For or Against . . .

> Yes it is a huge number, and yes, self-sustaining is the key. I can
> see a few years of subsidies from earth, perhaps a decade, but, and
> pardon my momentary lapse into the ludicrous, but I can't really see
> the mission controller saying "And we have lift-off of STS mission
> number 256, transporting toothbrushes and toilet paper to the 1,000
> hardy pioneers in orbit. STS mission 257, scheduled for next week is
> on schedule for delivery of the essential shoes, pillows, razor
> blades, pharmaceuticals, band-aids, watches and other personal items
> for our band of pioneers."
If you substitute the Space Shuttle with a radically cheaper launcher, perhaps a tenth or a fiftieth the price per pound to orbit, then I can --- except that there would be no mission controller on national or international TV at every launch. It would be just import-export. Similarly the sailing of a ship to Greenland with consumables from Denmark is not well attended by the media, though especially in the more isolated towns and villages the arrival of one is of considerable interest to the locals. Of course the transportation of these consumables would, even with a radically cheaper launcher than the STS, be radically more expensive than transportation of similar consumables to Greenland. But if the colonists were building items of great value to the Earth, they would be able to afford it, even if a toothbrush were a hundred times the retail price on Earth because of transportation.