The planetary chauvinism debate

One idea I dont usually see in this argument.Planetary and lunar stations are probable quite a bit more popular than orbital stations. They too have resources literally underfoot, and valuable science can be done on a surface.Yet weve had orbital stations since the 1970s and are not really particularly close to building a station on the Moon or Mars. Why?Most likely: distance. The Moon is 2-3 orders of magnitude further from Earth than LEO and Mars is much further yet.All the reasons close is easier apply in spades to settlements. On Mar 25, 2019, at 11:57 AM, 'Combs, Mike' mikecombs@... [ssi_list] ssi_list@... wrote:Its been very quiet on these maillists lately. Heres an attempt to get a bit of a conversation started.If anybody on these maillists recognizes my name at all, they probably know that I have a special interest in the topic of planetary chauvinism. Its been a very long time since I entered into the planets vs. orbital habitats fray on the old Usenet discussion boards, but fairly recently I did have an encounter on Facebook that I thought I might share with these groups. It struck me that the same old scenario plays out today much as it did many years earlier.On the Space Settlement group, Jaycee Caramsalidis started up a poll: Which will see the most significant development path - Planetary colonies or space stations? (Interestingly, the poll ended at a 50/50 tie.) I was among the first respondents, and of course came down on the space stations side, though opining that in this context we should say habitats instead of stations.Another of the respondents said planetary bodies first. I asked him to buttress his assertion with logical arguments. He said that he didnt have to; there were several reasons why planetary colonies would always be better, everyone on the group already knew all of those arguments, and that there was no reason to get into them. I persisted.I trotted out my standard six points (Gerrys points, actually) of why orbital habitats were superior to planetary ones. I asked him to reciprocate.Further evasion. He didnt feel that I would give his points the serious consideration that they deserved. I said even if so, others watching the debate might, and hence there was no need to take a pass on making the arguments.I did have one thing happen in this debate which I had never encountered before: He insisted that first I make the planets-are-better argument. When I said he was the one making that assertion and therefore it fell on him to back it up, he said that if I couldnt make the pro-planet argument then I obviously hadnt studied the problem well enough to discuss it. I did go ahead and offer up the resources are literally underfoot point (which I think is the only legitimate counterpoint to the High Frontier argument).I persisted to the point that he finally said he would make the arguments, but he was at the end of his day, and there was not enough time. He would have to pick up the argument at a later date.I then explained why this dog wouldnt release this particular bone. I said that I had seen this dynamic play out before. Someone asserts planetary colonies are clearly superior, and insists everyone already knows why. When I ask for points along the lines of my High Frontier points, work schedules press in, time grows short, and the rest of the argument must await another day.I then expressed the opinion that this was symptomatic of a bias, not a well-thought-out logical process. I also opined that our notions on this subject might derive more from SF than from any other source, and SF is almost exclusively planet-oriented.Then, after having already said he didnt have enough time left for additional discussion, he fired off a blistering 8 paragraphs about what an arrogant jerk I was for only pretending to want a serious debate when I really just wanted to make an unjustified accusation against him. He thanked me for tipping off my hand early, such that he neednt waste any more of his valuable time on me since I was disrespectful. Id already had more of his time than I deserved. Needless to say, we were never going to see his pro-planet arguments now, with me being such a bad-faith debater.For the second time he pointed out that I was responding to a 5-day-old post. I still dont get how that helped indicate any lack of sincerity, though that seemed his point.I was happy to let him have the final word, as I thought nothing illustrated my point better than his reaction to it.Like I said, Ive seen very similar scenarios play out again and again, and I do think it indicates a bias.Has anybody else had similar experiences online? Any amusing or instructive stories from the trenches of this eternal debate?Thanks and Regards,Mike Combs