A reason for going to Mars

From: Richard

> Because it's there.

Kennedy told us we were going to the moon because it's there. But please note that Apollo did not lead directly to lunar colonization. In fact, it didn't even lead to long-term occupancy.

> I'm curious to know how you plan to stop people from going to Mars.

Who said anything about stopping people from going to Mars? The High Frontier argument is that, in a fair competition with locations in high orbit, the surface of Mars (or indeed any celestial body) would be at a significant economic disadvantage. Such that we can expect orbital space will be economically developed in a way that Mars may never be.

> Do you favor an absolute dictatorship?

Nonsense. We're not declaring our iron will. We're speculating on the future economy beyond our planet.

> Gravity wells may be inconvenient. But so far, we know of nobody living
> outside of one.

But also nobody presently living beyond the Earth, but we don't let that stop us from speculating.

> I see no reason why we can't, but that does not mean
> that there isn't one.

We'll here's Gerard O'Neill's little list of advantages to the approach he developed:

1. Access to 24-hour-a-day sunlight. This makes solar power a consistent, economical energy source. Photovoltaic panels can convert sunlight into electrical current, and solar mirrors can concentrate it for process heat in industrial operations (such as the smelting of ore). A space-based solar concentrator the size of a football field (which could still weigh less than a car) could provide process heat equivalent to the burning of 1 million barrels of oil over 30 years.

Sunlight also drives the life-support system of the habitat, so the day/night cycle can be set to whatever is convenient. Compare this to the moon, where there is 14 days of continuous daylight, and then a 14-day-long night. Here, some alternate energy source would probably have to be used half the time.

2. Access to zero gravity. This may have a number of industrial and entertainment possibilities. Structures (such as the above-mentioned solar mirrors) could be built many times larger and flimsier in space than on a planet.

Zero G would be a liability if there were no alternative to it. Astronauts experience loss of bone mass and muscle tone after prolonged exposure to weightlessness. But most of a space habitat would be under Earth-normal gravity, although there would be easy access to regions of reduced gravity and zero G (perhaps for personal flight). With planets, on the other hand, you have to take the gravity that's there, and it's often the wrong kind of gravity to keep us healthy. Lunarians or Martians would probably not be able to visit the Earth (nor accelerate at 1 G).

3. Location near the top of Earth's gravity well. We here on Earth are the "gravitationally disadvantaged". We are at the bottom of a pit 6,400 km (4,000 miles) deep. This is what makes space launches from the surface so difficult and expensive. Settlers near the top of the gravity well would be ideally situated for departures to points beyond.

4. Control of the environment. The weather and other aspects of the surroundings would be those of the inhabitants' choosing. Agriculture in space will benefit from weather control (fresh fruits and vegetables year-round!) and the absence of pests.

5. Mobile territories. Although the first generation of space habitats will doubtless reside in High Earth Orbit, there's no reason why space settlers couldn't attach engines to their habitats, and over the course of months or years gradually change their orbit to whatever solar system location they found preferable.

6. Long-term expansion of the land area available to the human race. Let's be optimistic and assume that Mars could be made totally Earth-like in the near-term. This would basically double the land area available to humanity, meaning problem solved...until the population doubles again. Right now, that is happening roughly every 40 years. By contrast, if we were to conservatively limit ourselves to using only the resources of the asteroid belt, we could build, in the form of space habitats, 3,000 times the livable surface area of the Earth. This makes space settlement a long-term solution.

> Besides I see it as stupid to ignore an entire planet.

Ignore it from a scientific standpoint? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that Mars is going to be economically important. Also, a few planetary scientists investigating certain aspects of Mars does not necessary or inevitably lead to mass colonization by people from all walks of life. That's more apt to happen wherever significant economic opportunities lay.

Regards,

Mike Combs