planetary chauvinism

planetary chauvinism

The Mars debate keeps rolling along.

I don't think we should colonize Mars. This is not for some ridiculous ideal like leaving Mars in a "pristine state", it is a matter of energy.

We here on earth are at the bottom of a gravity well. Most of the energy used for space travel (and cost expended) is just to get people from the bottom of this gravity well to low earth orbit. The same holds true for Mars or the moon; in both cases, you have to fight gravity if you want to go (or ship products) anywhere else. Mars, unlike the moon, shares another disadvantage with the earth, a thick atmosphere. If Mars' atmosphere was the same composition and density as earth's, this would be an advantage. However, in its current composition and density it serves only to provide a small amount of friction and a source of erosion.

If one is determined to travel to Mars, then there are two obvious destinations of merit: Phobos and Deimos. Both the Martian moons are thought to be captured asteroids, so any research conducted on them would likely apply to many other asteroids as well. Each is tidally-locked with Mars, perpetually presenting one face to the planet, so they both would serve as good observing platforms for the planet below. They are also large enough to provide enough raw materials to begin industrial operations. Finally, a return trip is easier, as one can take advantage of the existing orbital velocity for the trip back home (escape velocity is only 41% higher than orbital velocity), using Mars as a slingshot. No reentry into Mars atmosphere needs to occur, which simplifies design - indeed, the astronauts would probably only reenter the earth's atmosphere in a Soyuz or something like it.

Other than that, I can see no commercial viability for a Mars colony. It is simply too far from everything else; in terms of delta vee, low earth orbit is closer to the asteroid belt than the suface of Mars is. And it is the asteroid belt which will ultimately prove to be commercially viable.