New Member

From: Richard [mailto:rabrooks@...]

> North Korea? Get serious. NK has a dictator, doesn't
> permit immigration. It is a closed society.

It's true that much of North Korea's problems can be attributed to its
leaders, and to the disadvantages of Communism. But at least a portion
of N. Korea's problems stem from lack of trade with others, which I
think was the point.

> What is there about Mars that you find so upsetting that
> you must deny the possibility that anybody but scientists
> would want to go there?

I think the only thing we might get upset by is the notion that space
advocates, in clinging to Mars so strongly, might be overlooking other
non-intuitive possibilities with much shorter payback, and much greater
long-term benefits.

> And how is that different from Space Habitats? They
> are not going to become self-supporting overnight.

True. They may continue to buy things from Earth for many decades. But
the difference is that there might be something they can sell back to
Earth (orbital solar power stations). This means the flow of capital to
HEO might be one half of a balance trade, rather than a subsidy.

> Moving off Earth is going to suck wealth away from Earth for
> generations no matter how we do it.

Successful colonization is the kind that CREATES vast amounts of new
wealth.

> We won't realize all the benefits of Space Habitats until we
> build and use quite a few. Ditto the benefits of developing
> Mars.

The difference is that we can at least tentatively posit a market served
by the space habitats before we start. You're asking us to take Mars on
faith that something will come up later.

Regards,

Mike Combs