terrorforming vs terraforming Mars (was RE: SPACE: Loss of the Saturn V)

From: Damien Broderick (damienb@unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 22:50:06 MDT

  • Next message: Emlyn O'regan: "RE: SPACE: Loss of the Saturn V"

    At 04:50 PM 9/7/03 -0700, Robert wrote in the mode of one invading Poland
    (there's a little implicit smiley there):

    >Zubrin also botched the entire "development of Mars" concept --
    >he gets into a discussion of taking hunks of Mars putting them
    >into space to provide solar power satellites but doesn't realize
    >that with nanotech you can dismantle the entire planet

    [Z's approach]
    >requires an expensive terraforming process which may include
    >hauling comets across a significant fraction of the solar system
    >to provide enough water, CO2 and atmospheric pressure -- it just
    >isn't worth the trouble.

    But... but... Robert, if you can pull a perfectly nice and inoffensive
    planet apart cheaply with nano, surely you can use the same technology to
    haul in the comets etc and terraform it. That might seem a shocking waste
    of resources to you, but it isn't an *expensive* one, by hypothesis.

    Damien Broderick



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 07 2003 - 22:59:51 MDT