[extropy-chat] Moon news

[David Lubkin]

I wrote:

 > No one quotes Zubrin or other prominent figures from the Mars Society, or
 > even mentions that if you want to go to Mars, the answer might just be --
 > go to Mars.

to which Damien retorted:

>No one mentions that if you want to stay on Mars rather than going briefly
>and coming back, the answer might just be -- stay on Earth. For the next
>decade or so (as is planned anyway). Put all that loot into nanotechnology
>and other bootstraps. Then build a skyhook or a diamonoid launch platform or
>something equally radical. Meanwhile, send probes if you really must.

They could say that, too, but Zubrin recently testified before the Commerce 
Committee of the US Senate. It would be reasonable to expect a minimally 
competent reporter who covers space to be aware of this and get a reaction 
quote. It's curious that none did, at least none that Google News is aware of.

Thinking of nanotech, though, is far beyond any competency I'd expect from 
journalism.

Anyway. The Case for Mars plan is cheap, pay-for-results, and builds a 
permanent complex on Mars. It is not "going briefly and coming back."

But, if I were in the position of allocating investment dollars, I'd put my 
space effort into bringing back a nickel-iron asteroid. Set up shop for 
mining, manufacturing, and space construction somewhere convenient, like 
geosynch, L-4, or L-5. Bova et al outlined a reasonable scenario for doing 
this nearly off-the-shelf twenty years ago. I keep expecting to hear that 
Paul Allen has funded it.

Hundreds of millions of tons of metal and organics in a useful Up location 
is a major bootstrap for anything else you want to do in space, and I think 
would have a lot of synergy with nanotech.


-- David Lubkin.