These days people seem to think that in the old days when Europeans were first settling the New World ships just sailed away from the dock in England or wherever and the next time they saw land was when they reached the Americas.
Nope. They took pit stops along the way.
A key part of what made early transatlantic travel viable was two tiny groups of islands called the Azores and the Canaries, one off the coast of Africa and the other straight out from Portugal, nine hundred miles closer to America than the European mainland.
Columbus's ships stopped at the Canary Islands on their first trip to America to repair, restock, and refit. On the way back they stopped at the Azores for much the same reason. And, of course, they never actually reached the American mainland, having made it only to the islands of the Caribbean, those islands themselves being closer to Europe than the American mainland is.
All the way until the early 1900's it was common for ships crossing the ocean to stop in the Azores. A transatlantic trip was nowhere near as practical without somewhere almost a third of the way there to get food, water, and repairs. Many a ship would never have made it across the Atlantic without the safety that the Azores provided. And many a voyage would never have been attempted without the knowledge that those islands were there. Even if a stop weren't planned those islands improved the odds. Trips going along the northern route used Iceland and Greenland and Newfoundland much the same way.
So what's my point?
A lot of talk turns up these days comparing the settling of space to the "conquering" of America by Europeans all those years ago. I agree that this is, in many ways, an excellent comparison. That being the case, let's remember that those voyages were done in the most practical way possible. By settling each and every possible safe harbor along the way. And, whenever possible, minimizing the length of unbroken stretches at sea.
This approach kept them alive. It greatly reduced the quantities and range of supplies they needed to carry. It shortened the time they needed to be away from medical care and shipyards. It cut the distances supplies needed to travel and greatly reduced their costs. It made it more practical for them to have perishables. It helped keep them sane.
So, that having been said, if we're serious about settling space, not just making cool gestures or trying to win some sort of nationalistic race, then we should grow up and slow down. Yeah, Mars is probably a better long term destination. But it's foolish, positively foolhardy, to try to do the trip in one massive burst from down inside the earth's gravity well.
I'm certainly not the first to say this.
We should be using shipyards in Earth orbit, launching the most simple things we can. We should be using all that sunlight to create high energy density fuel. And those space stations should be in partnership with people and robots on the Moon, mining ore, collecting data, even running greenhouses that themselves take advantage of all that undiluted sunlight.
If we're serious about settling Mars then we should be focusing first on stations at the LaGrange points and on the Moon. The moon cuts the cost of fuel. It lets supplies be boosted from a much less onerous gravity well. It's a better place to get minerals and shielding and maybe even fresh food.
They are our Azores.
Comments