You are not logged in.
I should have added luxury jewellery as an obvious money spinner. Very lightweight jewellery - polished minerals of various types could be produced on Mars and shipped back to Earth. They will I think be able to earn about $200 per gram. With proper marketing, they will be seen as a romantic gift from another planet: Mars communicating with Venus, so to speak.
Louis wrote, "YOu can't simply assert that it is impossible to make money from Mars gold." Well, yes I could, but I didn't.
"You have to give some reasons." Which I guessed you missed:The cost to obtain things on Earth will be far, far less than the cost of sending mining and processing equipment and crews to Mars, mining ores on Mars, processing the ores to obtain the unobtainium, and returning it to Earth. All of the mining and processing will, of course, occur in, what is for humans, essentially vacuum, with radiation hazards, potentially corrosive soil and dust and 38% gravity which will require adaptations from Earth practice. There will be no water available for processing or transporting the ore, and energy for various purposes must be supplied, which will be a large additional project.
Aside from the fact that, as Johnson points out, we have little idea what's actually there, that is, whether there are any remotely reasonably available sources of gold on Mars.
On the other hand, if it costs less to go to Mars, dig and process stuff and return to Earth, than to just dig and process on Earth, we really don't need to worry about it. All the greedy people on Earth, of whom there are a very, very large number, will just hop over to Mars (greed will show them how), scoop up huge quantities of gold and Mars rocks with greed once again solving all problems. It will be super profitable because the more stuff you bring, the higher the price. And especially profitable what with everyone on Mars working for free.
If we could just apply those principle to all of our needs on Earth, think of where we would be. Maybe back to the Golden age of the American deep south with all those useful slaves. And, if we would just cut the supply of oil, the price will fall; just as the price of Mars rocks will rise as the supply increases.
Eventually, there'll be enough of Mars on Earth that we won't need to go to Mars to enjoy Mars. It will be Mars on Earth, and we can disband the Mars Society.
Bobunf - I was replying to GW rather than you, which you don't make clear.
Your comments about all the mining equipment you need to take are irrelevant. We are talking about a virgin planet here where there will (in all likelihood - I agree we can't be certain) be rich unworked seams at the surface. You don't need deep mining equipment. You need a rock drill. #
The idea that there will be a flood of Klondyke miners will head for Mars is risible. To get this show on the road will cost tens of billions of dollars. Whoever gets there first will control who gets to the planet.
If gold is worth $50,000 per kg on Earth and it costs $20,000 per kg to transit it from Mars to Earth, then clearly you have $30,000 per kg to "play with" in terms of the cost of production.
Supply and demand analysis is really very much a matter of true by definition. All it does is hypothesis supply and demand from real life examples. The reason Ford sold more cars in 1920 than 1905 had nothing to do with supply and demand graphs. It had everything to do with increasing the productivity of labour.
But all markets are different.
Twenty years ago, you could drop the price of a Trabant by 10% - doesn't mean you'll sell any more. You could add 10% to the price of a Morgan - doesn't mean the waiting list would diminish. There's a difference between economic theory and economic reality.
The point about Mars meteorites is that they are a unique category of meteorite with innate rarity value and intrinsic scientific interest. The market will expand as they become available and institutions compete for prestige. If you are the Vice Chancellor of a University with a modest geology dept. you don't have to worry when Harvard takes first pickings. But when you find out the rival "modest" uni in the next state has bought a range of Mars meteorites and Mars regolith, then you realise suddenly you need to get your own collection to maintain prestige. In that way a competitive buyer market will develop.
I agree with Johnson that we don't really know yet what is there...but you are being obstinate and obtuse if you are saying "I don't care if we come across the purest gold seam in the solar system which we can get out with a simple rock drill and purify with some simple chemical processes. I don't care if we can make $20,000 per kg profit on transferring that gold back to Earth."
You have failed to demonstrate that such profit levels are impossible.
I am not sure what you mean by "There will be no water available for processing or transporting the ore" Do you mean running water as opposed to ice? There is plenty of water on Mars.
Here's an odd idea. Water seems to be ubiquitously available on a variety of celestial objects, although some purification may be needed. Why not store it and ship it as ice, which requires only the mildest pressure to prevent sublimation into space, and has considerable structural strength in and of itself. If you ship it robotically to your destination months ahead of time, then you can robotically use small-power-level solar or nuclear power to electrolyze it into hydrogen and oxygen.
The fact that electrolysis is inefficient is no problem if the power is essentially free, as with solar or nuclear. The fact that electrolysis production rates are very low is no problem if you have months to get the job done before men ever arrive.
For example, mine ice from the south pole of the weak-gravity moon, and send it with an electrolysis plant to Mars orbit robotically. Do it with a min-energy Hohmann transfer. Have a supply of LH2 and LOX waiting on you when you arrive. Use that supply to support landings and the return trip. Once Phobos has been explored, you may (or may not) have a supply of ice in situ in Mars orbit. But either way, you have the first manned Mars mission covered.
Electrolysis creates H2 and O2 at 2:1 molar, which is 8:1 oxygen:fuel by mass. Even LH2-LOX engines do not use it stoichiometric, they run rich on H2, so there is always excess oxygen to breathe available. Breathing oxygen is really abundant if your engines are nuclear thermal, which typically use only the hydrogen.
GW
I don't think ice is available on the Moon in the sort of quantities it is on Mars. We could manufacture rocket fuel robotically on Mars using entirely Mars ISRU.
It only takes a few centimeters of dirt at 0.38 gee to provide the overburden pressure necessary to keep ice from subliming away in the near vacuum that is Mars's atmosphere. Water-as-ice is easily stored outdoors without a container, if you just bury it in a "shallow grave".
Methane clathrate is only stable at 2 C and 300-meter Earth ocean pressures, which is some 30+ atmospheres pressure. To store it without a container on Mars would require very deep burial indeed. A pressurized container on the surface would be the better deal, if methane clathrate is really what you want to store. Actually, plain liquid methane would be easier to deal with.
I don't think chemical energy storage has been adequately explored, for application here or on Mars. There's more in this world than just batteries and water electrolysis into H2 and O2. What, I dunno.
GW
When you say "Methane clathrate is only stable at 2 C and 300-meter Earth ocean pressures" what do you mean exactly? Do you mean under 2C or above? or only at 2C? And does the other condition (pressure) have to be fulfilled as well or is it an alternative?
I would agree that chemical storage of electricity needs to be explored. A plus about Mars is that in the initial colonisaiton period one doesn't have to worry too much about environmental damage. An open pit of a chemical "soup" would be perfectly acceptable.
Space X are very credible on all fronts and the great thing if their leader wants to go to Mars as quickly as possible. In my view he's only been rather quiet on the ultimate goal out of deference to his major client NASA (not wishing to humiliate them completely).
Once somebody has actually been to Mars the first time and brought some rocks back, I kind of doubt that Mars minerals will remain as valuable commodities. It's a perception thing.
The real value to be derived is as yet unknown, because the exploration is not done. You have to find out what's there and where it is (unevenly distributed, just like here), before you can spend successful time learning to live off the land and figuring out what might actually be useful for trade ("prospecting").
But it is there. Somewhere. You just have to trust that this will be true, because it always has been before, here on Earth.
And you have to get all that exploration and "prospecting" done before it is probable that any colony you plant will be long-term successful. That's history. Just because we're talking about another planet makes no difference to that history lesson. We don't want any failures like Roanoke, or very-marginal survivals like Jamestown.
GW
I really can't let that pass.
1. Would you say that "Once people actually go out in the field on Earth and start searching for meteorites systematically I doubt meteorites will remain as valuable commodities. " No of course you wouldn't say anything as wrong headed as that - but it is the case that in the last 50 years or so meteorite gathering has become a professional enterprise so that many more meteorites are being gathered but meteorites remain valuable, indeed they have increased in value because universities and collectors have more money to spend on them and there is generally more interest in them. Mars meteorites will create their own market.
2. Even assuming you are right about the impact on the value, you can't possibly saying their value will become zero. If the value was $200 per gram, there is no reason to suppose it will fall below $20 just because a few more tonnes are brought back. What basis do you have more saying their collection will become unprofitable? You have no evidence - it's just pure assertion.
3. A lot of exploring and prospecting has already been done by satellites. A lot more can be done by cheap (compared with Curiosity) robot vehicles once people are on the planet. A lot of "prospecting" will happen naturally. Geologists will want to explore places like Olympus Mons. If they come across gold seams by chance, well obviously we then build on that knowledge. We DO know there is regolith and we know ordinary lunar regolith is v. valuable on Earth. Ordinary Mars regolith, requiring no prospecting of any great complexity will be v. valuable as well. Why do you doubt it when you have the example of lunar regolith before you?
2.
In my view, discussion of financial bonanzas from Mars rocks are fruitless, and I don’t want to play that game any more.
Exporting anything material from Mars to Earth will, I think, be hugely uneconomic at least for the balance of this century, and maybe forever. The cost to obtain things on Earth will be far, far less the cost of sending mining and processing equipment and crews to Mars, mining ores on Mars, processing the ores to obtain the unobtainium, and returning it to Earth.
All of the mining and processing will, of course, occur in, what is for humans, essentially vacuum, with radiation hazards, potentially corrosive soil and dust and 38% gravity which will require adaptations from Earth practice. There will be no water available for processing or transporting the ore, and energy for various purposes must be supplied, which will be a large additional project. On Earth, you just connect to the grid or burn oil.
For instance, Nautilus Minerals is working at mining ore from a hydrothermal vent located about 1600 meters below the surface of the Bismarck Sea. The capital cost will be $393 million. The operating costs to the Port of Rabaul will be about $70 per ton of ore. Each ton is estimated to contain, on average 68 kilograms of copper, 4 kilograms of zinc, 23 grams of silver and 5 grams of gold. They plan to mine and process about 150 million tons of ore per year, which would yield an estimated 10.2 million tons of copper, 600,000 tons of zinc, 3,450 tons of silver and 750 tons of gold. http://www.nautilusminerals.com/s/Projects-Solwara.asp
It seems obvious to me that setting up an operation on Mars to prospect for, mine and process 750 tons of gold (and a hundred thousand times as much ore, or more) per year would exceed $393 million by many orders of magnitude, and that the operating costs to mine, process and send to Earth 750 tons of gold per year (which would involve mining and processing many millions of tons of ore at the very least) would far exceed $10 billion per year. Obviously exporting less valuable precious metals would be even less practical.
Serious people are investing very large sums of their own money in this project, and they expect a significant return. There are a very large number of hydrothermal vents in Earth’s oceans. As this company puts it, “Nautilus plans to launch additional projects on our extensive tenement holdings across the South Pacific.” How can a Mars export expect to compete with such operations?
If Mars export could be remotely competitive, one would expect to find some entrepreneurial mining companies interested in prospecting Mars. There aren't any such.
YOu can't simply assert that it is impossible to make money from Mars gold. You have to give some reasons. Saying that gold production on Earth costs a lot of money is irrelevant: gold mining corps on Earth have to dig deep into the Earth, or trawl the ocean bed (in the future). That all involves huge costs and huge investment. They have to employ tens of thousands of people. They have to pay for land and mining rights, deal with environmental proteciton and pay taxes.
None of these apply on Mars. We would be looking for exposed gold seams at the surface, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be there since Mars had vulcanism and water. If they are there, they can be drilled out with a simple rock drill. There may be some issues with purifying the gold. That may require significant input but these gold seams would be the purest possible.
There's no way we would be mining 750 tonnes of gold! A couple of tonnes would be a good target I think, looking to realise revenue of around $100 million.
As for paying people. Don't you think universities, corporations, space agencies, military and others would be prepared stump up the money? Why ever not? They stump up money to get people through college and initially we are only talking of tens or hundreds of people. Wages are the least of our worries.
Louis wrote, "No one can deny the huge sums that meteorites and rare regolith would command on Earth."
I can. The total sales of meteorites (comets, asteroids, Moon, Mars, genuine and fake) in the whole world are probably less than $10 million per year. The retail asking price is around $100 per gram. Actual wholesale prices are around a third of that, maybe less. So, if you sold a ton of Mars rocks at the meteorite price, you’d gross about $30 million.
I think you’d be lucky to break even, but even if there were no cost to acquire the stuff and get it back to Earth, $30 million is almost trivial in a project whose cost will certainly exceed many, many billions of dollars, even if not the trillions suggested by Hop, although I suspect he’s about an order of magnitude too low.
Tripling the quantity of space rocks arriving on the market each and every year would obviously depress the market. Besides, one would undoubtedly also be competing with Moon, asteroid, Phobos, comet and who knows what other kind of rocks. Maybe even Mercury and Venus rocks. Bear in mind that markets look forward, so your gross would probably not approach $30 million even in the first year.
What will be the price of these rocks after the first 100 tons of Moon, Mars and asteroid rocks arrive on the market? 10 million or more collector pieces with much more on the way? There are currently only about 30,000 meteorites in collections.
Moon dust has not declined in value because it’s not legal to sell, and there is virtually no chance in the foreseeable future of replenishing whatever finds its way into the black market.
This is all wishful thinking.
Go on the websites and you'll see that Mars meteorites will set you back about 50-100 dollars per gram. Meteorites found on Earth will be even rarer. These sites make it clear my figures are not fantasy figures.
http://www.astronomy.com/en/News-Observ … 0cost.aspx
http://geology.com/meteorites/value-of-meteorites.shtml
http://www.meteorites-for-sale.com/
http://www.spacerocksuk.com/lunarmars.html
The total amount of meteorites on Earth in human possession is less than annual gold production. They are intrinsically rare and valuable. To bring back say two tonnes of meteorites per annum will not crash the market, any more than availability of sugar from the West Indies shrank the value of the sugar economy. Colonists will be dealing at the upmarket end of the meteorite economy.
All institutions with geology and astronomy departments, all Space agencies and many private individuals will be interested in acquiring these new types of meteorites.
If anything I have been underestimating the value as they can go up to $25,000 per gram i.e. $25million per kilogram, depending on the nature of the meteorite.
Rune - No, I don't think you've infringed that rule.
Louis wrote, "No one can deny the huge sums that meteorites and rare regolith would command on Earth."
I can. The total sales of meteorites (comets, asteroids, Moon, Mars, genuine and fake) in the whole world are probably less than $10 million per year. The retail asking price is around $100 per gram. Actual wholesale prices are around a third of that, maybe less. So, if you sold a ton of Mars rocks at the meteorite price, you’d gross about $30 million.
I think you’d be lucky to break even, but even if there were no cost to acquire the stuff and get it back to Earth, $30 million is almost trivial in a project whose cost will certainly exceed many, many billions of dollars, even if not the trillions suggested by Hop, although I suspect he’s about an order of magnitude too low.
Tripling the quantity of space rocks arriving on the market each and every year would obviously depress the market. Besides, one would undoubtedly also be competing with Moon, asteroid, Phobos, comet and who knows what other kind of rocks. Maybe even Mercury and Venus rocks. Bear in mind that markets look forward, so your gross would probably not approach $30 million even in the first year.
What will be the price of these rocks after the first 100 tons of Moon, Mars and asteroid rocks arrive on the market? 10 million or more collector pieces with much more on the way? There are currently only about 30,000 meteorites in collections.
Moon dust has not declined in value because it’s not legal to sell, and there is virtually no chance in the foreseeable future of replenishing whatever finds its way into the black market.
This is all wishful thinking.
I think it's time to start trading some citations. This will do for starters, confirming that Mars meteorites found on Earth are trading at between $500,000 and a million dollars per Kg.
http://www.meteoritemarket.com/SAU008.htm
I hope to get some figures on the total worth of the meteorite market. I would also add that it is clear far more meteorites are found per year than 50 years ago, which I think gives the lie to the argument that increased supply will lead to a decrease in price (because the price has also been rising).
Bobunf, come on - how often do you hear about the costs of a Mars mission and how often do you hear about the revenue to be earned? So far everything has been loaded on the cost side of the equation. We need to start focussing on the potential revenue.
What sort of revenue earning activities might we see in the early colonial period on Mars - the first 20-30 years say? Here are some ideas with indications of earning potential:
Basing my analysis on a figure of $20,000 per kg for transit from Mars to Earth, I think the following revenue earners could be pursued by early colonists -
1. Sale of regolith- I think a figure of $100,000 per kg will be quite reasonable. Even ordinary Mars dust will be a very valuable commodity (as is ordinary lunar dust). My analysis suggests several thousand institutes around the globe would be interested in acquiring Mars regolith (just as there is great interest in lunar regolith). I think earnings of $200-$400 million per annum for the first ten years are possible.
2. Sale of meteorites. Meteorites on Earth are collected by both scientists and private collectors. Rare meteorites can be worth millions of dollars. Mars meteorites will be rare almost by definition. I think we could be talking about $500,000 per kg for the right meteorites. Geology.com offers advice over the web on the pricing of meteorites. At the cheap end these can start at around 50 cents per gram. But rare Mars and lunar meteorites may sell for $1,000 per gram or more – much more in some cases. So a kilogram meteorite could cost around a $1million or more. For the first ten years, I think the value of meteorite exports could be in the region of $500 million per annum.
3. Export of gold, platinum, diamonds and other precious metals and stones. With gold currently trading at over 50,000 dollars a Kg, this could be a major source of revenue. Of course it does depend on the colonists discovering exposed gold sources on the surface – no reason why not as no one else is prospecting for gold. Similarly other precious metals and stones could produce huge amounts of revenue. Earnings of $50million per annum don't seem impossible.
4. General commercial sponsorship. The sponsorship available for the initial landings should be on a par with the Olympics. But there will be opportunities for ongoing sponsorship e.g. of exploration missions to Olympus Mons or the Grand Canyon of Mars or to the polar region. Commercial sponsorship of the Olympics amounts to about $1000 million in the Olympic year. I think we could assume the initial landing could attract sponsorship of about $500million at least. Subsequent explorations should be able to clear at least $200million a time I would say.
5. Sponsored colonists. The “gap year” student. There will in our view be no shortage of young suitably qualified personnel who would wish to be part of the experience of building the Mars colony as part of an interval between education and work. And, who can doubt that employees back on earth would be keen to employ young enterprising people who take part in this way and show determination, fortitude and a high level of skill acquisition? Of course the gap year concept will be extended somewhat – it may be a round trip of 2.5 years, with perhaps 1.5 actually spent on Mars.
Earnings at $50m per person might give an average of $200million per annum in the first ten years.
4. University of Mars franchise. . Establishment of a University on Mars. This could be the subject of competition between the best endowed seats of learning on Earth. Those with a strong planetary science and astronomy bias might be tempted to sink a lot of money into such a project, especially if they were being guaranteed a head start over their rivals. Mars University of Harvard? Sorbonne Mars? Kyoto Mars University? It might begin as a small postgraduate teaching and research facility. A University, possibly with a benefactor’s backing might be prepared to sink several hundred million dollars into such a foundation and continue to fund at a significant rate. Endowments of $100-500m are not uncommon on Earth. So, I think a $500m endowment for this unique foundation is possible.
5. Sale of land and bonds. As the economic potential of Mars becomes clear, so will the urge to invest. If there is a legal framework backed by a group of Earth nations or the UN, this will allow the sale of land (perhaps on long leases) and investment bonds. If a million square kilometres was sold off at $10,000 a square kilometre, that would raise $10 billion. If the Mars Consortium can start earning say $1 billion per annum, then bonds of several billion dollars could be sold.
6. Sale of Mars TV rights. Clearly exclusive TV rights to the initial Mars landings would have huge value. I think we could be talking about $200-500 million – with the globe parcelled up into about 10 lots.
7. But later exploration missions TV rights (e.g. to Olympus Mons) will also command high prices. So we can expect something like $10 million per annum (with no significant mass transfer)
8. Once agriculture is up and running, there will be a significant market across Earth for luxury foods and wine from Mars. How about a bottle of “Mars Champagne” at $200,000? Any takers?
Perhaps $1 million per annum.
9. Luxury goods – e.g. a Mars Rolex. The mechanism might be made on Earth, but the watch is finished on Mars with Mars gold. This could be really big I think. Imagine watches selling at $100,000. I see no reason why the Mars Rolex couldn't sell 5,000 of those per annum - $500million.
10. Sale of “real time” interactive experience on Mars. If we can beam back 3D data from Mars, there would be scope I think for interactive facilities on Earth.
Eg. on Earth you get to move replica rocks around with an automated digger, but the automated digger on Mars performs the same action. And perhaps drills into the rock to analyse it. This could be linked in with Mars museums or theme centres. Global visitors at $20 per person per annum?? - maybe generating $80 million per annum.
11. Mars tourism. If we can develop direct shot rocket technology, I think there will be scope for development of Mars tourism – people coming to Mars for perhaps 2 month stays and going on treks to the major tourist sites (e.g. Olympus Mons). Of course, initially, this will be the province of the super-rich but if the colonists can master home grown rocketry prices could come down significantly. By year 20 tourism might be taking off and it could generate several hundred million of dollars per annum.
Rule 2 refers us to and recommends adherence to Netiquette. I was interested in Rule 6 of that -
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/rule6.html
I don't think that squares with telling others not to answer a perfectly ordinary question put by a poster eager to make use of others' expertise. If someone asked me a question about law, economics,
history or politics, areas I have some expertise in, I would do my best to answer the question.
Bobunf et al,
I think as usual we need to break down the problem and look at the timescale.
Essentially I think we are writing off the initial development costs. If we build a bridge at a cost of $100million and the bridge is there, and it is then crossed by 100 people in year one, it doesn't make sense to say the crossings cost $1million each.
We really need to focus on operating costs of an expanding colony - which will of course include the amortised costs of producing new Mars Transit vehicles in the future.
Re the operating costs we need to note:
1. The cost of producing MTVs will reduce sharply if we are essentially repeating the standard model.
2. Operating costs will be defrayed by revenue. I think revenue earning potential is huge. No one can deny the huge sums that meteorites and rare regolith would command on Earth.
I would agree that trying to make a technological leap forward to 3D printers would be a quick way to bankrupt the mission. Much better is to develop what one might call Victorian plus technology. The basic ISRU technology would be Victorian - steam engines (powered by solar reflectors), brick built accommodation (covered in regolith), iron and steel production, lots of use of glass, ceramics, gas production and other basic materials. This would allow for production of a wide range of useful tools including agricultural implements, wheelbarrows, pots and pans, kitchen utensils, and a range of glass vessels. On top of that would be layed the 21st century technology: sat coms, computer monitoring, sophisticated pumps, imported pressurised rovers and so on.
Hop -
LOL - I don't know whether I should take that as a compliment, being no worse than Rune and Josh NH4H!
It would be a shame to lose your technical knowledge and ability to communicate it, Hop so I hope you do reconsider.
As regards the rocket equation, I think the problem I had was more to do with definitions. I will take a look at it again. I am not frightened of figures per se and often my ball park estimates are accurate enough. But that was what I was trying to get with the propellant/fuel required for a direct shot - a ball park estimate.
You are correct in saying that I have not yet done a significant amount of research on the topic. But I can offer suggestions that make a lot of sense in the context of a mass colonization program that have the potential to reduce the costs by significant amounts. For example, refueling bases on Phobos or Deimos and the Moon (our just phobos/deimos; launch windows from there are much less frequent but if you can do aerocapture the delta-V is lower, and you have one fewer base to keep going) can reduce the amount of fuel that needs to be brought from Earth down to zero.
Likewise, reuse of space vehicles will result in a potentially huge savings in terms of the mass required to get from Earth to Mars. If there was a farm somewhere in the earth-moon-mars system you wouldn't even have to send up food. Obviously there will be some support costs from Earth but not nearly on the scale you're suggesting.
I agree with all those points I think. Essentially the Mars colony could reduce Earth input to launch to LEO plus occasional infrastructure investment in Mars transit vehicles and specialist equipment to go to Mars.
If you add in the revenue earning potential of Mars, then you can see there is here the potential to grow the colony to about 1000 fairly easily, with lengthening stays by people as our knowledge of living on Mars is increased. Beyond that, the need to construct sophisticated Mars Transit Vehicles may become prohibitively expensive, and there may not be enough revenue coming in to cover costs, at which point thoughts will turn to babies being born on (or in orbit around) Mars and the colony extending itself naturally and supplying most of its own needs (food and energy production, housing etc).
A person who is a scientist by trade would be a person who makes their living working as a scientist for a research university, government agency, etc. In other words, a professional academic who has a reputation. Science is obviously not limited to these people, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and given that there is a credibility issue here I would like to see someone who is credible endorse results before I accept them.
That's an irrational viewpoint. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. I remember when Michael Jackson married Lisa Presley no one could believe it - for a variety of reasons. It was an extraordinary claim. But it didn't require extraordinary evidence. It just required the usual sort of evidence - a Dominican Republic marriage certificate, a press release, confirmatory statements from bride and groom etc etc.
Similarly with LENR/cold fusion. What is required is the usual replication (which has been achieved). Who is the arbiter by the way of what "bad science" is. LENR has been confirmed in peer review papers. What more do you want?
It seems to me that all that is required of the LENR advocates is to live up to the experiments - produce a working device. Rossi claims he is doing just that. I think we can at least give him a year to produce good evidence that he has achieved that.
louis wrote:75 tonnes per person is in my view a ludicrously high figure.
They give itemized lists at the Mars Semi Direct paper. What would you cut?
louis wrote:A lot of Mars supplies can in any case be taken to Mars robotically in small loads - in the same way that Curiosity is going to be landed.
This wouldn't lessen the mass you need to launch to LEO.
louis wrote:Of course, what one has to factor in is the incredibly high value of the material returned from Mars - which will be worth far more than $20,000 per kg.
You envision return trips? Then the ascent vehicle can't be cut. Nor can a lot of the other stuff I cut assuming a one way trip. Back to 694 tonnes if you have Mars Ascent vehicles, Earth Return Vehicles, etc. Now it's back to 170 tonnes per person And if astronauts are coming back as well as going there, the population growth rate will be slower.
You're hoping collectors of rare asteroids will pay for this. I don't think this niche market can provide enough revenue. And when you flood the market, asteroids are no longer rare.
I replied at some length earlier but I think I was timed out - anyway I lost the post.
So here's a quick summary:
1. Thought you were referring to transit and surface supplies rather than total tonnage. My total tonnage estimate would be nearer 35 tonnes per person. My figure for supplies on the surface of Mars would be more like 7 tonnes per person.
2. Not had an opp to go through all of Semi-Direct but as examples, I criticise (a) the Hab - too big. People have survived in much more constricted spaces for years. That could be cut back maybe 50% and (b) the medical allowance - no one ever came to grief on the Apollo missions...we can't plan for every eventuality...one tonne could probably be reduced by 80%.
3. Yes I would have a return trip with ascent vehicle - but fuel/propellant would be manufactured on Mars.
4. Because of my piecemeal approach with robot landings as well, the lander/ascent vehicle can be much smaller. Makes everything cheaper and more doable. I reckon Musk is thinking along these lines as well.
5. How much did lunar dust decline in price? It's a rubbish idea. It's still incredibly valuable even after 17 missions. Meteorites will pick up fantastic sums. And the colony only needs revenue from this source for maybe 10-20 years. But it will be a real boon in the early years.
6. Population growth. Each set of colonists should build an additional hab space (using Mars materials) to house the same number of people. That way, people following don't need to bring heavy habs with them. They can bring useful machines and chemicals, PV panels etc. to help build productive capacity on Mars.
Eventually I think the people of Mars will be able to build primitive rockets - that will be the real breakthrough. When they can to LMO themselves with their own resources. And that's what will allow a much quicker population build up.
Josh NH4H,
You may be a mod but can you please refrain from interfering with my free communication with others here. I asked a perfectly sane, polite question about use of fuel/propellant. You should not presume knowledge or ability in others and you should not attempt to stop people answering the question. I do not wish to be referred to that link again thanks.
Hop -
You must know that a huge part of the cost of teh ISS was down to (a) the fact that it was teh Space Shuttle doing the lifting (b) the ad hoc nature of the station and (c) the fact its development was spread over - what? - 20 years??
If you gave the job to Space X now I am sure they could get you a Space Station up and running within 5 years at a fraction of the cost.
We know Musk is steering a course for Mars. I don't see why the costs of getting to Mars, once one discounts the initial development costs should exceed a space launch to LEO by more than a factor of four. So I think a reasonable estimate for transit costs would be $20,000 per kg.
75 tonnes per person is in my view a ludicrously high figure.
A lot of Mars supplies can in any case be taken to Mars robotically in small loads - in the same way that Curiosity is going to be landed.
Of course, what one has to factor in is the incredibly high value of the material returned from Mars - which will be worth far more than $20,000 per kg.
Rune/Hop,
I was particularly interested in what the add on was as a percentage for fuel/propellant if you go with a direct shot.
The Mars Politics forum states it deals with "How should Mars be governed? Should there be a planetary government with constitution?"
The scope for economic activity on Mars is not covered by that description. But if that's where people think it should go, I'll bung it there.
However I do think the fact that there isn't a forum for Mars economics betrays the fact people are completely underestimating the scope for economic development on Mars. We are in a box thinking about Mars colonisation purely in terms of the scientific, technical and possibly legal challenges. I think there are significant opportunities for the Mars colony to pay its way from day one. Because there are, that could impact on how quickly the colony if it's done right - but we have to move far, far away from the NASA lunar mission model.
Hop,
I have a question for you:
How much more fuel and propellant would be required for a direct shot, in percentage terms, compared with a "sling shot approach" (is it at "opposition"?).
I'm interested in that question because it seems to me to have great importance for the growth of the colony. Restricting the colony to a once every two years' connection, seems v. inflexible.
I think once the colony is established, it can devote a lot of effort to creating rocket fuel/propellant and will probably be able to build primitive rockets to get the fuel to Mars orbit. From there it can be used for the journey to Earth and possibly fuel can be ferried to Earth Orbit.
It is important whether the additional mass required for a direct shot is 50% or 500% or 5000%
Thanks - I see it now!
I think the definition under Life Support is a bit restrictive but happy to post there if that's where you think economic issues should go.
Terraformer -
I have previously proposed that PV film be stretched between light weight tensors on Mars, above the dust damage height level. I am not sure we need protective coverings on Mars because the wind force is so low. Probably for Missions 1 and 2 we might be talking about importing encapsulated PV film but we should certainly experiment with unprotected lightweight film.
Once the colonies are established I think they can focus on producing solar reflectors to heat boilers - that won't require advanced technology.
Hop wrote:
"Even mild exponential growth like 4 or 5% will lead to dramatic quantities over time.
Human cleverness has increased amount of resources at our disposal. But this also has limits. If you read Murphy's blogs you will see he talks about thermodynamic limits to car efficiency, maximum amount of sunlight we can harvest, etc.
Earth is a finite body of resources. Murphy is absolutely correct that it can't sustain exponential growth forever. Sooner or later the growth curve will flatten and our growth will resemble logistic growth rather than exponential.
PGMs from asteroids is a possibility. I don't see mineral exports from Mars to earth ever making a profit.
If we drop enough LSD and chant a mantra, that will levitate a Noah's Ark to another planet."
Of course the Earth is finite but it is also very, very large. In tonnes it's:
6,585,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes
That's a lot of material.
I think the point I would make is that it is unlikely human population will continue at rates seen between 1800 and 2000. Everywhere - even places like Saudi Arabia where there is cultural subjugation of women - there has been a sharp reduction in the birth rate and that is likely to continue, with replacement of population becoming more of an issue in many places.
There are some absolute limits on how much someone can consume. A human being can only consume so many calories of food; there are only 24 hours in a day when you can wear clothes; even very rich people don't normally have more than 4 or 5 cars or own more than 3 or 4 homes.
On the other hand we can see that the capacity to produce could increase much faster than the capacity to consume of humanity. We're just playing catch up at the moment.
To take the most basic and important industry - agriculture - there is huge scope to increase food production through:
- Capture of moisture from the atmosphere in dry places to allow on site irrigation.
- Creating "fields in the sky" i.e. farm towers.
- Factory lab production of artificial "meat" (due to start next year for commercial sale I heard on the radio recently).
- Creation of artificial soil.
Even now, with no new technology, the scope for increasing food production in Africa is huge - you could probably increase production by a factor of three simply by bringing in commercial farming practices.
It depends what you mean by mineral exports. Certainly to begin with export of meteorites and regolith will general billions of dollars of business.
Did you understand the point about "Let's do it!" ? - it's not that the hippy-dippy wishing overcomes all problems...it's that establishing settlements on Mars will create a new reality that people on Earth will respond to.
I agree with Musk that getting people to Mars is doable within the next 10-20 years.