New Member

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" wrote:
>
> > North Korea? Get serious. NK has a dictator, doesn't permit
> > immigration. It is a closed society.
>
> I'm totally serious. North Korea is a textbook example of autarky.
> Look here to start on the path of learning more about autarkic systems
> and history.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky
> http://www.sispain.org/english/economy/autarky.html
>
> How do you think Mars will develop with a 2 year transport time for
> shipments from Earth?

Two years as of today does not mean it will always be two years.

> How many people do you need to amortize a paper
> mill, or a steel foundry, or a ketchup factory? Everything on Mars
> will have to be done on Mars. To make paper for 10,000 people will
> make that paper very expensive. How about pharmaceuticals? To set up
> manufacturing for every vital drug will be horrendously expensive but
> importing them from Earth will be ineffective for some drugs because
> being in transit for 2 years (even if they are effectively radiation
> shiedled) will lead to short shelf lifes of the drugs that don't
> expire while in transit.
>
> There is nothing that Mars has that Earth needs.

How do you know this? You keep saying this. We do not know what is
on Mars.

> The trade will all be
> one way. Even if some miracle product was developed you would have to
> lift it out of Mars gravity well, transit for 2 years on a Hohmann
> orbit, and enter Earth's atmosphere. The price per kilo of that
> miracle good will be very high to warrant that journey.
>

> Mars will be like North Korea in that its economy will be completely
> isolated. That in itself will be a disadvantage to most people who
> will not want to doom themselves to an everwidening gap in the
> standards of living. It's one thing to endure hardship as you develop
> a frontier, all the while knowing that the trade that you're
> developing is leading to wealth creation and there is hope for a
> better tomorrow. Unfortunately that won't be the case with Mars
> because there won't be any trade and Mars foreverafter will be a
> welfare dependent society in an autarkic state. What scientists will
> want ot permanently settle there knowing that they'll forever be
> deprived of modern equipment unless some is sent from Earth as a form
> of charity. What riches are there to be made on Mars? None.
>
All right, I've heard enough. You say None. Prove it.

> Will there be adventure on Mars? Sure there will. It'll be exciting to
> explore and send back pictures.
>
> Will a Mars billet be sought after by scientists? Absolutely, they can
> go there for a 5-10 year fully funded term of employment and then come
> back and have a career's worth of papers to write. But stay there
> permanently and try to develop a society if the patrons of Earth
> aren't footing the bill. Nope, sorry don't see it.

>
> > 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'm not denying anything of the sort. I'm sure that there are lots of
> people who want to go there. Heck, even I want to go there.
>
> However, none of that means that its ripe for settlement and can be
> developed into a healthy society. It's a desert for civilization.
>
> It doesn't make sense, primarily from an economic perspective, but
> also from a logistical sense as well. There is nothing that Mars can
> provide that asteroids or the moon can't provide quicker and cheaper.
>
> Too many Mars advocates are romantic dreamers who've read Robinson and
> see that as the way things will be. The Trotskyite vision is bizarre.
>
> For all of Mars advocates I pose a challenge: Why not present to this
> group a plan for the development of Mars that makes economic sense and
> would entice gov'ts and corps to invest capital into the development.
> Also, present us with reasons why people will want to go to Mars
> absent any handouts from gov'ts. Why would they subject themselves to
> an everwidening technology, health and wealth gap. You can't invoke
> pioneer spirit because we all have that. What makes Mars so much more
> rational a choice or more exciting that Habitats?
>
> > Moving off Earth is going to suck wealth away from Earth for
> > generations no matter how we do it. Actually you remind me of those
> > people who criticize the space program for taking money off Earth as
> > though we got no benefits or spin-offs from our space program.
>
> Take up the challenge I presented above.

I'd like to, but so far the information on Mars is inadequate.

Hell, no body can prove that going into space will profit us. I
believe it is necessary for our survival. But I don't treat my own
opinions as holy writ. In fact, I try not to let my opinions covience me.

>
> And if you can't convince me, an enthusiastic space advocate, of the
> merits of Mars, how are you going to convince Joe Public who is
> already worried that his health and wellbeing are at risk when he
> retires because of economic pressures on SS and Medicare. Further, how
> will you convince parents who are struggling to educate and keep their
> children healthy that we should sink trillions into developing Mars
> and at the end there'll be nothing that Mars can do to return the
> favor to Earth.
>
Why convince anybody at this stage? I don't believe that settling
Mars is necessary. But there are people that do.

> Your first step is to convince us space nuts who will be your easiest
> audience because we're already predisposed to the arguments of space
> development.
>
> I'm eager to see what develops along this line.
>
Did it ever occur to you that a large scrap betweren pro-Mars and
pro-habitat types over which should be the Only True Path may well end
up with the public at large saying to "To hell with all you crazies.

> > I fail to see why you should be so strongly for the former and so
> > strongly against the latter. Seems to me that they go together.
> >
> > Rick Brooks
>
> Habitats make sense and Mars is a socialist fantasy. Habitats have
> proximity to Earth for quickness and ease of travel to and fro. They
> have ready access to variable gravity. They can provide energy to
> Earth's markets as part of the trade equation thus enabling them to
> import goods that they can't manufacture efficiently in orbit. They
> avoid the autarkic destiny of Mars.

Again, proof??

> They have a low delta-v intercept
> orbit to many NEOs that can be mined for their own use and for
> possible export to Earth and they don't have to contend with the
> gravity wells that a Martian operation would. The list goes on.
>
> TangoMan

Habitats seem to make sense so far. Doesn't mean they always will.

I can just see Tangoman in space attempting to singlehandedly blockade
Mars and shoot down anybody trying to go there.

Can't you see it is way too early to decide?

Rick Brooks