You are not logged in.
"Mars based equipment does not have to be energy efficient. Energy is plentiful and cheap." ???
What is this plenitful and cheap source of energy on Mars? How about we use whatever it is on Earth?
Bob
“assume a mature technology”
After 40 years it still costs about $10,000 per kilogram to low Earth orbit. This is still almost $300 per ounce. Getting to Mars and back would add enormously to this cost. Then what is the cost of mining and processing on Mars? How about a budget?
Then there are the questions of time, risk and scale.
Years would pass from sending a vessel to Mars to getting the payload back. This represent a very large capital cost—20% to 50% of the total investment.
This type of operation would require a monstrous capital investment all of which would be at risk should any element of this plan fail in any way.
There would be a huge initial investment. If one were able to say, “Invest in Mars mining for a 50% return per year; which is a heck of a lot better than the 10% you’ll get in Australia. That’ll be $120 billion for Mars, or $14 million for Australia.” Funding would not be a sure thing.
It would be very expensive to obtain prior assurance that the amount of accessible gold on Mars would be sufficient to support such an operation. Investors would very much want prior assurance.
Just about everybody will say: “Not at this time.”
Cold, cruel world.
Bob
“if gold does exist on Mars it will exist in a very pure form”
This is pure speculation. While nobody may have mined Mars, neither has anybody done the kind of geological and mineralogical mapping that’s been done on the Earth for many centuries by millions of people.
The costs of mining and extraction on Mars could well be far higher than on Earth where there is abundant water, oxygen, nitrogen and skilled labor of all descriptions.
Bob
“no rental costs, no land purchase costs” Since there’s no profitable alternative use for the land this is certainly correct.
“no licensing costs, no taxes, no environmental pollution control costs” This situation will probably last for about five minutes.
“no administrative costs” Whose going to provide all the management, design, logistics, sales, accounting, insurance, legal services, etc.?
“no shareholder dividends” Whose going to supply the capital?
“no labour or energy costs to speak of” Whose going to do the work? If robots were cheaper for mining on Mars, they’d be cheaper for mining on Earth. If energy is essentially free on Mars, why don’t we get it for free the same way on Earth?
It doesn’t sound like you’re talking about an industrial operation, but some activity in a computer simulation.
Bob
What is the cheapest one would imagine a roundtrip to Mars could cost? Spirit and Opportunity each cost about $500 million in 2008 dollars. If a roundtrip could be arranged for this amount, returning with ten tons of processed gold, the cost per ounce would be over $1,400. Such a low cost is not likely to be achieved in this century to put it mildly.
And the cost of extraction and processing has to be added to the $1,400. It’s hard to imagine that the cost of extracting and processing gold on Mars would be less than that cost on Earth. Martians are likely to be much more highly paid than Earth workers, Earthers don’t have to work in a near vacuum, and Earth has a huge infrastructure to support mining and processing gold, which will be lacking on Mars at least into the 22nd century.
Good plan except:
> The gold will have cost more to get on Mars than it would on Earth
> Gold will cost more to transport than its value.
Maybe you’ll make it up on volume.
Bob
It is naive to think that advanced ET would be dependent on our radio emissions as the sole or even primary means of ascertaining our existence. Consider what is very likely to occur with us in the next few years:
Cataloguing celestial bodies that are of a size, composition and temperature similar to that of Earth with
> NASA’s Kepler mission (scheduled to launch in 2009), SIM Planetquest and Terrestrial Planet Finder, and ESA’s Darwin project, scheduled for launch in 2015
> Ground based telescopes with the equivalent of primary mirror apetures in excess of 20 meters including the Giant Magellan Telescope (24 meters), the Thirty Meter Telescope and the European Extremely Large Telescope (42 meters). All scheduled for first light from 2016 to 2018.
Identifying indications of biology with NASA’s Terrestrial Planet Finder, ESA’s Darwin and ground based telescopes, all of which will have an increasing ability to identify gasses (such as oxygen, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide) indicative of biology.
Although cost, completion and capability estimates of incomplete or unbuilt projects are always dubious, it seems likely that many of the goals of these projects will be met; especially considering all of the various technologies, funding sources and involvement of many different nations and institutions. In the next 15 years or so we will see the fruition of some of the understanding and capabilities of 20th century physics and technology in indentifying:
> Earth sized planets with a temperature and composition similar to that of Earth around thousands of nearby stars.
> Biology of a similar character and on a similar scale to that of Earth around hundreds of nearby stars.
In the last seventy years we’ve seen the invention of radio astronomy, charged-couple devices, adaptive optics, interferrometry, and space based astronomy amongst many other very major developments.
It’s hard to conceive that 2008 represents the ultimate in human understanding of physics and in technological deployment. Even with the most sparing extrapolation of the capability of 20th century technology, by 2100 it seems likely that these detection capabilities will have increased by orders of magnitude, as has been the case in the last seventy years.
Since the number of stars increases with the cube of the distance from Earth (within about 5,000 light years) and radiation decreases with the square of the distance, a ten fold increase in detection capability results in a one-hundred fold increase in candidate stars. The Giant Magellan Telescope will produce images up to ten times sharper than the Hubble Space Telescope.
A hundred fold increase results in data for ten thousand times as many stars. Thus by 2100 we would expect identification of
> Earth sized planets with a temperature and composition similar to that of Earth around tens of millions of nearby stars—detection beyond a thousand light years from Earth.
> Biology of a similar character and on a similar scale to that of Earth around millions of nearby stars—detection hundreds of light years from Earth.
We can also expect some qualitative improvements such as the ability to detect chlorophyll, gases produced by metal working (active on Earth for more than 8,000 years), coal burning (>3,000 years) and industrial gasses such as as chloroform (1840s), gasoline (1850s), kerosene, naphthalene and benzene (1860s), and DDT (1870s).
If we will be able to do this, advanced ET should be able to do a lot more, but, at the least, ET should be able to determine from many thousands of light years away and from hundreds of millions of star systems:
> The size, temperature and composition of Earth
> The existence of widespread biology on Earth
> The presence of technology.
Without reference to radio at all.
Bob
I don’t see a large moon as being necessary for complex life to develop. Mars and Venus do not have large moons, but, as I understand it, have had climates at least as stable Earth’s for billions of years.
Also, I would think a likely abode for life would be large moons (perhaps Mars or even Earth sized) themselves orbiting gas giants. The large planet could be in the habitable zone or, if beyond, heat deficits might be supplied by radiation from the gas giants or tidal friction heating.
Earthlike moons orbitng gas giants might be much more common than planets that are Earthlike, and would entirely avoid the necessity for any moon orbiting the moon.
Bob
If Pigs Could Fly...
$10 x 10 billion people x 10 years = $1.2 trillion.
So what?
Nothing if it won’t happen, which it won’t.
The Mars Society website has a place for donations. Nearly every piece of literature sent out asks for donations. Hundreds of people are repeatedly appraised of the need and uses for donations every year at multiple conventions. In these ways something approaching a million people have been reached in the last 11 years.
Total donations have been far less than $10 million.
To reach the goal of a million dollars, you’d need to get these people (who are already interested) to give ten times as much. Keeping in mind, it’s harder to get the second dollar than the first.
And then you’d need to involve a thousand times as many people. Keeping in mind, that the second million people will be a lot harder to interest than the first million.
No non-profit has ever approached $100 billion (let alone $1.2 trillion) in income or endowment.
Even Bill Gates’ foundation has to struggle along on only about $40 billion.
Bob
Siberia has an area of about 10 million square kilometers. The Earth has a land area of about 150 million square kilometers. 10/150 = about 7%. One-fifteenth, not one-fourth.
Mars has an area of about 145 million square kilometers, but there are no oceans or other open bodies of water. Therefore 10/145 = about 7%. One-fifteenth, not one-fourth.
Bob
Commodore wrote: “While Isreal has (in theory) its own nukes, it doesn't have the hundreds required to completely destroy Iran.”
Israel began producing nuclear weapons in about 1968. According to published reports (Time magazine April 12, 1976 “The Plumbat Affair,” for instance) by the 1973 war they had about two dozen nuclear weapons deployed. That was 33 years ago; 33 years in which Israel has never felt anything but under extreme mortal threat from numerous, hostile and aggressive neighbors.
For about twenty years during that period the Israelis had a close working relationship with the apartheid government of South Africa and their nuclear program. Which suggests essentially unlimited access for the Israelis to raw materials necessary for nuclear weapons. The 1979 nuclear test detected by the US Vela satellite was probably a joint Israeli-South African operation.
Even if the Israeli rate of production never increased from 1973, the number of nuclear weapons in their possession today would approach two hundred. Several hundred seems more likely, except that one would wonder what Israel would do with several hundred nuclear weapons. After all, how many Arab cities are there?
The answer is that nuclear weapons don’t act as a deterrent unless one’s opponents know about them, know the doctrines for use, and really believe both. The Pollard case suggests that one opponent Israel intended to deter was the Soviet Union. Why else transfer some of Pollard’s results to the Soviet Union?
The Israeli nuclear doctrine ran something like this (“The Sampson Option” by Seymour Hersh 1990): Israel will respond with massive nuclear retaliation to a nuclear attack or a conventional invasion, which threatens Israel’s existence. Because of the difficulties of determining the precise identity of any perpetrators, and to encourage others to compel restraint on less rational actors, such retaliation will be made against all nearby states that Israel deems to partake in or to enable such an attack, including the Soviet Union.
In other words, “Never Again.”
The Israelis needed the bombs to deter the Soviet Union. Since the Soviet Union no longer exists, they’ve got plenty of bombs—hundreds--for the remaining hostile neighbors. From the Israeli point of view, Mutually Assured Destruction is very much alive.
Bob
RobertDyck wrote:
“Anyone who tries to dominate is the opponent and enemy of freedom and liberty”
Isn’t “freedom and liberty” redundant, or am I missing some difference?
“freedom means YOU don't tell them what to do in THEIR country”
Robert, taken together these too phrases seem to me to endorse a most immoral and unwise position, which I’m sure you don’t advocate.
History abounds with examples of nations interfering in other nation’s affairs (i.e., telling other people what to do in their own country) with results that I think nearly everyone would consider admirable, justified and even heroic. For instance,
Was it wrong of the British to ban the slave trade in 1807? And to cajole, threaten and even bribe other nations (Spain and Portugal) and groups to ban or refran from the slave trade? To police the ban by stopping, boarding, inspecting, and seizing the slave ships of other nations? To effect armed incursions of other countries, destroying slaving facilities, and freeing thousands of slaves? For no benefit, and considerable cost to the British? A policy entirely innocent of benefiting the national interest? Was all of this opposing freedom? Or was this a set of policies and series of acts among the perfectly virtuous pages in the history of nations?
And there are, perhaps, an even larger series of lamentable lack of virtue in human history, of so many times when other nations have failed to tell people of other countries what to do in their own country; have failed to act with force and violence. For instance,
Was it right for all of the other countries in the world to leave Rwanda alone only twelve years ago? When an average of 8,000 people a day were killed for being of the wrong tribe (or sympathizing with) for one hundred days. Was it right for the first world nations, other African nations, and the UN to leave Rwanda alone?
I think principles of the behavior of nations have to be much more nuanced than simply, Hands Off. I expect that you, too, agree.
Bob
if we'd help them wipe out the other big spacefaring civilization/coalition.
I think this is a ridiculous supposition. Any civilization capable of large scale interstellar travel would have to be centuries if not millennia ahead of us. Asking us to help them would be like the Kiwis asking for help from the penguins against the Japanese.
Bob
It seems to me that the idea that advanced ETs aren’t contacting us because we don’t play nicely with each other is ridiculous. Even assuming any technologically advanced biological species could exist without conflict (what a really dull world that would be), the tens of thousands of such species couldn’t all be completely homogeneous.
Some would have evolved from the equivalent of velicoraptor. Others, perhaps, would have more benign pedigrees. Some might be eco-freaks who couldn’t stand Mao’s undertaking to kill all the birds, and would effect an intervention to end the senseless slaughter. Other might be very curious to understand philosophical differences that resulted in organized mass killings. Or some might be curious just about philosophical positions.
Some might be altruistic wanting to bring the cure for cancer, schizophrenia and addiction to suffering humanity. “Just take this pill.” Others might want to convert us to the one true faith. Others might be sadistic or sexually perverted.
Some might have motives for contact that we can’t imagine.
What’s hard to credit is that none of the millions of groups of ETs would get off the couch and introduce themselves, whether politely or offensively.
Bob
I don't think it will be possible in this century to fly to Mars and back, with or without cargo, for less than a billion dollars. But I think you greatly underestimate the revenue that could be obtained from Mars rocks with good market control and good marketing. I also think you overestimate the size of the market—100 million people willing to pay $10 for a gram of Mars rock—a speck you can hardly see--I don’t think so.
Better to concentrate on serious, and relatively well to do, collectors and institutions.
The value of Mars rocks, as with Moon rocks and diamonds, is determined by their rarity. Rarity can be enhanced by peculiar characteristics and by historical provenance. The first rock brought back from Mars is likely to be more valuable than the one millionth. It, in fact, will hold value even if Mars rocks are ubiquitous and of little value.
Rocks taken from the site of one of the Viking landers will be more valuable. “Viking II sat on this actual rock,” or “Here is the rock that you see in this picture taken in 1976.” Geologically interesting or rare rocks will also have more value. One needs to sell not just any old Martian rock, but every rock has to be made special. In other words, market segmentation and price dis-crimination.
Only ten thousand individuals and institutions paying an average of two million dollars per kilogram would generate $20 billion dollars in revenue. And that would be for transporting ten tons of Mars rocks—forget about 100 tons.
Then one could approach the retail crowd: making the rocks special would be more difficult with these larger amounts, but certainly efforts can be made. Would it be possible to sell ten million people at an average price of $1,000 per kilogram—thus generating another $10 billion with the next cargo of ten tons?
$30 billion would cover NASA’s budget for two years.
Bob
Well since there are 16 ounces to the pound and 2000 of them to a short ton. That would if we could bring that much back from the surface of mars make a grand total of $16,960,000 for processed gold.
So the real question is not the return of the item but how much does it cost to get the equipment needed if sufficient ore quality and quantity worth refining since there is no cost other than to feed and to keep the crew alive...
Gold at $530 an ounce is not economic to sell from Mars to Earth. But what about the example of Moon rocks, which have sold for $2 million a gram?
Instead of bringing the tourist to Mars, bring Mars to the tourist (or collector).
Mars rocks should be able to fetch at least as much. Transport 500 kilograms from Mars to Earth, that’s 500 x 1000 x $2 million = $1 trillion, which would pay, not only for a very healthy Mars program, but a very healthy space program for many years.
No prospecting, no mining, no extracting, no processing, no mess, no fuss--just rocks.
Of course, there is the problem of diminishing returns.
Bob
I thought nanotechnology referred to manipulation at the molecular or even atomic level rather than herding molecules in great statistical herds. These guys sound like they’re just making smaller, lighter components.
Nanotech is better PR than miniaturization? Maybe BS should be the acronym.
Bob
For the benefit of someone running against you for President of the United States I would point out that 12 million jobs is about double the number of unemployed.
Also, it’s just not possible in a market economy to have zero unemployment. Joe might quit a particular job in disgust, take a few days off to cool off and relax, and then start looking for another job. After he finds the perfect job, there will be a few days while references are checked, approvals are secured, medical tests are completed, and other ducks are put in a row.
It may be two months form the end of one job to the beginning of another even when jobs are going begging and employers are desperate. The benefit, among others, is that people can quit when they want, and don’t have to start working until they want. In other words, people in a free economy are not slaves.
Such frictional unemployment may make up half the unemployment in today’s economy. This means that about nine million people with have to change jobs from whatever they are doing now to your public service jobs. This is assuming that have no concern about the particular qualifications of the 12 million you're hiring. Consider qualifications would made the transition much more difficult. And how will you pay all these people, assuming you’re not going to enslave them?
The most obvious way to solve both problems is to raise taxes to the extent that the economy will slow sufficiently that nine million people will be laid off. In other words, force people to buy subways and levitated rail road systems instead of what they want to buy, which might consist of noble things like buying poetry, education or medical care, but whatever they buy, it is now their choice.
70 cities with subways? By that I assume you mean metropolitan areas, but still, subways in Bakersfield and El Paso? With total populations under 700,000? Why not just use buses, which would be incredibly cheaper, more efficient, and would get done ten times as quickly?
“upgrading rail road and top that off with a National Amtrak passenger levitated rail road system”
Why not just let people take airplanes? It’s faster, cheaper and safer than railroads. How many “levitated rail road systems” actually work in the real world, not as big lab experiments? Zero?
Maybe at least one, probably many more, successful system would be a good idea before committing 12 million people to work on the things.
Vote for somebody other than Martian Republic—he’ll kick you out of your job, take all your money, and put you to work polishing railroad cars that run empty or don’t work.
Bob
You certainly don't sound too open minded yourself starting with the thread's title: "Discussion on TAMPERING with the truth."
I don't think these images prove anything about water, and certainly not about vegetation. If you take a lot of pictures in a complex geological environment, you'll get a lot of weird looking stuff. True on Earth; true on Mars.
By the way, where is the evidence of tampering?
Bob
“All labor on Mars should be performed by people who want to stay permanently for reasons other than wages. Given (sic) them room and board and a liveable (sic) social contract and they won't need a Terran bank account. “
“Get that notion out of your head... there is never, ever going to be a Mars colony until we” can pay the people who do the work.
Seriously, running an organization like the Mars Society with (mostly) unpaid volunteers is hard enough. But a permanent colony on Mars? Can’t you just see these people processing literally tons of gold, watching it being sent to Earth, and asking, “I’d like to help out my mother back on Earth. She’s had a stroke and needs more physical therapy then the system allows, she can’t afford the extra, and if she doesn’t get it, she’ll soon be an invalid for the rest of her life. Could you send her $5,000 on my account?”
And the answer, “No, that’s not part of our social contract; just keep on shoveling that ore.” I’d be surprised if our unpaid volunteer didn’t respond, “Well then you can take this job and shove it.” Or, perhaps, something more explicit. What about the guy who wants to send his kid to medical school back on Earth? And a million other things.
“Never.”
Bob
Do you have any idea how much it costs to prospect, mine and extract that much gold on the Earth? Be-sides, you will have to do more than “feed and to keep the crew alive.” You have to pay them.
The pay rate of Martian prospectors, miners, factory workers and administrative personnel is likely to be much higher than that of similar people on Earth. Perhaps by as much as two orders of magnitude. Besides which you don’t have to pay workers at an ore processing plant on Earth for the time they spend going to and from work, which, in any case, is likely to be much shorter than 18 months roundtrip. The training time will also be far less on Earth by as much two orders of magnitude.
Anybody have a profit and loss statement for an Earthly gold mining company? Try multiplying wages by 100 and see what happens to the bottom line.
Bob
The current retail cost of gold is about US$530 an ounce. Can anyone seriously believe that it could cost less than $530 per ounce to mine and process ore on Mars and then send it to Earth?
Bob
Mars has had a much different geological history than Earth as evidenced by the planet’s lack of a global magnetic field, and the apparent absence of plate tectonics for billions of years. The different geological history suggests to me that geothermal is a less likely source of energy even than on Earth, and that Mars is likely to have a less diverse suite of minerals on the crust than does Earth. A less diverse suite of minerals suggests that materials suitable for fission reactors are probably in less abundance than on Earth; not just fuel, but other materials for necessary components.
In any case, manufacturing a nuclear plant on Mars would be an immense industrial undertaking, requiring a very advanced industrial sector. Even on Earth nuclear reactors are very big projects.
Fusion power doesn’t exist today and may never work.
As for solar energy from photvoltaic cells: today, even on the Earth, the energy required to extract and transport the materials for solar panels, and manufacture, transport, install and maintain the panels; that energy approaches the total amount of energy retrieved from such photvoltaic cells. Solar cells are like batteries that only work in sunlight. On Mars there would be more difficulties around every aspect of extracting energy from such cells: extraction, transportation, manufacture, installation and maintenance; and, most importantly, solar insolation is about half that received on Earth. It seems to me that it would be a near miracle to come up with any substantial net positive energy output.
Solar is not a complete impossibility because it would be possible to use a more efficient method of extracting energy from the sun than photovoltaic cells: using solar as a source for heating fluids to provide heat, power industrial processes and to generate electricity using something like steam turbines. A colony on Mars should be able to manufacture and maintain a solar powered steam turbine electrical generating station much more readily than a nuclear reactor.
I don’t think wind power is a complete impossibility either, even though the density of the Martian atmosphere is less than one percent that of Earth. The energy in the wind varies with the cube of the speed of the wind and the first power of the density of the atmosphere. So if places could be found on Mars where the average wind speeds are about five times that of suitable wind power locations on Earth, the amount of energy that could be extracted could be about the same as on Earth. Lower Martian gravity may make the construction of wind turbines less demanding than on Earth, and there would be no problem with bird deaths on Mars, and less concern about defacing thousands of square kilometers of the landscape with the sight and sound of huge wind turbines.
There might be other possibilities such as might be provided by some use of the very reactive top surface layer of the planet.
Energy on Mars will be a problem, but it seems like there will be a very large number of approaches to solving the problem.
Bob