adastra22 parent
I'm as critical as OP on data centers in space, but "A City on Mars" was a really badly researched book, full of errors, that completely misrepresented the would-be Mars settler position. I wouldn't take seriously anyone quoting it unless they've also read, at minimum, "The Case for Mars" as well.
Yeah. A City on Mars made me want to throw the book at the window so many times. Building and tearing down straw-men right and left. Almost every legitimate note of caution suffered from the nirvana fallacy.
Possibly even better would be Zubrin's recent book The New World on Mars: What We Can Create on the Red Planet, which goes into quite a bit of detail on how we could build a self-sustaining settlement.
Though it lacks in the headlines, my preference is to send the robots first to bootstrap local production. Unless we really screw up the worst case would be some extra garbage to clean up for future missions, and the best case is any sort of increase in local production capacity.
Why though? That’s the interesting part. Pioneers want to be there to experience the challenge of bootstrapping. It’s the whole point.
It’s like saying “why climb Everest? We can send a drone up instead.”
If you're climbing Everest, sure. If you're settling a new world, building a place to live with an economy, then the easier the better.
Right, and now that "climb Everest" is past the "pioneer" stage, what does it look like?
Trash, exploitation and littered with corpses.
Fine as long as I don't have to pay for it in taxes.
Yeah that makes sense, especially these days. Even Zubrin's original Mars Direct plan sent a methane factory ahead of the people.
Most future space exploration will probably be robotic, just as it is now.