The illogic of Mars (was Re; New Member)

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

> I cannot make any but conditional statements at present.
>
> To be blunt, nobody knows enough about what we are discussing.
>
> If you do, you would be doing us a service by convincing
> businessmen to invest in space habitats.

It might help to shed some light to examine two extremist positions on
this subject:

Extremist position one: Orbital settlements are certain to happen, and
we have an attractive SPS business plan with all the details filled in.

Extremist position two: Both orbital settlements and settlements on Mars
are so speculative and so far off in the future that any statement about
then is meaningless, and we can't even begin to compare one against the
other at this early point.

I think the truth (as it usually does) lies between the two extremes.

Position one is obviously wrong for the simple fact that if it were
right, we wouldn't be taking our case to the space advocacy community,
but instead to investors.

But I think position two is also at least somewhat wrong. I think even
at this admittedly-early point, we CAN make meaningful comparisons
between the two, and at least somewhat sensibly discuss advantages and
disadvantages of both approaches PROVIDED that we base our distinctions
not on tastes, opinions, or popularity, but instead on physics,
technology, economics, and historical precedent.

It's in the area of physics where we're on the safest ground. And many
of the advantages O'Neillians cite are based on the physics of the two
situations. It's been pointed out that it takes more energy to retrieve
resources from Mars than from the moon or NEOs, and that's prompted some
to ask what kind of rocket we're assuming, and about in-situ fuel
production. But this misses the point. We're talking about the
difference in delta-V. The argument makes no assumptions at all about
technology or operations; it's a simple statement of physical fact.

Technology is slightly shakier ground, since it can change. But we can
stay on safer ground if we limit our projections to technology in hand
or for which we can see a straightforward development path. And in most
cases, technological advances improve the odds for High Frontier as well
as for Mars settlements. For example, reduced lift costs would indeed
improve the prospects for Mars settlements, but they help High Frontier
as well. CATS might reduce the magnitude of the cost difference
associated with the delta-V difference between HEO and the Martian
surface, but it will never eliminate or reverse that difference.
Likewise, "wildcard" technologies like nanotech might make Mars
settlements much easier to establish, but would also make orbital ones
trivially easy.

Economics is also somewhat shakier ground. But here also, if the market
being addressed is as basic and fundamental as the global need for
electricity, then we're on fairly safe ground. No matter what happens,
our requirement for more and more power in the future is a sure thing
(barring a collapse of civilization). Anything which vastly improves
the economics of ground-based solar, say, would also do the same for
SPS, and the advantages based on the physics of the two situations would
still remain. Fusion might give SPS a run for it's money, but has a
very discouraging history. And even in a world where commercial fusion
reactors exist, SPS might still hold it's own if it works out to be
cleaner or cheaper.

Attempting to make historical analogies might be more fraught with peril
than any of the others. Still, ignoring history seems ill-advised.
High Frontier advocates feel justified in pointing out that much of what
drove settlement of the New World was the economic opportunities
available there, and feel this is such a fundamental principle that
we're justified in extrapolating it to new frontiers in the future.
Ignoring historical precedent certainly puts you on shakier ground than
using it.

Most discussions of Mars settlement talk about technology and physics,
and make historical analogies (though to a High Frontier advocate, they
ignore important points regarding both physics and history). But
discussions about settlements beyond the Earth of any kind which ignore
economics are simply fantasies, and not serious projections.

Regards,

Mike Combs