Selenian Trading Post/Inn

John Hare has another of his great posts which requires me to defend my mars focus. Keep in mind that focusing on mars does not mean ignoring the moon. I applaud his incremental free market approach to the moon. An approach that too few consider.

The only way that Mars will be developed first is by a top down, massive effort with myopic focus on the red planet.

Forgive me John, but this is a strawman. An incremental free market approach, as he advocates for the moon, is also the best way to develop mars. The thing that will hold back settlement is government interference and regulation. Space is not owned by anyone. We need to reinforce the historical precedent that something not owned can be claimed by possession by anyone (as long as the claim is reasonable.) A charter with all members following the rules makes it legal.

A free market approach isn't going to work anywhere in space if it cost too much for individuals and families to afford. This is why I advocate a charter that provides transportation for free and rewards a colonist's risk of life with assets that make every colonist a potential millionaire with immediate wealth. Those going for flags and footprints do not get these benefits and would have to pay their own way.

It doesn't have to be a massive effort either. Done right it wouldn't be. We could send 42 colonists to mars for $3b. That $3b is paid by a company that could afford it, not the colonists. Those companies would receive assets potentially worth many times their investment made valuable by the very colonists they transport and by other means. This works on mars and not the moon precisely because of the distances and times involved.

I agree somewhat that a myopic focus has some benefits. What about his other points?

...a Lunar ship can be sized at 2% of the Mars ships size, and still haul at least equal tonnage.

There are three steps to either location. Getting to orbit cost the same for either location and today is one of the most expensive steps. That cost can come down by sending more people at a time and using reusable vehicles. But it is the same cost.

The quote above is about the second step, going from orbit to orbit. Ships should of course all be reusable with costs amortised over many round trips. Ships that make more round trips are going to wear out faster requiring expensive replacement, but still there is no question that this cost favors the moon. I would argue that the real expense is political and ease of access works against a colony. You are not free when government dominates all aspects of your life. I strongly believe the moon will be dominated by earth politics where the distance to mars makes it much easier for them to become politically independent. A private venture can self finance to go to mars and no government on earth has the jurisdiction to run (or ruin) their lives. They have the natural right to assert their liberty. This will not be so easy to do if only three days from earth. The precedent is best established on mars.

The third step, landing on either mars and the moon could be done with a Falcon Heavy launch and a Red Lander for nearly the same cost. A reusable SSTO lander would soon provide service for either location; a methane engine for mars and a hydrogen engine on the moon.

Yes, it cost more to send a person to the martian surface than to the lunar surface and it's much harder to come back. The moon also has a ready trade item: Oxygen in its rocks everywhere and probably enough water in certain locations. Those trade items are valuable, but only become really valuable if you are going somewhere else like mars. For a colony to be viable it either has to be self sufficient or have a reliable trade item that can cover costs. Mars has everything it needs to be self sufficient while the moon must depend on trade.

Trade will not be based on massive trade items. People on earth will get wealth from colonies because they will own shares of transportation companies that will operate for profit as well as other companies pursuing their own free market goals. Those companies will profit by getting assets that appreciate the more colonists exist pursuing their own happinesses. How much is a whole world worth? One that isn't dominated by the crushing regulations found on earth?

John is right that a free market is the key. Update: Another mars mission profile. Thank you for the reference John. Real rocket scientists (unlike bums like me) are going to make these things happen.

Let me emphasize: There is no 'colony control authority' as I envision it. Transportation to the surface of mars is simply a ticket paid transaction, with the price covered by land claim. The colonists by their number provide legal enforcement of the transportation companies reasonable by charter claims. Once on the surface of mars each colonist is totally independent and can pursue their own course of action made possible by ownership of valuable assets. They just agree to ownership by the terms of the settlement charter which all members will enforce. They will have to agree to a registry which tracks claims and becomes the first title office tracking chain of title (other title companies will come into existence over time.) Of course survival will require a high level of cooperation and some agreement about who does what, but this does not require they establish some form of government. Common sense and freedom works in small communities. What happens over time is up to the colonists.

The whole point of my vision, as opposed to the Space Settlement Initiative, is to avoid the company town. Wealth is initially distributed to balance risks with, as Thomas Sowell points out, land ownership without odious regulations being the most important element of economic expansion.