Mars and Island One

>From: "Combs, Mike"
>Reply-To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: Mars and Island One
>Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 08:42:46 -0500

>Why is it taken for granted that a 100 person base on Mars is more
>inspirational than a 100 person base in HEO? If we could sustain 1000
>people in HEO for about the same price as 100 people on Mars, which
>would be more inspirational?
>
>Besides, in the real world, providing returns on investment is going to
>have more to do with it than providing inspiration.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike Combs

While I agree with you 100% on the economic feasibilty being paramount to
the technical, I respectfully disagree with the inspiration angle.

The reason for this is simple: People assign a great deal more permanance to
a building, house or home than they do to a motorhome, tent or trailer. The
fact is, a space station, wherever its orbit, will be felt as temporary, and
the inhabitants as such only doing a tour before coming home. A permanent
installation, or even one that just provides the illusion of permanance, one
that people live in and resides on martian-firma, or selene-firma, or what
have you, will always be a beckoning sign of inhabitance. More importantly,
people will see the vast and empty area surrounding such a building, and
wonder if they, too, can escape the bounds of earth and rough it out on a
distant shore. Furthermore, a base on a planet seems more accessible, and
everyone knows that they won't be the best and the brightest' selected for
the limited space available on a space station.And besides, people every
where can identify with the rough an ready pioneers braving and 'taming'
hostile land, much before they can identify with esoteric experiences that
bear no relation to anything they have ever been exposed to. Permanance is
inspiring...

A further note, aside form the changes in hydrostatic pressures within the
body as a result of zero-G, many of the problems can be associated with the
body's programming to be efficient: If I don't need strong muscles and bones
(as evidenced by the reduced loads), then better to put the resources
(energy in the form of food) to better use. These uses would include
increased body fat %'s, and/or reduction of caloric intake. Following this
line of thought, it seems that 24/7 exposure to 1/3 G would be vastly better
than zero-G, and the hydrostatic problem would be greatly reduced as well.
It seems to be a very safe guess that the gravity provided by Mars or Moon,
coupled with regular resistance training, would go a long, long way to
reducing if not eliminating the problems associated with long term exposure
to zero-G. In fact, I would readily stake my own health and fitness on that!

Val