Posts by BWhite

BWhite · Human missions

I have wondered whether Mars should export gold jewelry, rather than simple gold. It would have to come with a certificate of authenticity. But I don't know what the market would justify.

A few meager grams of Mars gold (could there be isotope signatures to verify authenticity) could be the focal point of a jewelry item designed to allow the wearer to "make a statement" that he or she has personally contributed to making permanent settlement feasible.

Heck, just use a few grains of Mars sand set in jewelry made on Earth together with a design or logo that clearly shows your support for space settlement.

BWhite · Human missions

I recall reading a sci-fi novel (the author and title escape me at the moment) and in that book the most profitable lunar export was genuine "Moon ice" that elite high society types would use to cool their drinks.

If Dasani bottled water bothers Robert Dyck, how about paying $20,000 per pound for ice cubes from the Moon instead of $1.29 from the local corner party store or (almost) free from your own home freezer? :;):

Martian jewelry could well be a killer export item. Which is consistent with my earlier theme of brand value, marketing and endorsements as the route to profit in space.

BWhite · Human missions

The idea of selling fuel from Mars to the Moon is rather ironic. Moon advocates, including George W. Bush, are looking to get fuel from the Moon (somehow) to go to Mars.

I know, it tickles me also.

I recall Rand Simberg taking the position that we cannot possibly know whether anyone can make money selling lunar water in LEO until someone tries. . .

(I said NO WAY since getting buckets of Lake Michigan to LEO should not cost more than $1000 per pound using mass produced rockets) and then it occurred to me that if there is no lunar ice, Mars hydrogen could be very valuable for lunar development. Dont ship water, Luna has plenty of O2 and LH2 is hard to deal with. Thus, methane. Besides, Luna needs C.

Assume NO lunar ice. No easily extracted hydrogen on Luna.

Assume $1000 per pound to LEO. That means $5000 per pound on the surface of Luna (approximately) Made on Mars methane shipped with made on Mars rocket fuel would be worth $5000 per pound, delivered.

Edited By BWhite on 1104386601

BWhite · Not So Free Chat

So, in France, I am among the minority which would vote for Turkey in Europe, after all, geneticaly speaking, they are really similar to the Greeks...
Do not say this to a Greek. . . :;):
LO
Didn't Greeks spoke the same language as Trojans ?
With Alexander, didn't Greeks invade Turkey and ruled from Macedonia to Indus ?

I am not Greek, nor do I disagree. The Greek-Americans I do know, they would disagree most strenously.

BWhite · Human missions

Didn't the Aldridge Commission call upon the US Congress to clarify its position on space property rights?

Writing those rules will be the most significant geo-political football of the entire 21st Century, IMHO.

= = =

Selling stuff to other folks already "out there" is an altogether differnet ball game. My opinion is that shipping methane from Mars to Luna (burn with lunar O2 for water or as rocket fuel) may be the first profitable commodity to be traded,

Edited By BWhite on 1104383798

BWhite · Human missions

Follow up - - let me clarify my position.

Mining will be a terrific source of ancillary income.

If a settlement were out there somewhere and wanted to send stuff back to Earth for sale, platinum or whatever, there will be profit. However, I do not see how mining can easily justify going out there in the first place. The bankers just won't fund the necessary investment.

Space mining will also be a nasty cut-throat business, with rumours of "mother lodes" and price manipulation. Imagine sitting on 50 tonnes of mined platinum. Sell 20 at market price, then reveal your 30 tonnes held in reserve the day before your competitor tries to sell her 20 tonnes.

Price plummets, and your competitor cannot pay her bank loan.

= = =

Find a reason to settle, and funding to settle, and then use mining revenue as gravy or frosting on the cake so your operation can weather ups and downs. Also, hire some really really good options traders to support your operation and hedge your investments. :;):

Edited By BWhite on 1104383413

BWhite · Human missions

So, as it stands now space mining requires hitmen to take out corporate raiders? Could we please get out of the medieval age?

Would you trust the Enron guys not to try life threatening manuevers, if there were no legal recourse?

Care to buy some Vioxx? ???

= = =

Edit: The key would be to undermine your competitors without leaving fingerprints.

= = =

Robert, given your own figures, how many mining operations can be supported before commodity prices fall to a point that becomes unsustainable?

20 tonnes per year of platinum production can probably be absorbed without a substantial decline in price. What if 5 companies want to mine at different places? Forget "dirty tricks" or unethical conduct, how do you maintain price controls?

DeBeers is a great example. Diamonds remain expensive because DeBeers releases supply in a very controlled manner. If 10 companies each started mining for platinum, or any other metal, how will the first company make any money?

China subsidizes their miners and the US does not and suddenly its a trade war.

= = =

Back to ethics - - if someone discovered a diamond studded asteroid, do you doubt DeBeers would be very unhappy and might seek remedies?

Edited By BWhite on 1104380404

BWhite · Human missions

Mining an asteroid and sell its products on the world market would be in compliance with the Outer Space Treaty. The clause "there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies" gives space miners free access, but how do you prevent claim jumpers? Somehow I see someone attempting to land mining equipment on the same asteroid, and the first miner "accidentally" destroying the claim-jumper's equipment. That's what property rights are for; to prevent that sort of violence and loss of capital equipment.

This is part of why my hypothetical venture capitalist will not be willing to invest $5 billion or $10 billion or more funding your asteroid mine. Who do you sue, and where, if a competitor competes unfairly, like sending rocks on a collison course with your habitat?

Edited By BWhite on 1104377508

BWhite · Human missions

On the statistics of employment rates, two earner famiiles distort the figures.

If my wife works and we hire a nanny or pay professional day care, then 3 people show up as employed in the statistics. If my wife does not work, the nanny's work is still performed - - perhaps with better diligence by the children's own mother - - yet none of that makes it into the statistics.

People "employed" as prison guards or in the military do pump up the employment / unemployment statistics yet that hardly seems like a sign of economic health.

Americans are working harder and harder, yet the net worth of everyone except the elite wealthy is generally declining due to credit card debt and increased leverage of home equity.

= = =

Americans "live to work" but who is really collecting the honey these worker bees are producing?

Edited By BWhite on 1104356503

BWhite · Not So Free Chat

So, in France, I am among the minority which would vote for Turkey in Europe, after all, geneticaly speaking, they are really similar to the Greeks...

Do not say this to a Greek. . . :;):

BWhite · Human missions

There's got to be a way to fund the mission and still leave "Survivor" back on the island. We can't do that if we're completely reliant on advertising sponsors, because the only way to make everybody happy is to stage a show, not a mission of exploration.

In my opinion, a scout mission to prepare the way for permanent settlement of anywhere out there will garner HUGE ratings. Add: When its chapter one (or prolouge) of a story that is really about settlement, the public will demand serious treatment, IMHO.

"Exploration" to collect rocks and come home never to return? Yawn! Unless the bimbo-nauts are cute!

It's that Saganaut -vs- von Braunian -vs- O'Neillian stuff.

Edited By BWhite on 1104271550

BWhite · Human missions

Robert, I obviously agree with you.

The key is a multi-faceted approach that "makes money" in as many diverse ways as possible. Multi-dimensional money making.

Mining? Of course! Just don't expect mining to be enough all by itself.

Tourism? Of course! Just don't expect tourism to be enough by itself.

(Edit: And the political process needs to be played with a smooth touch. . .)

My own non-expert opinion is that permanent space settlement will offer HUGE opportunities for creating "killer brands" while a few scientists collecting rocks would fizzle in the Dasani or Nike arena.

By the way, Richard Branson is a brand value guru. Look for Virgin Galactic to make more money on branding than selling tickets on SpaceShipTwo.

Edited By BWhite on 1104267853

BWhite · Human missions

Robert, I do not really disagree with you on the underlying issues. But as a lawyer and not an engineer, I can say the world really is a very complicated place and most illogical if examined rationally.

(Edit: As a scientist, you must admit Dasani does sell, no matter how irrational it may seem to you, and me. Starbucks, by the way, really does make better coffee, or so I tell myself, every day. . .)

= = =

Corruption? Such an ugly word! :;):

If a US company started mining, the rest of the world would scream and demand a percentage of their "common heritage" - - $500 million per year isn't enough for the State Department to fight those battles, IMHO. If a Russian flag operation got going, the US State Department would start screaming about the need for international treaties to "regulate" such things before the Russkies ruled the heavens.

But if mining is performed ancillary to another activity, for example a UN Mars mission offsets costs by shipping methane to Luna (made with Sabatiers on Mars) then you have political allies and cover for the revenue generated.

You see, then its not about profit, its about saving taxpayer money. Doublespeak? Well, yeah. And your point is?

Edit: Also, some grandstanding politician somewhere in the world or in the US of A - - GOP-ers can visualize Eliot Spitzer, although I rather like him myself - - might well decide to confiscate assets of your company if your legal "T's" are not properly crossed, even if they change the rules mid-stream.

= = =

Dasani? See, I hit a nerve.

Imagine you are a Wall Street investment banker and two business plans are presented for your investment.

One is asteroid mining. Capital intensive and high risk with marginal profit, maybe. The other is put tap water in a funny bottle, spend a few million on advertising, and earn triple digit profits percentages.

Which do you choose? ???

For better or worse, creating "killer brands" - - Dasani, Coca Cola, Nike, Gap, Starbucks - - will make more money faster than almost any other business you can start up these days.

My 4 year old son likes to play a golf game on our PC. A few days ago he asked me, "Daddy, why does Tiger Woods have that funny mark on his cap?"

= = =

Nike, Reebok and Adidas together spend $2 billion per year on endorsements. That is four times the revenue stream that will arise from mining 20 tonnes of platinum.

Sticking a logo on a spacesuit will make money far faster and easier than mining or manufacturing. What is your downside expense? ZERO

Endorsement revenue or selling media rights to landings creates gross revenue with almost no added expense.

Edited By BWhite on 1104266170

BWhite · Human missions

Mining will be a terrific way to provide supplemental revenue yet I do not see sufficient income streams to expect mining and manufacturing to be the reason settlement (even robotic) is initiated. Besides, the political and legal hurdles remain undiminished. What about taxation of the revenue? Which government has soveriegnty over the miners? (What bank cases your customer's payments?)

In the 17th & 18th centuries (and before) agriculture and agricultural products were the mainstay of the economies of the West; In the 19th & 20th centuries industry (mining and manufacture) were on the cutting edge of making big profits;

In the 21st century, intangible and intellectual property is the fastest and easiest way to make money. Patents, copyrights and trademarks. Create a new iconic "killer brand label" and you can realize triple digit profit margins compared to actual investment capital. Green Giant veggies are grown by subcontractors and cherry-picked by buyers then put in Green Giant label cans. Little capital cost and little labor cost and big profit margins.

The difference between Dasani water and tap water? About $1.00 per bottle. ;-)

Platinum and silver and other options arbitrage will earn you more money than mining. You mine that asteroid and the folks at the CBOT will skim your profit. Heh! That said, how about mining a platinum asteroid and demanding pay-offs to refrain from dumping hundreds of tonnes of platinum on Terra?

Find diamonds and crack DeBeers, etc. . .

Thus, no one will let you mine that asteroid (citing taxes, regulations, national security considerations, etc. . . as the pretext) without consent of the big mine owners here on Earth.

= = =

If you really want to mine asteroids, Russia is where you should go. Share the profits with Putin and offer to buy lots and lots of cheap Russian rockets and maybe you are in business.

Edited By BWhite on 1104256436

BWhite · Human missions

If you were able to send to Earth 20 metric tonnes of pure platinum per year, that would be 14.67% of worldwide production. That wouldn't affect the price beyond normal market fluctuations. At today's price, that's $27.2 million per metric tonne or $544 million per year.

$544 million per year in GROSS revenue. And that will buy you two Delta IVH shots.

= = =

Not a bad side business if you have other reasons to be there, but hardly a reason to go in the first place.

Edited By BWhite on 1104213739

BWhite · Human missions

I'm not particularly worried about the "big crunch". With a 10% base unemployment rate widely regarded as "normal", today's advanced industrial economies appear to be suffering from an endemic labour surplus rather than the other way around. Given ever increased mechanization and rising productivity, I see no reason for this gap not to widen either, especially without a corresponding increase in demand.

Shorter work weeks and longer annual vacations also help "solve" this issue. And if we include the incarcerated and those in the military, US unemployment figures begin to approach the EU figures.

The US-ian "right" believes it the height of evil to tamper with the bell-curve that charts wealth distribution, however I believe fewer ultra-rich and fewer poor, with more in the middle makes for a more stable society.

= = =

Do we live to work, or work to live?

Edited By BWhite on 1104213430

BWhite · Not So Free Chat

Could a nuke placed in the right spot on a fault line cause such a disaster? Could this be terrorism?

My understanding is a firm "NO"

I read somewhere that the island of Sumatra moved. The whole freakin' island. Even thousands of our H-bombs are not THAT powerful.

BWhite · Not So Free Chat

Someone at the space dot com http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Ca … t=]message board asserts 2013 and 2021 are our windows of opportunity to whack this asteroid.

Whether or not this is true, I would prefer whacking it before it began its final orbit towards a rendevouz with Earth.

BWhite · Human missions

Right now Platinum is worth $800 per ounce; that's 27 million dollars per tonne.
-- RobS

370 tonnes will GROSS about $10 billion dollars, right? So what is the NET profit on that ten billion dollar investment?

Edited By BWhite on 1104189286

BWhite · Not So Free Chat

Well, okay. . .

In the meantime, a light ion drive recon vessel can still match orbits and take a gadzillion photos to better choose where to hit the thing. For a few hundred million dollars or less, that mission could fly within a few years.

BWhite · Not So Free Chat

I prefer the idea of sticking with chemical engines if at all possible for the interceptors, ion engines are awfully slow.
The USAF has a warhead called the B83, which weighs in at a little over two tons, and has a yeild of 1.2MT on the high setting. It is designed to attack hardend surface bunkers/silos and fused for ground detonation, so it already has some impact resistance inherint to its design. The prime canidate and the most powerful weapon in the current arsenal. "Plan B" would be the W88 used on the Trident-II missile, which has a yeild of 0.5MT and is already tailored for in spare carriage (as it rides an ICBM). I wonder if the whole Trident-II warhead bus could be carried whole and unmodified to the target.

Delta II with an additional Centaur and a B83 or W88?

Less than $500 million excluding the bomb, which we surely have plenty in stock.

Heh! No big deal.

Edited By BWhite on 1104169224

BWhite · Not So Free Chat

I'm wondering what type of weapon in our arsenal would be appropriate to blast it. Most of our warheads are either compact quarter-megaton bombs for cruise missiles or MIRVs, or else old huge multiton multimegaton monsters, which unfortunatly don't have all the safeties that modern bombs do.

That seems like a legitimate reason to practice.

Hit it 10 - 15 years in advance with back up weapons for every subsequent orbital cycle. SMART-1 cost less than $100 million. (Too small, but it gives a reference point)

Build 5 or 6 solar ion delivery vehicles for use around 2016 or 2018. Put them all in the same orbit as the target.

Whack it after it passes by Earth and chase it with follow up weapons as needed.

= = =

$5 billion would seem more than sufficent enough to deliver several weapons.

Edited By BWhite on 1104168133

BWhite · Not So Free Chat

If you plan ahead far enough, ion drive would seem ideal for moving some H-bombs nice and close, perhaps with a solid fuel penetrator rocket motor to be ignited at a range of maybe 50 miles to deliver the H-bomb.

Maybe this is a reason to build two JIMO class vessels.

Good practice would be to orbit a solar ion surveyor to match orbits and study it up close as well as "tag" 2004 MN4 with a transponder for more accurate trajectory calculations.

A Deep Space-1 or SMART-1 class mission using a chemical stage to approximate the orbit of 2004 NM4 with ion drive to fine tune a matching trajectory as close as desired.

$250 million? We could get started right now.

= = =

Add:

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/images/2004mn4or.gif]Orbital map courtsy of JPL

This guy will pass Earth many times between now and 2029.

Tag it with a solar ion companion in the next few years - - this doubles up the benefits by surveying the heck out of an NEO and also accomplishes a practice run on the calculations needed to whack it with some H-bonbs if necessary.

= = =

Calling our orbital mechanics experts!

How difficult would it be to position a solar ion drive robotic craft on a parallel orbit within 100 miles of this asteroid?

Can we do a simple transfer orbit? I see this as being like a "stern chase" from naval warfare - - use solar ion to accelerate from behind and slowly close the distance until the orbits are nearly identical.

Edited By BWhite on 1104167521

BWhite · Not So Free Chat

If anti-US forces could aim it, Diego Garcia would be a prime target, IMHO. And a not-so-near miss could still swamp the entire island chain.

I have been off-line since Christmas morning and just read about the Indonesian quake and tsunami this evening. Anyone know whether Diego Garcia suffered damage in the recent tsunami? The average elevation appears to be 4 feet above sea level and 40 foot walls of water were moving about the Indian Ocean.

Edited By BWhite on 1104123426

BWhite · Interplanetary transportation

When sending low value fuel http://www.astronautical.org/pubs/vol40i3Feat.htm]to LEO - - failure is an option.

Using your Rolls Royce RLV 80% of the time for slogging fuel will increase capital costs significantly.

Since this proposed launch vehicle would carry fluids, including water to re-supply the International Space Station, it is named for Aquarius, the water carrier. Twenty percent, or perhaps even one-third of all Aquarius launches would be expected to fail. This is roughly the fraction of electric power lost during transmission from power plants to consumers, and roughly the fraction of water lost while flowing through aqueducts, as Figure 1 illustrates. Loss factors of these magnitudes were doubtless known from the beginning for these systems, and were permitted in the early development of the Atlas missile later developed into a launch vehicle. Reducing the losses in these systems might be possible through the use of superconductors for power transmission or by constructing covers for the aqueducts, but these improvements are too expensive to implement at present. Improvements were, of course, made to launch vehicles to improve reliability, but costs increased considerably along with success rates. On the other hand, for a payload of low intrinsic value, like water or fuel, it is cost-effective to accept certain losses.

Edited By BWhite on 1103860633

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1601 Re: Human missions » Ordinary people...? » 2004-12-30 12:55:02

#1602 Re: Human missions » Ordinary people...? » 2004-12-30 09:12:38

#1603 Re: Human missions » Ordinary people...? » 2004-12-29 23:33:09

#1604 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous » 2004-12-29 23:23:35

#1605 Re: Human missions » Ordinary people...? » 2004-12-29 23:11:53

#1606 Re: Human missions » Ordinary people...? » 2004-12-29 23:08:42

#1607 Re: Human missions » Ordinary people...? » 2004-12-29 22:11:35

#1608 Re: Human missions » Ordinary people...? » 2004-12-29 21:30:43

#1609 Re: Human missions » ESA - Aurora Program » 2004-12-29 15:40:24

#1610 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous » 2004-12-29 10:49:28

#1611 Re: Human missions » Ordinary people...? » 2004-12-28 15:31:06

#1612 Re: Human missions » Ordinary people...? » 2004-12-28 15:02:59

#1613 Re: Human missions » Ordinary people...? » 2004-12-28 14:18:35

#1614 Re: Human missions » Ordinary people...? » 2004-12-28 11:50:02

#1615 Re: Human missions » Ordinary people...? » 2004-12-28 00:01:13

#1616 Re: Human missions » ESA - Aurora Program » 2004-12-27 23:56:15

#1617 Re: Not So Free Chat » Tsunami in Asia » 2004-12-27 23:35:05

#1618 Re: Not So Free Chat » 2004 MN4 » 2004-12-27 18:19:49

#1619 Re: Human missions » Ordinary people...? » 2004-12-27 17:13:09

#1620 Re: Not So Free Chat » 2004 MN4 » 2004-12-27 12:39:53

#1621 Re: Not So Free Chat » 2004 MN4 » 2004-12-27 11:39:59

#1622 Re: Not So Free Chat » 2004 MN4 » 2004-12-27 11:18:45

#1623 Re: Not So Free Chat » 2004 MN4 » 2004-12-27 10:53:11

#1624 Re: Not So Free Chat » 2004 MN4 » 2004-12-26 22:39:20

#1625 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Earth to LEO - discuss » 2004-12-23 21:56:05

Board footer