PROJEX launched

From: George Perkins [mailto:cygonaut@...]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 10:47 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: PROJEX launched

I think going to an asteroid first and then to Mars would be cheaper,
and probably faster, than going straight to Mars.

There were a couple of planetary scientists who about a year ago were
advocating manned missions to NEOs prior to Mars. They had some very
logical points, but they were lone voices crying out in the wilderness.

I agree with you that asteroids should have priority. Both because they may
be more relevant from a space resources use point of view, and because
there's interesting science to be done there as well. Mars advocates scoff,
and argue that there could be no life on an asteroid, but I would submit we
cannot yet know the likelihood of finding life on Mars.

Terraforming, if it works, would probably take hundreds of years..
and then I wonder about the long term quality of life with its being
nearer to Jupiter ("trash can of the solar system") and the Belt.

Since I advocate living inside the Belt itself, I'd probably emphasize the
timescales issues more than the proximity to the Belt. But there may well
be quality of life issues associated with the fact that you're attempting to
live on a planet which has been shifted from its state of natural
equilibrium. There will certainly be quality of life issues associated with
reduced sunlight intensity and gravity, problems which folks in orbital
habitats needn't face.

This is up to the would-be Mars people. If they want to and they can
get the bucks, they most likely will do it.

But Mars advocates can never suggest compelling economic opportunities on
Mars, so it's questionable where the money is going to come from. Sometimes
they say property sales, but I think that's circular logic. It presumes
what we're trying to justify in the first place: a compelling economic
reason for needing to be on the surface of Mars.

But I'm all for exploring it, of course.

I think we can all agree that scientific exploration of Mars is worthwhile.
I only come into disagreement with people who insist that Mars is the
inevitable or sole alternate home for humanity.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
George Perkins [mailto:cygonaut@...]
Sent:
Thursday, August 30, 2001 10:47 AM
To:
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: PROJEX launched
I think going to an asteroid first and then to Mars would be cheaper,
and probably faster, than going straight to Mars.

There were a couple of planetary scientists who about a year ago were advocating manned missions to NEOs prior to Mars. They had some very logical points, but they were lone voices crying out in the wilderness.

I agree with you that asteroids should have priority. Both because they may be more relevant from a space resources use point of view, and because there's interesting science to be done there as well. Mars advocates scoff, and argue that there could be no life on an asteroid, but I would submit we cannot yet know the likelihood of finding life on Mars.
Terraforming, if it works, would probably take hundreds of years..
and then I wonder about the long term quality of life with its being
nearer to Jupiter ("trash can of the solar system") and the Belt.

Since I advocate living inside the Belt itself, I'd probably emphasize the timescales issues more than the proximity to the Belt. But there may well be quality of life issues associated with the fact that you're attempting to live on a planet which has been shifted from its state of natural equilibrium. There will certainly be quality of life issues associated with reduced sunlight intensity and gravity, problems which folks in orbital habitats needn't face.
This is up to the would-be Mars people. If they want to and they can
get the bucks, they most likely will do it.

But Mars advocates can never suggest compelling economic opportunities on Mars, so it's questionable where the money is going to come from. Sometimes they say property sales, but I think that's circular logic. It presumes what we're trying to justify in the first place: a compelling economic reason for needing to be on the surface of Mars.
But I'm all for exploring it, of course.

I think we can all agree that scientific exploration of Mars is worthwhile. I only come into disagreement with people who insist that Mars is the inevitable or sole alternate home for humanity.

Regards,
Mike Combs