An Event of Possible Interest to UK Spacesettlers

> Naturally most of us in this group want to live in O'Neill type habitats but until human economics improves somewhat we may have to settle for the Moon or Mars.

This seems to assume that building permanent human settlements on the moon or Mars will be cheaper than in orbital space. This is a near-universally-held assumption throughout the space community, but I always question it when I see it.

The costs of getting back and forth between where we presently sit and a high Earth orbit will certainly be less than for getting back and forth between here and the lunar or Martian surface. This is going to strongly affect labor and maintenance costs.

The cost of energy in high orbit will be much less than on the lunar or Martian surface (and less than present Earth surface costs, too). That's going to strongly affect manufacturing costs.

I suppose the entire debate hinges on the costs for getting raw materials to the construction site. Those who assume the moon or Mars will be cheaper certainly seem to expect O'Neill type habitats to be under a major disadvantage in this area. I guess they don't entirely accept O'Neill's calculations that mass-driver technology could get raw materials to HEO for pennies a pound.

If Planetary Resources gets to follow through on their plans, then the needed resources would be right next door.

Regards,

Mike Combs