[extropy-chat] Moon news

[Samantha Atkins]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:23:15 -0800 (PST)
"Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:

> 
> > 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, but but... Zubrin gets so close to the dismantlement of the planet
> with the construction of solar cells for power sources then doesn't
> follow through.  I believe anyone who is an extropian who believes
> nanotechnology will develop reasonably rapidly (say within a century)
> would be foolish to support any Mars colonization or even Mars
> human visitation efforts.  There is no point to expending resources
> to put humans at the bottom of another gravity well.  Hell, on Mars
> the atmosphere is so thin one doesn't even have the protection from
> asteroids, comets, UV and gamma rays that one has on earth.  It is
> *stupid* to expend large amounts of resources to go there.  O'Neill
> space based colonies or even asteroid based colonies make much more
> sense.  If a Mars program would cost $100B consider what that could
> do if invested in nanotech development...

Why is it "stupid" to put at least part of humanity in more than one basket?  The fact that major technological developments are in the offing soon does not mean that these developments will be used necessarily for the good of the race or even lead to greater survivability.   Having humans spread out a bit seems more sane.  The cost of a space probram such as Zubrin advocates compares quite favorably to really futile endeavors such as the Iraq war and much of the "War on Terror".  

I do agree though that O'Neill and/or asteroid based colonies make a lot of sense and are much more within our currently limited grasp.
  
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Let Paul finish the X-prize first, then deal with the asteroid as a
> follow-up effort.  (Though I strongly agree with the strategy.)
> 

Yes, if it was my billions that is one of the first things I would target.   OK, maybe Mars is a relatively poor goal at this time.

-s