready to fly, and got cancelled for lack of funds and
interest. This despite each mission not only adding boots and flags,
but pushing the envelope in various ways.

The real problem, IMHO, is that somebody chose "science" as the overt
reason for the space program. That wasn't the real reason, of course,
but I guess they didn't think they could sell "national prestige."
But you can't sell "science" either -- Johnny Public just doesn't care
that much. Instead, they should have made it about opening a
frontier, and working as hard and fast as possible to get to the point
where Johnny Public could go there himself, rather than just watching
a handful of government employees have all the fun.

That's what's been missing from our space program since its inception,
and so great is the disappointment and resentment, that a surprising
number of children of the '60s (who also happened to have become
wealthy in unrelated ways) are now taking matters into their own hands
(SpaceX, Blue Horizons, Bigelow Aerospace, Virgin Galactic, etc.).
And they're making no bones about it: they're not going for the
science. They're going to bust open the solar system for everybody.

> > That's certainly *a* focus, but this mailing list is
> > "Space Settlers" @yahoogroups.com.
> > The point of this group is to discuss space settlement.
>
> Ah, Settlement of solely open 'Space', and not just any
> extraterrestrial location?
>

No, any extraterrestrial location is fair game. You seemed to be
saying that we shouldn't discuss space settlements because they're too
far in the future. I was arguing that such discussion is the point of
this group.

> My strong reaction was merely against the outright dismissal of
> Martian exploration & settlement. Again; If I'm guilty of
> overreacting, please accept my apologies.
>

If I was dismissive, then I'm the one who should be apologizing. Some
of us here have strong feelings on the matter, and tend to be a little
terse, just because we've been over it so many times already. But
that's no excuse -- everyone who comes to it fresh deserves a careful
hearing (and a patient explanation as to why a planetary surface may
not be the best place to build a city).

> There is always a place for good storytelling, and speculation
> certainly promotes our collective goals of the settlement of new
> frontiers in space.
>

True. Our own Mike Combs has written some fine work along those lines.

> The sometimes fine line between scientific speculation, and outright
> fantasy is one I prefer not to cross. Passing the mid-century mark, I
> find my time more precious every day.
>

I can certainly respect that.

> Getting back to the cause of this edition of War & Peace:
>
> Someone here already said it better than me; "...I see it as stupid
> to ignore an entire planet."
>
> Reasonable planning, even speculation, should not ignore the impact
> of Earth, Mars, or other planets upon the expansion of Second Stage
> civilization, or diaspora of humanity.
>

Of course not. I don't think anyone's ignoring it. Mars will
certainly be a popular tourist destination, and its two moons will
probably be important sources of resources. In addition, its
position, halfway between Earth and the Belt (which are likely to be
the two most thriving and thickly populated parts of the solar system
for centuries to come), will make it an important way station (when
things happen to be lined up right at the time you want to go, of
course).

However, just because it's a nice place to visit, doesn't mean you'd
want to live there.

> See above comments on child-rearing.
>

I saw them, but I still don't see their relevance, except perhaps in
the opposite direction. Martian gravity is 0.38 G. We don't have the
data, but it's entirely possible that that's not enough gravity for
normal development (or possibly, even for the long-term health of
fully-grown adults). And if that's the case, there isn't much you can
do about it there. But in orbit, you can build a comfy safe space
colony with 1.0 G or any other level of gravity you require.

> Besides: We are way to far from my goal of retiring to a golf-
> community on Mars (easier to find those little white balls, and they
> don't get lost in Lunar regolith-traps, or go orbital like on
> Ceres...).
>

Yeah, but you're still going to hit your drives over 700 m, which
means a VERY long walk after the ball. Assuming you can swing
decently in a space suit, of course... or that you've build an
extremely large enclosed space. I fear that you might need to take up
a less spacious sport.

> Being a practical engineer, I am looking for way to actually fly some
> of these birds, and get out there.
>

OK, we're all certainly agreed on that. I do think it helps to have
some idea where you're going when you're trying to plot a course,
though. I outlined above what I think the necessary steps are before
large-scale space settlements. Once we get to the point of orbital
and lunar hotels, the next step is a mini-space-colony that would be a
Disney-esque vacation spot. In fact, I've roughed out a design for
just such a thing, with multiple decks sporting lunar, Martian, and
0.8 G levels of gravity (plus additional agricultural decks in
between). The lunar and Martian decks would be done up in a
simulation of the lunar and Martian environments, except with
atmosphere, so you could see and feel what it would be like to cavort
on the Moon or Mars. And of course there would be zero-G areas too
(for playing in, not living in).

Anyway, something like that is what I see as the first real "proof of
concept" for a space colony -- after that, it's just a matter of
scaling it up, while continuing to find ways to make them pay.

> Like Mr Reed here, I have practical plans for Space Based Solar Power
> Satellites (SBSPS), which will require settlers like the members of
> this group to occupy & maintain.
>

Sounds good.

> We do have similar goals, even if yours is microgravity Olympics, or
> a window seat looking out over the entire Earth, and wide open solar
> system (L5 or O'Niel colonies).
>

Fair enough (except perhaps for the microgravity part!).

Best,
- Joe