RE: To Grav or not to Grav?

G'day,

> I'm not sure anyone actually knows since we don't have a
> self-sustaining controllable fusion reaction to check
> the gas mileage off of.

I thought they'd had some recent break throughs on that? Finally got one
that produced more energy than it used to get started... just.

> If you're not, what's there to fight over?  You have
> to have water supplies to have a population, and if
> you have water supplies available and tanks to take it
> with, you don't have a problem.

I'm pretty sure there are some desert nations sitting on crap loads of
oil
who may disagree with this point ;)

Seriously, humans have made quite a pasttime out of going to
ridiculously
harsh places because there were resources (minerals etc) there that were
valuable/required. For instance there's a proposal to "vacuum up" the
manganese nodules off the bottom of the Pacific... you don't get much
more
remote and non-human friendly than that!

> It gets pretty heavy to armor just the frontal arc and
> put lighter armor on the sides.  If you try to armor
> up the entire vehicle evenly, you end up with
> something that's just too heavy to work.

But if fusion and grav is that efficient, why would it be too heavy to
work?
I'm sure the Wright Brothers (or however you spell that name!) would've
been
horrified at the flying bricks we climb aboard these days.
 
> Two reasons.	First is water supplies.  

For the crew? 

> Second is crew comfort.  I've spent too much time 
> in the back of an armored vehicle to have any desire 
> to ride in one for 12-24 hours.  

They may not want to, but its doable and tolerable... otherwise the
submersibles used for deep sea science these days would be useless.

> And self-deployment around a planet may take 3-4 days for certain
regions.

Assuming they can't go orbital and get there in 45mins...
 
> That's what your PLL stocks are for.	You take spares.

And so aren't quite as free from the logistical train as hoped ;)
 
Cheers