Second post of two, Mars and other subjects

I'm posting this second section for completeness (I wrote it along
with most of the previous post). All of the stuff here is old, and
some of my suggestions have probably been made before, maybe in some
of the same digests I wrote this based on.

> Message: 13
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:11:59 -0000
> From: "victoriatangoman"
> Subject: Re: New member

[snip]

> To sum up, I've no problem with gathering data on Mars. I've no
> problem with research bases on Mars. I simply see no basis for trade
> and civilizational development there. I think it is fantasy for the
> Zubrin folks to be planning and advocating terraforming, but I was
> mistaken in attributing that vision to you. I assumed too much about
> your positions, in short, I argued against strawmen at the extreme
end
> of the debate.
>
> That said, I'm still curious about the *why* of setting up on Mars
> anything beyond research bases. Do you have any insight that others
> have lacked?

I submit the following model of why a civilization might arise on
Mars.

A set of scientific missions will be sent to Mars to study it and
learn as much as we can. As the number of scientists grows, and time
goes on, it will become more desirable to provide as many resources as
possible from Mars itself. When this desire grows strong enough, a
support crew will be sent, which will proceed to devote all of it's
collective energies to growing food, and providing simple equipment,
vehicles, and habitats. This support group will grow, become attached
to living on Mars as it stays longer than the majority of the
scientists, eventually becoming permanent residents and possibly begin
having children (this isn't assured, of course). The rest is outlined
below.

> Message: 23
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:44:51 -0000
> From: "babbler36"
> Subject: On the colonization of space

[snip]

> The more likely prototype for SPS workforces would the offshore
> dilling stations, with it rotationg crews are spartan quarters. The
> SPS companies would young men (and few women as well), ship them on
> the station, where they do there shift for 6 months, return to
collect
> their pay. The SPS corperation would not have to pay much attention
to
> living conditions if they paycheck is high enugh. Techinical expert
> need only vist once or twice to check equipment, otherwise, they
stay
> home on Earth. Food, water and other supplies would be shipped from
> Earth, as its "close" (the moon can be reached in 2-3 days) distance
> sllows for such dependance; only we one is on Mars, or in Mars orbit
> or the asteroid belt would the shipping time would force people to
> depend on local grown foodstuffes of a long duration.

This is also true for the colonization of Mars. It's likely that the
first establishments will be research stations. If a more permanent
populous is sent, then it'll go there out of a sense of duty, and
they'll be paid to provide infrastructure and supplies for the
scientists, reducing the expense on the government, not to colonize or
terraform the planet. It's only after that support group begins to
expand itself that it'll be much of a colonization. Any reason for
making a major settlement on Mars is likely to rise out of that
support group.

> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:09:30 +0000
> From: "Michael Capriola"
> Subject: Mars vs Space Habitat Debate (Was New Member)

[snip]

> Let me clarify a few points and what I think will happen.
>
> The first settlements will be in space. The goal will be to
colonize
> the asteroid belt because we know for certain that it has mineral
> wealth we can exploit.

I agree whole heartedly, especially as the scientific station outlined
above wouldn't be a settlement.

> Mars is a good stopping off point on the way to the Belt. Phobos
and
> Deimos might be used as way stations for traffic to and from the
Belt.
> These two moons also serve as bases for the exploration of Mars.

I think that the exploration stations will be located on Mars itself
for reasons of efficiency. I also think that they'll come before
settlements in the asteroid belt, as it's so far out from the rest of
civilization. However, asteroid belt settlements will probably become
common long before Martian surface settlements do.

> Mars will see scientific installations and some tourism
established.
> If geologists (areologists? marologists?) find something worth the
> effort and expense, then regular settlements will follow.

I expect the "something worth the effort" to be providing support
services to ships traveling in-system from beyond Mars. It'll also be
likely for it to serve as a distribution hub once some level of
permanent (or at least long term) settlement is established. If that
settlement is established on the surface, though, then a space
elevator will probably be required to make it economical. Either way,
though, the actual supplies and distributaion will probably be in Mars
orbit. There may be another 2 - 5 stations in similar orbits
eventually, too. Planets also have another quirk: if you slow down
around them enough, you fall in. This means that with just a reentry
pod and an active electrodynamic tether, you can reach the surface,
greatly reducing concerns about accidentally crashing into something.
This is especially important with high-acceleration craft, where an
ejected escape pod might not even be heading in the same direction as
normal traffic.

Now, back to the distro-hub issue. I specifically see long-shelf-life
products being distributed through the 1 - 6 distro hubs. They would
get carried there on large efficiency vessels (sorta the supertankers
of space), dropped off at the distro-hub, and those supplies would
then be sent on short-haul vessels to the asteroids. I imagine that
the short-haulers would be owned by the individual asteroid habitats.

> Victoriatangoman is right in saying that, as far as we know, Mars
has
> nothing that Earth needs. That's why we will colonize Luna and the
> asteroids first. But Richared is correct in pointing out that we
may
> discover something on Mars that makes settlement economically
> worthwhile. At this stage we can't say for certain what that will be
> or if it will happen.
>
> Since we lack data on what lies under the surface of Mars, we can
> hardly debate the viability of Martian colonization. People have
> had a romantic fixation on Mars for centuries, and popular belief
> is that, if we do send colonists off the Earth, Mars will be one
> of the places they settle. So there is interest in exploring the
> Red Planet. As to whether or not we do build settlements....
> pointless to argue. We just don't know at this point if it is
> economically feasible.

It'd be strange to find something useful enough on Mars itself to
support colonization. Diamonds won't do it, and gold (a better
conductor than copper) should be relatively easy to find on asteroids.

> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:08:12 +0000
> From: "Michael Capriola"
> Subject: Subject: On the colonization of space

[snip]

> People came to the New World for different reasons, but it all
boiled
> down to one hard truth -- opportunity to make living without
interference.
> Point of fact, the whole Age of Discovery was fuelled by
disenfranchised
> people looking for fame and fortune (or at least a decent living).
>
> The three incentives for the colonization of space are going to be
> Opportunity, Opportunity, and Opportunity. The same reasons why
people
> come to America. Instead of "Go West, Young Man," we'll end up
with a
> slogan along the lines of, "Go Up And Out, Young Person."

This sort of thing would probably be how Mars would gain a sizable
population in the scenarion I gave above. Unfortunately, while I
expect a lot of us in the younger generations to become
disenfranchised, I doubt that we'll be able to go to space to get away
from it. A shame. :(

> Message: 22
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:24:22 -0000
> From: "Richard"
> Subject: Re: New member

[snip]

> I feel that to do a decent job of researching even a small world
like
> Mars, we will need to have some sort of support structure to feed,
> house, and clothe the researchers. Not to mention transportation.
>
> I saw the figures somewhere that the land area of an oceanless,
> lakeless Mars is close to that of Earth.
>
> A lot of territory to cover. And by the time it has been
researched,
> there will probably be people who have lived there most of their
life.
>
> By the time Mars is totally checked out, it will probably have a
> permenant population.
>
> Incidentally while we cannot build a beanstalk from the Earth's
> surface to geosynchonous orbit today, I've read that one could be
> built on Mars using current strength of materials.
>
> Mars being closer than most asteroids, would mean that it could
supply
> material (even ores) as cheaply as the asteroid belt.

I feel it's important to note that mining could throw a lot of small
rocks around. On Mars those rocks would shortly fall to the ground and
stay put, but in zero gee they'd just keep going.

> Message: 23
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:45:27 -0000
> From: "victoriatangoman"
> Subject: Re: New member

[snip]

> I see your reference to researching Mars. I have no issues with
that.
> What do you mean by support structure? I would think that the
housing
> and clothes would be sent from Earth. The food would be grown
locally
> but with many of the implements also sent from Earth. Do you
disagree?
>
> The alternative is to source them locally. To grow cotton, let's
say,
> then someone, or some machine, has to pick it. Then it has to be
> prepared in a cotton mill. Then woven into fabric. Then cut into
> clothes. This seems like an awfully complex and *mass intensive*
(mass
> coming from Earth) process all in order to support a research
> community.

Those of us who propose the support-structure version of Mars
settlement expect it to become more economically to produce as much on
Mars as possible (especially food), instead of shipping all of it over
there. For cloths, I would expect a focus on something other than
cotton. Wool seems a good choice, if you can support the sheep.
They're relatively simple to deal with (ytou just shave them), and the
equipment can be miniaturized. Shoot, you can even go low-tech with
spinning wheels and manual looms if you want. Additionally, sheep
would provide a luxury food, meat.

> Seeing how these researchers are sent up there on the taxpayer's
dime
> don't you think that there would be Earthside clamoring from other
> scientists who also want a go at a Mars mission. For some scientists
> to stay there for their whole lives would foreclose the opportunity
> for other, and perhaps younger, scientists.
>
> Darn, the oldsters got there first, when I was still in grade school
> and couldn't compete for a slot. Now it's 20 years later and I'm a
> promising young researcher and I need to be on Mars to test my
> hypothesis, but they want me to write a research plan and radio it
to
> the scientists on Mars to conduct. Those old fossils, and I don't
mean
> the indiginous variety either, are still on Mars and with them there
> doing the work, they don't need me. I better call my Congressman or
UN
> delegate or whatever, and complain.

It's more likely that a unneeded number of scientists will be sent,
actually. I certainly don't expect planetary chauvanism to go away. If
you've got a ship that you're using for Earth-Mars round trips, then
you can afford to keep sending people. However, it's also likely that
you'll be bringing people back. I'd expect that support staff and some
scientists will be permanent/long-term residents, but not most
scientists.

>> By the time Mars is totally checked out, it will probably have a
>> permenant population.

> This I don't see, unless that research population grows to such a
> size, that some beancounters decide that it'll make more sense to
ship
> up a cotton mill, steel foundry, and other industrial equipment,
> rather than simply provide the supplies.

That's exactly what we expect. It'll take a long time to check Mars
out, and even if a colony isn't constructed on-world to support
research scientists, it's likely that when asteroid-Earth shipping
gets big enough, there'll be permanent rescue crews on-planet at a
space elevator, with fast-reaction crews to both send flies down to
the surface, and to try to intercept escape pods. Note that not all
escape pods are likely to be interceptible.

> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:49:09 -0000
> From: "Richard"
> Subject: Re: New member

[snip]

> Personally, I've wondered about jade. There may be stuff that
needs a
> planetary environment to form.

Diamonds are on that list. However, the only reason that diamonds are
so expensive is that DeBeers has a virtual monopoly and can thus rack
up the price. If you tried exporting cheaper ones from Mars, then
DeBeers would presumably lower the price and put you out of buisness.
I'm not sure that anything else would have the desired profit margins.

> Message: 20
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:37:34 -0800 (PST)
> From: omar vega
> Subject: Re: Re: New member

> But there is just one point I don't agree with you.
> Earth has to be respected as if it were our mother and
> I like the native indian cosmology that affirm that.
> At least is our place of origin and deserves respect.
> However, the center of humanity can't be Earth. Man is
> the measure of all things. Mankind has to be our
> center. Preserve nature?, of course, but in function
> of manking and not the other way around.

Honestly, I occassionally wonder if a lot of the Native Indian
nature-related religious stuff, such as always being thankful for what
you've taken and not wasting it, might be based on the destruction of
all of those old species before Europe got in contact with North
America. I imagine that a situation like destroying all of the really
large species that you can find leaves a mark on a culture, including
ones that get shaped into religion.