Paraterraforming vs. terraforming the Moon and Mars

Absolutely. A few months back, it seemed like we were actually going to get an initiative going. Seemed like everyone, including the usaf were backing it as part of the O'bama transition. Then, once his administration actually began I've heard didly. This is off the shelf tech that could be done right now. Assembly of segments suitably sized for launch can be taken into leo and crews of assemblers could be based out of either an added module to ISS or possibly one of the full size Genesis 2 modules if they're close enough to ready for spacing. Once the SPS units are assembled they can be moved out to GEO by small maneuvering thrusters. Ground receiving antenna grids could be easily put into place in rural areas unlikely to interfere with airline guidance radars, etc. So what's the deal, it's a win/win all the way around. Where did the initiative disappear to?

From: Matt Gallimore
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 8:32 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Paraterraforming vs. terraforming the Moon and Mars

From: Victor Smith
"In the meantime, since none of the above is currently available, we should be bending all our efforts to establishing beachhead settlements in space ... Workable strategies to effect a manned beginning on this goal is what we need to be coming up with here. Any constructive suggestions?"

The approach must hinge on economic return to earth initially, or funding will be from governments and always subject to polical bugetary whims. There may be three primary economic returns: scientific, physical resources, and energy. It may take a while for research performed in space to pay for the billions it would take for the first permanant beachead. Some might say asteroids will provide all the platinum and gold for we'd ever want on earth. However, the only long term non-distorting commodity might be energy. Oneal hit on a very good idea with SPS.

Can we generally agree that the economic basis for a buildup over the next two decades would come from either solar power beamed to Earth or valuable materials mined from asteroids and returned to earth? Then the question is which path are we better suited technologically to pursue. I suspect, it is solar power.

Following this logic, the raw materials can come from Earth / Moon / Asteroids. As installations get larger, earth launch fails to be practical and we transition to mined materials. Technology will drive sourcing.