Marburger speech -- reasons for the Moon

[nibb31]

Tourism is not colonization. Why would someone pay $20M for a one way ticket to a sterile and unhospitable desert ? <br /><br />Colonization needs an incentive. What incentive for colonization does Mars offer, other than the coolness of walking on another planet?

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"What incentive for colonization does Mars offer, other than the coolness of walking on another planet?"</font><br /><br />Among other things, you get to own the planet. Yes, OST will become obsolete once there are enough people on Mars saying 'this planet is ours'.

 

[nibb31]

Now that is twisted reasoning. <br /><br />Property has nothing to do with physical presence. And again, how does the ownership of some sterile rocks justify the huge investment of constructing a life supporting permanent base off world.<br /><br />You'd be better off colonizing the oceans with deep sea habitats and claiming the "territory" yours. That environment would be more hospitable than Mars and cheaper to reach. And at least there are some resources that you could exploit.<br /><br />In the forseeable future, a manned base for scientific research is highly desirable and I'm all for it. But large scale colonization is just not economically justifiable nor are the environment or the local resources particularly attractive for human beings.

 

[tap_sa]

Excuse me for not being interested in living in pitch black ocean bottom where only abundant resource is cold salt water. Entire planet, that's another thing. If you don't find latter interesting, fine. Stay here.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"...large scale colonization is just not economically justifiable nor are the environment or the local resources particularly attractive for human beings."</font><br /><br />To reiterate what Tap_Sa just wrote...if it doesn't interest you then stay on Earth.<br /><br />Also, as I remarked to someone else recently, different strokes for different folks. You might not find it worth doing, but others do -- for a variety of reasons you apparently can't appreciate, but which are valid nonetheless. <br /><br />I agree that the environment will be a difficult one to deal with, but I don't think it will be all that much more difficult than trying to build an undersea habitat. There was a lot of interest in this when I was in high school (40 years ago <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />) and look where we are with it today...nothing but a few small offshore labs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[nibb31]

I certainly do prefer living on Earth, where radiation levels are bearable, air is more or less breathable, there is drinkable water and food widely available and temperatures allow me to go outside at just about any time of the year.<br /><br />Colonization is about improving your quality of life. Living in a hab module and having to wear an EVA suit just to go for a walk is not really my idea of gaining freedom or wealth. Would you want to raise your kids in a tin can ?<br /><br />I definitely believe that we have to go to Mars and that the science alone justifies setting up a manned research facility on Mars. I just dont see what is attractive enough for people to want to move permanently to Mars to live and raise their children in such a hostile environment. <br /><br />I'm sure there is a wide variety of reasons, but what are they? So far, the only reason that Tap_Sa has mentioned is to claim ownership and the coolness factor. Sure, owning 200 hectares of mars soil would be cool, but is it worth the price ?

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"I certainly do prefer living on Earth, where radiation levels are bearable, air is more or less breathable, there is drinkable water and food widely available and temperatures allow me to go outside at just about any time of the year."</font><br /><br />I agree. That is the kind of environment that is conducive to a healthy, happy life. What you're implying is that a Mars habitat would not include protection from radiation, breathable air, drinkable water, decent food and open spaces where ambling about without an EVA suit would be possible...maybe even under a salmon-colored sky <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. With all due respect, that's rather limited thinking on your part.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Colonization is about improving your quality of life. Living in a hab module and having to wear an EVA suit just to go for a walk is not really my idea of gaining freedom or wealth. Would you want to raise your kids in a tin can ?"</font><br /><br />Again, different strokes for different folks. What constitutes an improvement on your part might seem otherwise to me and vice versa. I'll make my own judgements on what's an improvement, thank you very much.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />And as far as raising my kids in a tin can...my kids are probably older than you. Again, your arguments are of a rather limited vision of the possible. Colonization will not occur in tin cans. It will occur when larger facilities can be built which can incorporate the kinds of environments humans find desirable. Stay home. Mars doesn't need that kind of limited thinking.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I definitely believe that we have to go to Mars and that the science alone justifies setting up a manned research facility on Mars. I just dont see what is attractive enough for people to want to move permanently to Mars to live and raise their children in such a hostile environment."</font><br /><br />Then come to Mars <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[nibb31]

I don't think it's limited thinking on my part. I'm just being somewhat realistic when you are clearly dreaming. Dreaming is good, and I certainly don't want to destroy anyone's dreams, but we will see which vision has prevailed in 30 years from now if we are still around. I would be happy to admit I was wrong.<br /><br />I'll stop this discussion here because I don't want this to turn into a sterile gaetanomoreno-type thread. I wish you well with your dreams.

 

[arkady]

To complete my signature.<br /><br /><br />"<i>The choice is the Universe, or nothing. The challenge of the great spaces between the worlds is a stupendous one; but if we fail to meet it, the story of our race will be drawing to its close. Humanity will have turned its back upon the still untrodden heights and will be descending again the long slope that stretches, across a thousand million years of time, down to the shores of the primeval sea.</i>" - H.G Wells<br /><br /><br />A bit high strung perhaps, but expresses my feelings pretty well. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[tap_sa]

A general note about the timeline: I doubt we'll see booming Martian settlement within 30 years. Initial manned mission perhaps, if we are lucky. Some serious private settlement initiatives perhaps within 50 years, definitely within a century. Depends a lot on how fast private launchers catch on. Don't expect much until launch $/kg prices have three digits (which isn't unreasonable to expect within a few decades, without fancy and hideously expensive scramjet/boron/atomic hydrogen/wings-and-lots-of-wings wonders).<br /><br />

 

[rocketman5000]

It all depends on the field of dreams. You know "build it and he will come" You can't have cheap reuseable until you have high flight rates. You can't have high flight rates until cheap reuseable. <br /><br />Ok, maybe a little catch-22 as well

 

[rocketman5000]

perhaps someday with advancing technology putting on an EVA suit will be little more than putting on a jogging suit. Who know??

 

[nacnud]

Well if you don't mind a skin tight jogging suit...

 

[tap_sa]

Ah, fit ladies jogging on Martian dunes wearing skintight Webb suits ... one of the fundamental reasons why Mars settlement is a must!

 

[mlorrey]

"Tourism is not colonization. Why would someone pay $20M for a one way ticket to a sterile and unhospitable desert ? <br /><br />Colonization needs an incentive. What incentive for colonization does Mars offer, other than the coolness of walking on another planet? "<br /><br />Getting in on the ground floor, taking posession of thousands of acres of land, turning it into habitable living space, and making a mint off of the people who show up later when ticket prices are lower.<br /><br />In the history of colonization, the people who made the most money either owned the land first and sold it out to later settlers and prospectors, or owned the general store that sold them everything they needed to survive and thrive, or both.

 

[jamie_young]

I thought it was a great speech.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"I don't think it's limited thinking on my part. I'm just being somewhat realistic when you are clearly dreaming. Dreaming is good, and I certainly don't want to destroy anyone's dreams, but we will see which vision has prevailed in 30 years from now if we are still around."</font><br /><br />Perhaps limited thinking was the wrong expression...shortsighted would be more like it.<br /><br />The point Tap_Sa made is pertinent. Why limit the question of colonization to a 30 year time frame? I put no timeline on my "dreams." Although it could happen, I don't really expect colonization in 30 years. OTOH, if you can't imagine the possibility, in the long run (and I mean the loooong run -- like 100 years or whatever), that humans will expand with settlements beyond Earth then, with all due respect, you are indeed guilty of limited thinking.<br /><br />Being realistic is a worthy virtue, but being so realistic that you don't dream of the possibilities is stagnating. The better choice is a melding of the two; i.e, use the possibilities inherent in reality to figure out how to accomplish your dreams.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">" I would be happy to admit I was wrong."</font><br /><br />Well, of course, I could be wrong and colonization never happens. It's good to see that at least you would be happy to be wrong about your position <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

that or perhaps some sort or electormechanical suit. In the press from time to time has been that "futuristic" Army suit that supposedly has artificial muscles in it to assist in movement. if arranged in a radial direction it could act as a constriction. A nice idea, but if elastic constriction works just as good. I'd be all for using the lower tech version. <br /><br />I mean everyone likes a nice tight latex space suit right?? I better start getting in shape now or it won't be a pretty sight

 

[kdavis007]

Why you say that?? Never say never...

 

[frodo1008]

WOW. what an idea! So we turn an entire planet (Mars) into a repository for our mal contents? That certainly ought to make the large expediture of wealth just to get there worth while!

 

[mlorrey]

Of course. How do you think America came to be? We're made up of the rest of the worlds malcontents.<br /><br />Saying this, it should be obvious that this is also the main reason the US govt has had such hostility for civil space travel: the last thing they want is to become just another Britain. If they were smart, they'd see that it was the American colonies that spring boarded Britain into the world spanning empire it became, thus American colonies on the moon and Mars would be imperative to US dominance of the rest of Earth. Whoever does it first will rule the world.

 

[josh_simonson]

I can't see a mars colony having much strategic value, except perhaps a psycho president living on mars wouldn't hesitate as much to push the big red button. <br /><br />The moon has a much greater strategic value if it's resources can be used to bootstrap a major presence in the near-earth neighborhood.

 

[vulture2]

>>American colonies on the moon and Mars would be imperative to US dominance of the rest of Earth. Whoever does it first will rule the world.<br /><br />The only product that can be returned at a profit from space is information. Science fiction notwithstanding, facilities on the Moon, Mars, or in deep space don't provide any particular strategic advantage on Earth. Satelites (for imaging, communications and navigation) provide only information that supports forces on or near Earth,

 

[mlorrey]

On the contrary, ANYPLACE that is higher in the Sun's gravity well than Earth is a strategically important location. Any such place is important because it is cheaper and easier to launch warheads and payloads to Earth from it than the reverse. This creates a disproportionate balance of force per dollar, and allows he who controls the highest high ground to dominate any strategic contest. This is standard military, economic, and political strategy.<br /><br />The Moon is the best short term high ground, but it is lower in the gravity well than Mars is (Particularly Diemos and Phobos). Near Earth Asteroids have similar advantages over the Moon. LL1 in particular is the most important location to control and dominate for local tactics, but Mars as the next most livable location in the solar system trumps it and the moon for long term economic leverage.

 

[crix]

What?? It's a lot easier to launch nukes from Nebraska.