What Mars offers that O'Neill habitats do not.

Mars has all of the necessary elements in its soil and in its
atmosphere for human survival. And we all weighed about 2/3 less than
we do now sometime in our life as we were growing up. So it could be
the first test to see if humans can really survive off the Earth,
totally independent of the Earth's resources.

Plus it has two valuable moons that could supply cheap oxygen,
hydrogen for space vehicles in addition to carbon, nitrogen, and
shielding material for space habitats in orbit around the Earth. They
could also supply the metals, silicates, and polymers necessary for to
manufacture satellites. Platinum and maybe even nickel and titanium
could also be exported to the Earth's surface.

So Martian colonist could also make some money too.

Marcel F. Williams

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Sailor Barsoom"
wrote:
>
> There are three things, really.
>
> 1) LOCATION
> For a certain very narrow category of activities, the surface of
Mars really is the superior location. It is better than any O'Neill
habitat for this very narrow category of activities, whether that
O'Neill habitat be in orbit about the Earth, in the Main Belt, or even
in orbit about Mars itself. And what is this very narrow category of
activities?
>
> THINGS DONE ON THE SURFACE OF MARS
>
> Well OK that seems obvious, but it's also true. If your goal is to
explore the lava tubes of Olymus Mons, then Olympus Mons is superior
to every other location in the Universe for accomplishing this goal.
>
> The surface of Mars is a superior location for Martian tourism.
> The surface of Mars is a superior location for exploring the surface
of Mars (well duh).
> The surface of Mars is a superior location for searching out
evidence of past Martian life.
> The surface of Mars is a superior location for living out one's
dreams of being on Mars (well duh, pt. II).
>
> 2) SCIENTIFIC VALUE
> Each planet in the Solar System (and many or all of the moons and a
goodly number, I suspect, of the asteroids and comets) offers
scientific discoveries that can't be made everywhere else. Mars has
scientific value that 25143 Itokawa just doesn't. Then again, Venus
has scientific value that Mars just doesn't, and Vesta has scientific
value that Venus and Mars just don't. Yes, Ceres alone could provide
more living space (and better living space) than Mars, Venus, the Moon
and Earth all put together, but Ceres won't solve the mysteries of
Mars (or Mars those of Ceres).
>
> 3) IT'S, WELL, **MARS!** HOW COOL IS THAT?
> H.G. Wells didn't write about invaders from Habitat 212, Edgar Rice
Burroughs didn't send John Carter to Bernal 36, and Ray Bradbury
didn't write "The O'Neilian Chronicles." Mars has a history in the
human imagination that no man-made object can match.
>
> It would be possible to dig tunnels which would be much more
comfortable than the Lascaux Cave, and use some sort of modified
ink-jet printer to put replicas of the famous cave paintings on the
wall of you tunnels. But it just wouldn't be the same as standing in
the Lascaux Cave and gazing at works of art sixteen thousand years old.
>
> Mars also has natural wonders which it will be difficult to
replicate in habitats for some time, and again, it won't be the same
as a NATURAL wonder. As wonderful as Island Three will be, it won't
offer Vallis Marinaris or Tharsis.
>
> These things Mars offers, and these things are reason enough to have
people on Mars. Please, Mars advocates, don't try to argue that Mars
is the perfect place to grow food for people mining the asteroids. It
isn't. Nor is it the best place to get water, or iron, or anything
else that isn't going to be used on Mars itself.