wrote:

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 10:32:02 AM UTC-7, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 8:58:35 AM UTC-7, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

Anywhere you can build (or send) a space colony, I suppose:

http://www.space.com/22228-space-sta...fographic.html


Why colonize Mars, where the low gravity will weaken the bodies of the
colonists, and may cause health problems for their children, when you can build
rotating colonies that provide a 1-G environment and be placed in whatever orbit
is most convenient?


Because we don't have to build Mars and add all the resources required
for people to live, since it's all already there.


And the necessary materials can't be harvested from the Moon and/or Asteroids?


From the Moon, unlikely. From the asteroids, perhaps, but then you
have to do the 'harvesting' and collect everything all in one place to
use it. That requires using more resources than if you could just
drive a tractor over and get it.


That still doesn't solve the problem of Mars' inadequate gravity. Venus has
gravity closer to Earth's, but then there's that hellish climate....


We don't know that the gravity is "inadequate". Venus is a
non-starter.


As for Colonies in space, they can be built to provide 1G and have the
advantage of being closer to Earth (which simplifies logistics).


Then you've got the (known) Coriolis problems (which aren't too hard
to solve). How does it "simplify logistics" to deliver to a spinning
space colony?


Also note
that most of the work involved in building them can be done robotically:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/robotic-sp...space-and-more


And what's THAT going to cost? Right now it's merely notional.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw