Planetary Chauvanism, and Zubrin-ites

I was perusing Mike C's space settlement site. If we're not tired of
hashing out the old "Planetary Chauvanism", Zubrin-ite topic.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/9917/case_spc.htm
>... Zubrin confesses that, following several decades of atmospheric
density buildup... photosynthesis might take a millennia to add
sufficient oxygen to the Martian atmosphere... Thus, he anticipates
that more high-tech methods will be employed to speed up this
process. One method he discusses is nanotechnology, which he
estimates might cut the time down to a mere thirty years.
>... The technology to create miles-scale mirrors in zero gravity and
vacuum would certainly seem to be more in hand than molecular
nanotechnology.

Not to mention that nanotechnology will also make space settlements
that much more competetive. -maybe even allowing mirrors the size of
cornfields?
Another high technology answer to providing atmosphere to Mars is
space mining. Drop packages of water or O2 boiled out of regolith.
(Mike: is there any work on the idea of using frozen O2 pellets in a
mass-driver rocket? Higher EV than rock dust...) Any good online
resources to using mass-driver rockets? SSI is pretty sparse on this.

> One of the more frequent posters to the threads stated that Mars is
more popular, and expressed the opinion this single fact overrides
all other considerations.

This is the only reason I work with the locals of the Mars Society,
in whatever small way I can.
Mars gets the attention. People are ready to hear about it, if only
because "everybody knows" that we went to the Moon, so now it's time
to go to Mars. By the time you try to explain to the
attention-defecit public about space living, they've become engrossed
in the love lives of the Stars (or politicians).
I am perfectly happy to use the attention Mars gets. By the time
anybody is ready to build a community off-Earth, the advantages of
space settlements/industry will be sufficient argument.
This popularity argument also demands the qualification of long-term
versus short term. Mars is popular now, while everybody still thinks
of the scene from "the Empire Strikes Back" when you mention
asteroids. By the time large scale efforts are going on in space, the
superior economies of space habitats will win out. We'll use the
attention of the Mars missions to go to space.
In the meantime, the Martians should be a little more open minded,
and not see everything else as a threat to their funding. Indeed,
space resources answer once and for all the toughest questions posed
to them: what incentive do you offer to getting funding and returning
the investment, and what do you hold out as a benefit to the Earth
and its people. (I personally used this tactic at a Mars Society
presentation, when Zubrin, C.McKay and C.Stoker came away from those
questions sounding lame, or asking for faith. Going to Mars gets us
far more than one little planet to explore. Space resources hammers
the lid shut on the coffin of the "disposable Earth policy" or just
wandering off into space, and forgetting the Earth.)

As well, if the Mars Society carries on with its momentum, their
mission necessarily opens up the possibility of buying HLVs from the
manufacturer, without the government overhead cost multipliers.
How soon after the first private Mars Direct mission lifts off, will
somebody use the new HLVs to go to an NEO?
How about a modified Shuttle ET on a Shuttle C variant, for a
station to initially receive & process regolith? (Unmanned launch;
who needs NASA/KSC to launch?) If NASA is unwilling to use their
precious Shuttles to do the initial crew launch or EVA work, the
Russians are only too happy to play ball. (I cheer every time I hear
about a satellite going up from a Russian SSBN or SS-18. I was
laughing when Tito went up, over NASAs objections!)

> Perhaps one of the best points made by someone on the newsgroups
was that I was being somewhat unfair in my depiction of Robert
Zubrin's views.

This is countered by the fact that Zubrin goes out of his way to be
unfair to space settlements. He once said that we want to lift a
billion ton colony at $10,000/pound? He was only too happy when the
laughter of the audience overrode objections. (at a S.F. convention,
where Denver NSS/L-5 members debated on Moon/space vs Mars)