Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 22:00:24 -0400 Subject: responding to Tom Tulien Tulien: . . . I am familiar with Zubrin's book, though not so enthusiastic with his proposal. I am not sure that thinking of Mars as 'the next frontier' is reasonable, considering how in the past we have decimated cultures and environments with that philosophy. We are systematically destroying this planet-you have to wonder about a species that is intent on destroying itself. Moving to another planet is certainly not going to change that. Bourn: However, this time we can acknowledge our tendencies toward self-destructive acts and at least have the opportunity to start fresh. Tulien: Another thing is, the moon seems to me to be a more reasonable 'next step'-at least for working out the logistics for settlements (though that option doesn't seem to be on the table). Why? has it been determined that there aren't enough resources to plunder? Bourn: Two principal reasons to choose Mars before the Moon. The moon's day is 29 Earthdays long, we have no plants who like that cycle, so any plants we bring to the moon (surely, you know how essential plants are!) will have to be tricked into thinking they're on the regular Earth illumination schedule. Not impossible, but when you consider that a Mars day is 1.026 Earth days, you can see that it will be easier to convince an Earth plant that Mars is an OK place, even if the illumination isn't quite as bright. The second reason is also an accommodation for the plants. Yes, we really, really need those chlorophyll-bearing cells. The moon hasn't got much that the plants we know and love can eat. Mars appears to have a much better mineral bar for the health-conscious plant. We wouldn't have to cart bag after bag of plant food off that big blue, gravity inhibitor we inhabit now. Best wishes. Tom Tulien Same to you, Tom. Bill Bourn P.S. I'm available, but probably not handsome enough, for that production about Mars you mentioned. :-) wgb |
© Copyright 1997 Bill Bourn
 previous |
||
|
|
