New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#6701 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars Economic Activity » 2012-01-06 15:33:02
Mark Friedenbach wrote:No, I mean how do you figure you could clear 5,000 watches per year, and how did you figure that availability would effect its actual price?
The Apollo/Soviet samples were being sold on the open market, to collectors at the going rate of lunar material. It's entirely relevant.
I been over this a 100 times with Louis. Supply and Demand. Once rare objects becoming abundant. A niche market spending millions suddenly becoming wealthy enough to spend many billions.
He is deaf to all these arguments.
Hop, I don't appreciate the dismissive tone - especially when it's you who are deaf to argument.
Look at the facts of what has happened here on Earth. The argument is quite clear: professional methods of meteorite collection have led to the supply of meteorites on Earth increasing hugely. If you are right, the value of meteorites will have been steadily falling since the supply increased. Has that happened? No.
So you are wrong, I am afraid. Why? Because there are many more universities and individuals interested in buying them and because the search for meteorites has brought forward lots of new types that have their own rarity value.
No one can predict how things will go with Mars meteorites and regolith,but there are lots of universities,museums and collectors out there and we are bound to come up with some new examples of meteorites that will surprise us. The idea that they will fall below $20,000 per kg I don't accept. Universities will be competing to have the most complete range of Mars material available. They won't stop at their first kg.
There may be some falling away of value but as along as value remains well above $20,000 per kg, a profit can be made.
#6702 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars Economic Activity » 2012-01-06 14:48:14
No, I mean how do you figure you could clear 5,000 watches per year, and how did you figure that availability would effect its actual price?
The Apollo/Soviet samples were being sold on the open market, to collectors at the going rate of lunar material. It's entirely relevant.
Mark,
I didn't keep a record of my Rolex research , but take a look at this:
http://reviews.ebay.com/It-does-not-tak … 0000017874
The comment there suggests something like 1 million Rolexes are produced each year (but there are other very expensive watches produced by competitors in the market - so we are probably talking about several million worldwide). The idea that Mars could not corner 5,000 in a market for interplanetary watches out of this huges volume of luxury watches is frankly not a runner. I can see the adverts now and there is no doubt that the watches would be at the highend - and imagine if they came with a digital pic card where people could see the watch making process and where the gold or diamonds or iron in their watch came from.
I don't recall about the American examples but yes the Soviet examples are relevant in the sense that you could get a much higher price per gram than I reference if you restricted supply. But I think the point with standard regolith is that universities will want to get their hands on a reasonable amount for research purposes.
This link shows that the two oldest US universities have a combined endowment of $55billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/education/08yale.html
The idea that - when you extrapolate that across the globe - there won't be billions available for Mars related purchases, I can't accept. Imagine if you are at one of the top ten US universities and you discover three tranches of Mars regolith are going to be available for purchase in a sealed bid process. Are you really going to allow one of your competitors to steal the prestige of having
the first Mars regolith? Where are the brightest students going to go - to the university with Mars regolith or the one without. And think of what it can do in terms of your general public image as a centre of science. How much free publicity goes with that purchase ? Huge and ongoing amounts.
#6703 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars Economic Activity » 2012-01-06 08:19:52
Don't mean to be a downer butLunar regolith is valuable because of its incredible scarcity. Some of it was given out as gifts or smuggled out as momentos during and shortly after the Apollo programme. Now the U.S. government claims ownership of all non-meteoric (non-Soviet) lunar samples. About every other month there's a story on NASAWatch about the inspector general kicking in the door of some old widower trying to get retirement money by selling a resin-encased lunar sample given to her late husband by Shepard or Scott. The reality is that once there is regular, reliable return of materials, the entire collectable market will disappear.
You can make money off of luxury goods for sure. But if you want to make a realistic guess, don't look at a the size of the whole luxury goods market, or even a category of products. Look at how a single luxury product does. I would expect numbers closer to the tens of millions, but I'm open to a convincing argument either way.
Some of the other ideas are very workable, although the revenue estimates are very ambitious. What means did you use to come by them?
The whole premise of this thread is that sales are permitted. The price of the Soviet lunar samples was way beyond waht I have assigned here. Any Mars Consortium can control release of material on to the market as long as there are no competitors. I would accept there will be a decline in value, but I don't accept it will go down below $20,000 per kg for even ordinary regolith.- unless commerce expands dramatically (in which case this thread is redundant anyway - the problem of funding contact will have been solved).
My estimates are all extrapolations from actual values on earth on related products (e.g. Russian space tourism; university endowments; Rolex price list etc) . They are obviously open to dispute and have not been conservative. This is an enthusiast for colonisation speaking,not an accountant! 
But on the other hand, I am only one person, and no doubt if you put 1000 business and creative people together they could come up with lots more ideas.
#6704 Re: Human missions » Mars Direct 2007 » 2012-01-05 20:48:27
I see that that post was in English... yet nary a thing within it made any sense. Firstly, I would like to quote something which I think says a lot about your methodology for estimating prices:
I tend to use a ready reckoner for mission costs. I can't exactly provide a rational justification for it
Translation: He made it up. The mission cost estimates provided by louis are not based in reality, fact, history, or even on extrapolation. It's simple fantasy. His chosen estimator? Four times the launch costs. Even though the launch costs do not have a significant connection to total mission costs. Just because cheaper rockets have been developed does not mean that the price of the mission as a whole automatically goes down by that same factor. I cannot think of any reason at all why it would. On a related note, louis' estimate of 250 tonnes to LEO cannot be given any credence either, because he doesn't know how to calculate how much mass you need in LEO to get something to LMO (Or else he would do it himself ad not ask us to, right?). He says that people seem to be coming around to his method of estimating costs. So far as I know, this is categorically false. I have not seen one person other than louis estimate costs in that way. Further, the costs which he comes to by estimating in that way are not in any way in line with the cost estimates produced by other methods. Even if you subtract 2 billion dollars from the estimated cost of Mars Direct, the cost is 81 billion dollars for the first mission. Louis' method's estimate for that same mission? 4.4 billion dollars. There is a gigantic discrepancy here, which cannot be handwaved away.
Talking about initial exploration missions, points 2 and probably 4 are irrelevant (regardless of what louis says, revenue generated by an initial mission will not be anything near enough to cover launch costs and the cost to the capability of the mission will probably make it not worth it). 3 is simple. 1 misuses the word "amortization," which has more to do with accounting than actual reuse of mission hardware. 5 has another name; this is "The cost of the mission"- since initial exploration missions will almost certainly be done on a government's checkbook. Further, he doesn't seem to account in this list for important things, such as the per-mission cost of hardware and on-the-ground costs like support/operations and facility maintenance.
He then invokes Elon Musk, claiming on blatant supposition (remember, there was not a single link, citation, or reference provided at any point during his post)
You should develop a sense of humour Josh - it can help in relating to people. Politeness is also helpful.
My "ready reckoner" wasn't something I plucked out of the air - I've read loads about Mars mission costs ,probably a few hundred thousand words at least. It was on the basis of my reading that I came up with the times four figure. It certainly isn't going to be LESS than the cost to LEO. The cost of travel to Mars is probably not that expensive per se...but you have to account for MTV costs. And then there's EDL costs, habitat and ascent/return. Four times feels right to me.
You are of course wrong to suggest that the launch costs don't run through to other costs. If launch costs are like the $200 per kg (!) Musk is now talking about then everything changes. Then - just as ONE example - you can afford to take cheap, basic PV panels to Mars, rather than state of the art, million dollar per sq. metre PV panels. Then you don't need to invest in expensive ISRU projects - you just take the raw materials to Mars - "simples" as we say in the UK.
So at every level launch costs are absolutely crucial - in other words my multiplier is very much justified.
I never said people were coming round to my METHOD of calculating costs - I was simply inidicating that my x 4 factor seemed to give you something like where people were now placing their estimates - in terms of operational costs. If you read my posts, you will know I always (quite correctly - people who don't are the idiots) distinguish between initial one time capital costs and operational costs. A few years back when I used to give these same estimates people used to laugh in my face. Now they have to laugh in Musk's face as well.
Your analysis of my five cost factor points is pathetic. The idea that your framework is going to a single footprint mission is absurd. The important cost analysis is whether following the initial capital outlay you can cover subsequent operational costs. If you don't understand these distinctions I don't hold out too much hope for you. :)
Clearly Musk thinks we can get to Mars in the same sort of timeframe that I am thinking of - 10-20 years:
http://www.universetoday.com/88060/spac … ur-future/
"Further, he doesn't seem to account in this list for important things, such as the per-mission cost of hardware and on-the-ground costs like support/operations and facility maintenance." Er - what do you think "launch costs" mean? If I ask Space X to put a satellite into orbit for me I pay them for that - I don't expect to be presented with a separate bill for their rocket hardware and ground control ops. Duh!!
#6705 Re: Human missions » International Space Station (ISS / Alpha) » 2012-01-05 18:18:37
That is quite exciting. That is a launch I plan to watch.
Yes, that is definitely one to watch. Anything which means 100s of millions of dollars for Space X means we are several steps closer to humans on Mars.
#6706 Re: Human missions » Mars Direct 2007 » 2012-01-05 18:16:13
I don't understand how your conclusion follows from my post. I was only talking about launch costs and their relation to the cost of the mission as a whole. I did not give any solid numbers of any kind for the recurring costs of a mission (my estimate was between five billion and 20 billion dollars recurring cost each mission, with a statement that I have absolutely no idea and it could be more or less and it would not surprise me at all).
There's a big difference between launch costs and total mission costs. That was if anything the point of my post. I don't know how that validates your statement that it's possible to come up with a billion dollars of effectively free cash each mission, or your statement that the operating costs of each mission can be covered with a billion dollars of cash.
If anything, the vague cost estimates I gave in my post amount to a disagreement with what you just said in your post.
Josh - I tend to use a ready reckoner for mission costs. I can't exactly provide a rational justification for it, but it seems to work fairly well I think, in that I think that's what people seem to be coming round to. I take the cost to LEO and multiply by 4. So if Space X can get you to LEO for $5000 per kg, that's $20,000 per kg for your Mars mission (assuming basic development costs have been written off).
Any cost analysis needs to take in a number of factors:
1. Amortisation of the big infrastructure costs. For example if you build your MTV and you can use it safely for say ten missions (why not? - the ISS seems to be surviving for decades). Then you might need to think in terms of dividing the cost over ten missions (of course depends whether you are having to borrow the capital cost, or whether someone is providing it interest free) .
2. Reduced tonnage requirements for life support. As the Mars colony develops, the cost of keeping people alive on Mars and in transit should reduce. The Mars colony should be producing its own oxygen, food, rocket fuel, energy etc.
3. Cost to LEO.
4. Gross and net revenue from trade and sponsorship etc. Eg. meteorite sales back on Earth.
5. Hidden and open subsidies.
Taking everything together, I feel if a mission only requires 250 tonnes to LEO, then it is very, very doable with (mostly) current technology. I think Musk agrees and I think that is what he is working towards.
#6707 Re: Human missions » Mars Direct 2007 » 2012-01-05 16:39:22
While the most specific technology proposals of Mars Direct may have been superseded, I don't think it's correct to say that the idea of ISRU fuel production (the primary technical difference between Mars Direct and Mars Semi-Direct) is still very much a valid concepts. Despite all of the technical devolopments that have happened in the time since Mars Direct came out, nothing has happened that makes the potential savings in Earth to LEO available from ISRU anything less than highly valuable. This is especially true if you're looking at a mission where you want to take rocket hops around the planet, which has the potential to vastly increase the amount of science and prospecting that the mission can do.
On the other hand, it doesn't appear that launch costs will be the biggest part of the costs of a Mars mission, especially if the rocket is contracted out to someone like SpaceX who will reduce the per-rocket costs to a very low level relative to traditional production techniques.
Let's say we're looking at something like Mars Semi-Direct, which according to astronautix involved 220 tonnes to LEO. At a cost of say $10,000/kg, that's $2.2 billion in launch costs. Now, that's certainly not nothing. On the other hand, based on this essay by Zubrin, which cites a cost estimate by NASA for Mars Direct of $50 billion (1990). Accounting for inflation, that's $82.3 billion today. Launch costs are not a significant part of mission costs. I do believe that this figure includes development for the first mission, in which case the recurring costs would be significantly lower ($20 billion? $15 billion? 5? Less? I simply do not know.) In any case the costs of launching things into LEO is probably not a large part of the costs of a Mars mission.
This is especially true if you account for recent developments in the space launch industry. The Falcon Heavy will launch 53,000 kg for $80 million-$125 million. That's $1500-$2350/kg. At those rates, the launch costs for Mars Semi-Direct would be between $330 million and $517 million. Still a lot of money, but nowhere near what we're talking about in terms of development and recurring costs.
This is all absolutely so, Josh, which makes it all the more amazing that NASA and ESA talk about a Mars mission as though it is something beyond the reach of humankind for many decades to come.
My own thoughts about a Mars mission, are in terms of something like 200-250 tonnes to LEO, all told. I think the first mission could easily realise surplus revenue of over a billion dollars, so - taking out the MTCV/EDL/Habitat/ISRU development costs - there is no doubt I think that the operational costs of the first mission will be covered.
#6708 Re: Terraformation » Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW » 2012-01-04 14:05:17
Hmmm, lets see. At the end of 100 years, you'd have produced 2e15 tonnes (2 pentillion). The Martian surface area is approx 1.45e14 sq.m (145 trillion). That's 13.8 tonnes per square meter, enough for a surface pressure of 500mb. However, do you realise what an undertaking this would be, and how energy intensive? You're talking about strip mining the surface, planet wide, to a depth of maybe a dozen meters, using perhaps several hundred terawatts at the very least (actually far far much more than this) - expecting someone to build 10 billion robots (nearly 30 years at a rate of a million a day), which will need no repair at all. Granted, you're probably thinking about self-replicating machines, but even so... and you suggest solar power, rather than doing to obvious and strip out trace fissile material and thorium from the feed (and you can then tell the robot horde to plunge into a volcano or thousand when their work is done, creating a local hotspot of magma). This is assuming we can even get mechanical based life to work...
However, if the environment can be made favourable to plants and primitive life, we could possibly engineer lifeforms capable of breaking down Oxides and Carbonates (something capable of reducing Iron would be great, especially if it can lock in up in a kind of glass that it excretes, containing Iron, various oxides of Calcium, Magnesium etc). Bonus points if it produces Ores. But still, finding or making an abundant enough reducing agent (such as Carbon or Hydrogen) would be the hardest part of it (perhaps we can make trees give out hydrogen in their roots?). Certainly, though, persuading a life form to use Iron Oxide as it's source of oxygen would be very useful, given that there's no free oxygen, and if Carbohydrates are used (from plants), give us Iron and CO2, rather than simply taking the O2 back out of the atmosphere. But it's'not something that will be done easily...
I am not saying let's do it, only trying to get some scale on the problem. Well there are getting on for 1 billion cars on Earth. It seems to be something like that is at least within the realm of the possible, if you were pretty much focussed on terraformation. Other approaches could be trialled e.g. lowering the albedo (or is it raising - I forget), to absorb more solar radiation... using factories to procude super greenhouse gases...and as you say, at some stage you will be able to introduce microbes to do a lot of the work.
However, I certainly don't see the need to go down that path. Millions of people in Scandinavia spend several months a year indoors - in their homes,cars and offices. There is no intrinsic problem involved in making Mars an "indoor society" for a few hundred years if necessary.
#6709 Re: Human missions » Mars Direct 2007 » 2012-01-04 13:54:18
You know if Mars Direct really works then someone could start a petition that this program really comes to life and that Zubrin becomes in charge of it and that people really start walking on Mars in next 10 years. If from what Zubrin said NASA wouldn't even need to excel it's current budget so in theory it wouldn't be such a big financial deal.
I mean few months ago someone put a petition on white house pages about disclosing UFOs and it was covered in newspapers all over the world and White House promised to response if certain number of signatures was collected. So maybe Mars Direct could be started this way...
I think the Mars project is in effect already under way and it is being led by Elon Musk. I doubt Zubrin has a lot to contribute now although I am a fan of his Roman arch Mars brick architecture for creating pressurised habitats on Mars.
#6710 Re: Human missions » The Myth of the trillion dollar mission » 2012-01-04 13:47:57
I don't think any of us are a million miles apart - just putting different emphasis on different points.
We are getting close to addressing the transit and EDL issues - I think the heavy lifting problem to LEO will be sorted soon.
#6711 Re: Human missions » The Myth of the trillion dollar mission » 2012-01-04 07:19:35
louis wrote:Mark Friedenbach wrote:$17 billion, but that's a pie split many, many ways.
I think you're misunderstanding me. What I'm advocating is a phased approach, I just don't think your Phase 1 is enough.
Whoops - what's $10billion among friends...actually $19 billion now I see.
Mark is correct. It's about 17.8 billion split many ways. See the page labeled 252 of of the Conference Report accompanying House Resolution 2112
"Exploration" includes Orion, SLS, Commercial crew and exploration R&D. This is about $3.8 billion. $1.8 for SLS, $1.2 billion for Orion. $.4 billion for Commercial Crew.
"Space Operations" includes Space Shuttle, I.S.S., and Space and Launch Support. this is about $4.2 billion.
The manned space station, as well as well as developing transportation for humans is being given about 8 billion.
It's difficult to identify Mars-related expenditure within the budget,but clearly SLS, Orion, launch support , ISS expenditure and human transportation could all contribute to a Mars specific budget of $1.2 billion - I doubt much "new money" would be required, but it could be trimmed off other budgets over a ten year period if necessary. My feeling for a long time has been that NASA doesn't lack money, it lacks focus.
I think if NASA stopped trying to replicate what Space X is doing v. cheaply and more quickly you could probably cut its budget and still get to Mars!
#6712 Re: Human missions » The Myth of the trillion dollar mission » 2012-01-04 07:12:24
You know what they say in the government: a few billion here, a few billion there... sooner or later it adds up to real money.
Well, I have yet to find a “Phase 1” which includes humans-to-Mars. But I have my own ideas for a path to Mars which includes side ventures along the way. Steps 1,2,3-ish are things I'm actively working on. But we can imagine steps 4,5,6 include orbital tourism throughout cislunar space, surface mining operations and ISRU on the lunar poles, as well as exploratory missions to the moon, a near earth object, or flyby's of the Venus & Mars (NASA's flexible path). Once there is a growing cislunar industry, there will be a need for Mars--for the reasons you are all familiar with, as well as to provide fertilizer and other organic products for a burgeoning cislunar industry. That would make step 7-ish human-to-Mars, which would be done either at the government option if we have competitent national agencies and politicians at that time, or through a private consortium now that there is a demonstrable market for Martian goods.
It's a longer-term roadmap (say 20+ years for humans-to-Mars), but one which isn't left up to the winds of politics and national agenda.
Well I have always been a dualist - thinking we can (and should) do both Moon and Mars at the same time. Musk is determined to get to Mars, so if NASA doesn't deliver on his vision, I think he will try it by some other means. I'm with Musk in believing that we can do it in 10-20 years with a proper can-do attitude.
#6713 Re: Human missions » The Myth of the trillion dollar mission » 2012-01-03 19:12:59
$17 billion, but that's a pie split many, many ways.
I think you're misunderstanding me. What I'm advocating is a phased approach, I just don't think your Phase 1 is enough.
Whoops - what's $10billion among friends...actually $19 billion now I see.
Well I don't think you are being altogether clear about your phased approach.
Are you saying you want investors to cover say the full $30billion cost of a Mars mission? That would been they would be looking for $1.5billion profit per annum minimum. It's not entirely out of the question, as I price my own proposals as generating over $1billion on mission one. However, I think it v. unlikely that normal investors on Earth would be prepared to stump up, given the risk profile.
However, later on I see potential for selling Mars bonds to raise capital.
#6714 Re: Human missions » The Myth of the trillion dollar mission » 2012-01-03 18:23:56
Investors, universities, consortium, whatever. Someone's going to foot the bill, and if it is from private sources it will have to turn a profit. The way this system works is that you identify risk, use small seed-stage money to credibly eliminate that risk, then the big dollars follow and you are go. The problem with "pioneer products" is that you can't eliminate that risk. That's why you need something else that will at the very minimum break even to recoup your costs, and for which you can have some assurance of success irregardless of future conditions outside your control (after a few years of seed-stage planning/R&D).
This is good; you're halfway there. But don't neglect the other half.
Last time I looked NASA's budget was something like $27billion per annum. There's no need for anyone to "turn a profit". I very much doubt that conventional investors will finance the Mars project. The lead will come from space agencies and a few interested companies like Space X.
If you don't accept the idea of phased development I don't think you're taking a realistic view. Not everything can be done at once. There will be economic activity appropriate to each phase.
#6715 Re: Human missions » Developing the cis-Lunar economy and infrastructure » 2012-01-03 13:44:13
Jon, I respect your credentials but you're clearly talking outside of your expertise.
Recent analysis of Apollo data and later orbiters show large-scale migration of dust particles due to electrostatic transport. There are too many sources to site one individually--just google "lunar dust migration".
Large metallic and stony impactors are known to survive impact on Earth, clearly the same thing is going on on the Moon where impacts can be much, much slower. Note that the whole raised lunar farside is now believed to be composed of impactor material from Earth's "second moon" that impacted at reduced velocity.
Apollo data is only representative of what it measured--thoroughly mixed impact ejecta regolith, dozens of larger ejecta fragments, and a handful of crustal samples with very little, if any geologic context. This is both a) a small part of the lunar geology story, and b) not relevant to the current discussion about cold traps and impact-deposited ores, both of which we now know are processes the Apollo results shed no light on.
For cold traps, look at all the papers that have come out about lunar dust migration and Carle Pieters' lunar hydrologic cycle. For impactor-ore deposits, you need not look any further than Sudbury Basin in Canada, now one of the world's largest supplies of nickel and copper ores. The processes which formed Sudbury Basin certainly occurred on the Moon (and Mars) as well, resulting in large concentrated deposits in the crater rim and floor of impact basins with the right characteristics.
Mining the Moon is not so crazy when you consider that these relatively pure ores are unaffected by an active geology or hydrologic cycle and weathering, and may lie just a few meters under the surface (this would explain what LCROSS observed). Within cold traps it is likely that small impactors (LCROSS sized) have already excavated quite a bit of ore that would just be sitting there on the surface in bite-sized chunks.
Is the difficulty of developing cheap, reliable cislunar transportation really that much harder than digging tunnels 2-3km in the ground as we currently do to get such resources on Earth?
Also, there are no land costs, no environmental legislation, no mining rights costs, no taxation...that gives lunar mining a really flying start.
#6716 Re: Human missions » The Myth of the trillion dollar mission » 2012-01-03 13:32:45
Don't get me wrong, I think it will work. I just a) don't think it's enough, and b) know that convincing investors will be a tough sell. They won't like the added risk that ABC or some other third party can pull out, or public interest is diverted at the last minute leaving them to foot the bill. To convince an investor you'll need something beyond (in addition to) the pioneer products in your phase 1.
I don't really see this so much as a matter of attracting investors, more a quesiton of the consortium covering its costs, much in the same way that railway companies in the UK got involved in housing development in order to create a market for their services.
I think investors such as say Rolex and other luxury goods manufacturers will follow later.
The costs of getting to Mars - building the initial infrastructure - can be covered by Space X profits, space agency contributions and philanthropic donations, together with sponsorship, sale of TV and film rights etc. My analysis suggests that over a ten year period the cost would be around $3 billion per annum over ten years. Let's take a look at a theoretical budget:
NASA $1.2 billion per annum
ESA $0.7 billion per annum
Jaxa $200 million pa
ISA $200 million pa
Space X $300 million pa
Philanthropic donations $ 200 million pa
Sponsorship (averaged over 10 years) $50 million pa
TV/film rights** (averaged over 10 years) $50 million pa
[University* data consortium $100 million pa.
(averaged over 10 years)
** Shared across several networks. ]
*Universities agreeing to purchase Mars scientific data - maybe 100 universities across the globe paying each an average of $10million pa.
I should add that a lot of the expenditure is not really new. NASA and ESA are already investing a lot in Mars research - that will just be adapted to a human mission.
#6717 Re: Human missions » The Myth of the trillion dollar mission » 2012-01-03 07:28:37
@louis, those revenue ideas can and will work, but most decline in value over time as the novelty wears off, and some carry the risk of losing all value if the competition gets there first. I would see those as added bonuses (like prize money) on top of an already sustainable business plan.
I agree that there will be declining revenues with some of these (but there will also potentially be increasing revenues if,for instance, we found fossils on the planet). However, if you look at the total market in meteorites on Earth, you would have to go quite a way to put a dent in the value I think.
We need to think in terms of phases. Here is a rough sketch -
Phase 1 - will include a number of "pioneer" products - the first "this and that" returned... First TV and film rights etc.
Phase 2 - I think some of the major revenue will come from universities and other space agencies, wishing to become part of the overall Mars venture. Exploration missions to places like Olympic Mons will attract sponsorship.
Phase 3 - there is scope to establish a number of indigenous trading industries e.g. Mars Rolex manufacture, manufacture of a range of luxury goods (e.g. silk scarves), precious metal and mineral mining...
Phase 4 - Self sufficiency phase. This where the colony is able to begin manufacturing its own rockets to get into Mars orbit and its own rocket fuel. This will allow the colony to subsidise the Mars transit. The colony will now be developing its own interpendent economy, with lots of jobs in services to other Mars residents.
Phase 5 - Mars will be integrated into the Earth economy e.g. design companies, and data centres may relocate there for low tax and prestige reasons.
#6718 Re: Human missions » The Myth of the trillion dollar mission » 2012-01-02 19:44:27
louis wrote:Jon - Which of the following do you claim will NOT make money from Mars on the first mission? -
1. Sale of regolith and meteorites returned to Earth.
2. Commercial sponsorship of the Mission and various elements within the mission.
3. Sale of artefacts used by first humans on Mars on return to Earth.
4. Sale of TV and film rights.
5. Sale of science data and specialist film etc to Universities and other space agencies on return to Earth.
I'd put the total at well over 1 billion dollars for the first mission. There is no reason to put off the start of making money from Mars.
Unless the mission costs less than a billion these won't make money.
Well you didn't answer the question, but I'll take that as a "none" i.e. they will all make money.
In terms of economics, it quite often happens that governments fund major capital projects e.g. building a bridge or tunnel without expecting any immediate return. Sometimes the cost is repaid through tolls. In the case of travel to Mars, once the major capital outlay has been made (i.e. we have developed MTVs, EDL, ISRU technologies etc) future missions may not be so expensive. If the cost of launch is $5000 per kg, I think the cost for three people could be as low as $200million. If the cost goes down to $200 per kg as predicted by Musk, then the cost of transit could be as low as
$8 million.
Let's say the cost is something like $100million, then I think we can cover the costs of transit through surplus revenue.
One idea I am particularly interested is that of producing a Mars Rolex watch. Some Rolexes are v. light but of v. high value. I think the idea of a Mars Rolex produced on Mars (maybe with imported watch parts,but nonetheless with Mars materials otherwise) would be highly attractive to rich men. The idea that they could have around their wrist this symbol of all that is intrepid and daring, would be a winner I think. They could easily sell for $100,000 per watch. Give them index numbers, starting with 1, and think how you could add to the value...
If through a combination of sale of luxury goods, meteorites, regolith, scientific data, exploration sponsorship, facilities for scientific experiments etc etc these transits could pay for themselves, then I think we could think in terms of the initial investment actually being paid off gradually through a transit toll of say 3% - it might take a 100 years, but you would get there eventually.
But, really,this is such an important project for humanity I think the cost of the initial capital outlay just has to be written off.
#6719 Re: Human missions » Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects » 2012-01-02 19:14:39
louis wrote:I see no reason why we can't construct a proper Mars analogue facility - a large sealed hangar with 6 metres of Mars analogue soil, the right pressure and atmospheric contents, and a controlled sol cycle at the right seasonal intensity - all with wall projections to simulate the landscape. It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars but it would providse usable data.
Small chambers like this already exist. Chambers large enough to test large spacecaft also exist, these could probably be adapted to simulate the Mars surface (pumping them down might a challenge though). They would play a vital role in testing equipment.
But could could not make one large enough to support a sustained EVA campaign. Even not pressured Mars floors can only with difficulty be made large enough. The Mars 500 one was too small. Even a converted sports field would only be large enough to support a couple full scale pedestrialn EVAs.
To simulate long range EVAs with pressurised vehciles duing a long stay Mars mission you would have to go to some reasonably analogue terrain - the Sahara, the Atacama, central Australia, Devon Island, parts of Antarctica, and accept the limitations.
If it was a high fidelity simulation you could still have a pressurised habitat and suits. The main issues would icluding maintain fidelity during the changing seasons and security.
I'm thinking of putting rovers on rollers to give the effect of travelling distance and then at the "arrival point" moving into a smaller chamber for "EVA" activity eg.. getting out and taking some rock samples with a drill or mining ice.
#6720 Re: Terraformation » Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW » 2012-01-02 18:10:13
I would think that 10 billion robot vehicles on Mars (trailing long PV panels over maybe hundreds of metres) could each convert 200,000 tonnes of regolith into gas over a period of say 100 years to create a pretty thick atmosphere.
#6721 Re: Human missions » Elon Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars. » 2012-01-02 17:51:29
Now THAT is what a space entrepreneur should look and sound like. It is marvellous - what a stroke of good fortune - that we have Musk in the vanguard of space development. If it were left to the other dullards the prospects for us reaching Mars would be ever-receding.
I think 10,000 is an excellent first big target for human settlement. With 10,000 I think you could have a fully self-sufficient community that might even be able to reproduce on Mars.
#6722 Re: Human missions » Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects » 2012-01-02 17:29:09
louis wrote:I don't wish to sound harsh - if valuable data was obtained it will no doubt be used in the future. However, I can't help but remain sceptical about that.
I think that once a consortium to land humans on Mars is put together, such testing will be undertaken, but on a much closer Mars analogue (atmosphere,temperature, sol cycle, soil and so on). In my view it would be worth spending a few hundred million dollars to built a Mars replica site (as well as an MTV simulator). But you can't do it on the cheap is my view. Obviously an ISS simulation would be quite realistic for the transit, so I wouldn't mark that down.
You don't sound harsh, only ignorant. I don't want that to sound harsh either. You show no signs of havig done any background investigation into the true scale and sophistication of this experiment, not into the reasons why such experiments are done.
Mars 500 did simulation the conditions of a Mars mission as accurately as possible. A realistic crew, living on realistic food, in realistic quarters, do real science, supported by a realistic life support, with real and virtual isolation, is a good simulation to allow a wide range of issues to be explored. It's an experiment.
The Mars landing side of things was not the purpose of the simulation, but they did that as well as could be expected for a first attempt under the set up constrains. Their use of telerobotics and virtual reality was most interesting. I am fairly sure they did operate under Mars time while "on the surface".
As to doing a high fidelity simulation of the landing component of a long stay, we are a long way from that, and it probably would be impratical. Aspects of it certainly could be simulated and tested, as has been done at MDRS, FMARS, HMP, Svalbard, and Desert RATS. I think long stay missions at low to moderate fidelity simulations could be sustained at FMARS or HMP, this would be quite useful.
As I am very sure we will go back to the Moon before we go to Mars, I sustepct that long stays on the lunar surface would be the best preparation.
I see no reason why we can't construct a proper Mars analogue facility - a large sealed hangar with 6 metres of Mars analogue soil, the right pressure and atmospheric contents, and a controlled sol cycle at the right seasonal intensity - all with wall projections to simulate the landscape. It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars but it would providse usable data.
#6723 Re: Human missions » The Myth of the trillion dollar mission » 2012-01-02 17:18:44
Jon - Which of the following do you claim will NOT make money from Mars on the first mission? -
1. Sale of regolith and meteorites returned to Earth.
2. Commercial sponsorship of the Mission and various elements within the mission.
3. Sale of artefacts used by first humans on Mars on return to Earth.
4. Sale of TV and film rights.
5. Sale of science data and specialist film etc to Universities and other space agencies on return to Earth.
I'd put the total at well over 1 billion dollars for the first mission. There is no reason to put off the start of making money from Mars.
#6724 Re: Human missions » The Myth of the trillion dollar mission » 2012-01-02 07:59:42
All of those are examples of the success of commercial or military exploration, not basic science. But it's a moot point because:
JonClarke wrote:There is not the smallest chance they will do so on their own because there is nothing remotely possible for them to make money on at present or in the future.
this is where we fundamentally disagree. There are fully viable business plans today that will open the space frontier, and many of them are getting funded. There has been a critical change in the last 2-3 years, due IMO primarily to SpaceX and the X-Prize foundation that has cleared away the last obstacles to private enterprise in space. Since the 70's there have been viable business plans for opening up the space frontier. Since the 90's we have had the technology and experience to actually do so. Only recently has the perception, funding climate, and base costs also changed enough that all the stars are now in alignment. The time for space enterprise is now.
Virgin Galactic is certainly poised to make sub-orbital space profitable. I don't think we are far off orbital space tourism becoming profitable and then lunar tourism follows naturally. Tourism on Mars is more problematic but there are lots of ways to make money on Mars e.g. from sale of highly valuable meteorites, sale of TV and film rights, sponsorship, manufacture of light goods - all the sorts of things that were given away free on the Apollo missions.
#6725 Re: Human missions » Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects » 2012-01-02 07:55:29
louis wrote:In what sense was it successful? What did it demonstrate?
At the most superfical level that should be evident, to even the most casual observer with the slightest knowledge of what's involved in a Mars mission, that it demonstrated that it is possible to carry out a high fidelity simulated Mars mission that not only achieves all its goals, but without major engineering, logistic, psychological, or medical issues, all without physical outside support or contact, often at a significant timelag. This is a huge hurdle to have crossed.
The detailed achievements will emerge over the next few years as the results are written up.
The Mars 500 team are already working towards the goal of the next simulated mission using the ISS.
I don't wish to sound harsh - if valuable data was obtained it will no doubt be used in the future. However, I can't help but remain sceptical about that.
I think that once a consortium to land humans on Mars is put together, such testing will be undertaken, but on a much closer Mars analogue (atmosphere,temperature, sol cycle, soil and so on). In my view it would be worth spending a few hundred million dollars to built a Mars replica site (as well as an MTV simulator). But you can't do it on the cheap is my view. Obviously an ISS simulation would be quite realistic for the transit, so I wouldn't mark that down.