Mars Family Robinson

From: sraj [mailto:sraj@...]

> It is really doubtful that colonization of space will progress in the
same way as colonization of America. A person from
> Europe or China or India can migrate to USA and feel more or less at
home there. This will not be the case when an
> Earthling tries to migrate to one of the space colonies; the
difference in gravity, the scenery, the required lifestyle
> will 'do him in', and more likely than not he will catch the first
shuttle back home.

It doesn't sound like you're very much aware of the orbital space
settlement concepts of Gerard O'Neill (the subject of this maillist).
O'Neill advocated artificial settlements in free orbit. Rotation
provides artificial gravity, so we can have the full amount Earth-humans
are used to. Landscaping can make the inner surface of the habitat
resemble the surface of the Earth. All of this is done so that the
settlement of space can indeed proceed much like the colonization of
America, since we've adapted the environment to us, rather than
vice-versa.

> It is more likely that space will be colonized by people who consider
it as home, those who have no idea what Earth is
> like.

I have no doubt in a very short while, space will be filled with people
who consider it home. But if initial populations can't get a boost from
immigration from Earth, it will take a very long time indeed for any
significant numbers of people to be found in space. One problem with
relying on reproduction rather than on immigration, as you suggest, is
that there's no reason to expect significant growth. It's not
reasonable to expect highly-trained professionals such as you envision
to have family sizes consistent with impoverished 3rd World families.
They're far more likely to have family sizes consistent with those in
the industrialized West, which is actually reproducing below replacement
rates.

> So Space is going to remain forever alien to Earthlings.

Only if there is never any effort to engineer Earthlike environments in
space. I consider that O'Neill demonstrated that theoretically there's
no reason to suppose this can't be done.

> If the idea is to start the colony on Mars; get them there, give them
the basic necessities (no five star facilities
> please), have the necessary evacuation plan in place so that they can
be evacuated in case of a dire emergency: leave
> them to fend for themselves, with technical support, of the type they
ask for from time to time to be provided from
> Earth. What will they do there? Nothing fancy, they will do what
migrating people have always done on Earth. Mainly grow
> the food to feed themselves, expand their dwelling, bring up families,
etc.

Even a 4-person program of Mars colonization would cost many tens or
hundreds of billions of dollars. Who is going to put up this money?
What is the expected return on investment for establishing a home for 4
on Mars? In the American colonies, a pioneer family could grow tea and
ship it back to Europe, or trap animals for pelts to send back. What
will this Martian family sell to balance their trade with Earth? (Bear
in mind that they will need to buy things from Earth for a very long
time. It's a mistake to think that they could be rendered completely
independent of Earth in any foreseeable future.) What is the
economically viable export for Mars?

In the O'Neill scenario, a group of multinationals (who might just have
a few tens of billions of dollars to spend) pursue SPS built from
space-derived materials. Past a point, there's a sufficiently large
workforce in orbit that it makes sense to build somewhat larger and
reasonably-pleasant habitats for housing. The families coming to live
in these habitats will contribute to space construction efforts, and the
trade with Earth will be balanced by the SPS being sold to Earthly
investors.

> Such a plan will be cheaper, since it will build up from a basic
minimum, depending more on the ingenuity of the pioneers
> for success. It will also have the element of daring and romance to
garner public support.

It has more of a resemblance to the standard science-fiction scenario
than does the O'Neill plan, I'll grant that. But SF may not be a
reliable indicator as to how the future in space will unfold.

Regards,

Mike Combs