Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

srmeaney · 2005-06-01 05:24:42

So you want to fund a Mars program with debt. Shaded of Enron. Many crooks have created shell corporations with limited liability for the purpose of incurring debt they have no intention of repaying. The most probable outcome of such a plan is to create media releases to get the public excited, lure investors, create massive debt while the founders of the shell corporation take substantial dividends for their own pocket, then at some point the shell corporation declares bankruptcy and the investors are screwed.

No, the Commonwealth of Mars would fund it based on its own mineral wealth-Spent as an investment in its own future. We've had this discussion before. It's the only way to fund Colonization. Colonization will require two hundred million billion dollars over a hundred years so that ten million people can go to Mars and become the citizens of the Commonwealth of Mars.
You talk about starting over, Mars must be it's own Nation prior to Colonization or you can kiss peace and prosperity goodby.They get a government of Mars from day one and the earth economy gets two hundred million billion dollars worth of Colonization contracts. PS What bankruptcy? Ethical nations pay off their national debt and they get there by building a healthy society and strong economy. You also talk about the problems experienced by Earth Nations. The Commonwealth of Mars will have one advantage. It will not take imports from other nations beyond the Colonization contrtacts. As an Exporter of refined exotic Minerals and "Martian intelectual property", The economy of Mars will recover. And in doing so, we will have helped in the economic rebuilding of a number of failed Earth Economies.

About the only problem will be China. Will it allow it's own citizens to become nationals of a new nation?

Big priority: A building constructed from modular components to assemble a series of 20m sided A-frames. With three such A-Frame triangles (about what will break down into a single well packed cargo lander) an assembly shed segment about twent meters long can be built. This will allow the assembly of large frames that require suspension above the ground.
-Small Multi-story structures (multi level Transhab constructs still need an outer wall).
-multi stage buildings (a hydroponics hothouse/aquaculture shed) where we move the A-Frame as we go.
-Large rovers, Acetelyne powered biplane.
With about five of these assembly shed units a shed 100m in length can be built. Here we can assemble and repair very large structures.
- Zeppelin.
Or perhaps we just want a modular stilt house that can be continuously expanded (and keeps us off the permafrost).

RobertDyck · 2005-06-01 08:27:12

As I said, the triple point of water is 6.12 millibar, which means pressure above that can support liquid water. Boiling pressure is lower the closer temperature gets to the triple point, but you don't need a lot of pressure. Earth at sea level is 1013.25 millibar. Mars atmosphere measured by Mars Pathfinder was 6.77-7.08 millibar. Pressurizing to 34.49 millibar is 5.635 times triple point pressure but is still only 0.5 pound per square inch. On Earth we use high pressure to push something up a pipe because high gravity requires it. Asteroid gravity is very weak so low pressure is all you need. Are you claiming that tens of metres of frozen asteroid amalgam can't withstand 0.5 psi?

Palomar · 2005-06-01 08:39:50

As I said, the triple point of water is 6.12 millibar, which means pressure above that can support liquid water. Boiling pressure is lower the closer temperature gets to the triple point, but you don't need a lot of pressure. Earth at sea level is 1013.25 millibar. Mars atmosphere measured by Mars Pathfinder was 6.77-7.08 millibar. Pressurizing to 34.49 millibar is 5.635 times triple point pressure but is still only 0.5 pound per square inch. On Earth we use high pressure to push something up a pipe because high gravity requires it. Asteroid gravity is very weak so low pressure is all you need. Are you claiming that tens of metres of frozen asteroid amalgam can't withstand 0.5 psi?

*Robert, you are amazing.

--Cindy

srmeaney · 2005-06-01 08:51:30

Perhaps the mother ship alters its course to stop at an Earth-Moon LaGrange point for another set of colonists. This way, tiny capsules (t/Space sized) can carry settlers from Earth to LEO/L1 and the colony ship and those same capsules are used to land on Mars while the six month journey is made feasible by living on board a larger ship
That is as long as you don't have to overhaul the larger ship, when a few small capsules of replacement parts might not be enough. It could still be effective if it could go for several trips without need for larger maintenance work, but having an engine to get into Earth orbit would make that one easier.

Spaceplane... Capsules are financially inefficient.

RobertDyck · 2005-06-01 08:53:02

srmeaney, the federal government of the United of America will not permit a sovereign government on Mars or any other celestial body until it has strength. History of the U.S. is that it only respects strength. Not good, it violates many of the founding principles of the U.S. constitution, but true. The U.S. military wants to maintain dominance over space because that's the high ground. Military thinking views holding the high ground as maintaining a strategic advantage. This means the U.S. will want to retain ownership of Mars until a Mars colony is able to force independence. It may not require a violent revolution like the War of Independence, but perhaps a show of organized strong government with unique culture and ability to defend itself like Canada when it separated from England. This means you have to build the colony first, establish the Commonwealth of Mars later.

That said, founding anything on debt is flawed. You don't understand what "bankruptcy" means. That means the debtor simply refuses to repay what he/she borrowed. There are many organizations that abuse this, they borrow money without any intention of repaying it. That's fraud but bankruptcy laws permit it. Enron found there are limits, but executives built multi-million dollar houses in a state whose laws do not permit ceasing someone's home upon bankruptcy. The corporation was dissolved, but suppliers who provided goods through credit got screwed as well as investors. Bankruptcy laws state suppliers get paid first, then bank loans, and share holders get paid last. If there's fraud then directors on the board are personally financially liable after investors, but as I just said some states do not permit taking their home.

So who do you expect this Commonwealth to borrow money from? What assurances do they have that the corporation that is the Commonwealth won't waste their money, build multi-million dollar homes for directors, then declare bankruptcy?

Fledi · 2005-06-01 09:20:30

Spaceplane... Capsules are financially inefficient.

Not if they're reusable, wings are not a must to be cost efficient.

BWhite · 2005-06-01 09:28:21

Spaceplane... Capsules are financially inefficient.
Not if they're reusable, wings are not a must to be cost efficient.

A small capsule used for Earth to LEO, then attached to a cycler ship, then dropped on Mars, one way, might very well be cheaper than building a dedicated Mars spaceplane IF the number of incoming settlers is not high enough to justify frequent flights.

An idle spaceplane bleeds money.

srmeaney · 2005-06-01 09:34:30

srmeaney, the federal government of the United of America will not permit a sovereign government on Mars or any other celestial body until it has strength. History of the U.S. is that it only respects strength. Not good, it violates many of the founding principles of the U.S. constitution, but true. The U.S. military wants to maintain dominance over space because that's the high ground. Military thinking views holding the high ground as maintaining a strategic advantage. This means the U.S. will want to retain ownership of Mars until a Mars colony is able to force independence. It may not require a violent revolution like the War of Independence, but perhaps a show of organized strong government with unique culture and ability to defend itself like Canada when it separated from England. This means you have to build the colony first, establish the Commonwealth of Mars later.

No, you do not. It has only been done that way in the past because the world is built on 'plunder and occupy then get recognition'.

While I am quite aware of the US Military's dreams of Orbiting Mass Drivers and singular Dominion over the Universe, Mars does not need a military to be strong. The Government of Mars could bring the USA to a dead end over night with one singe action. Invite the People of the USA to become part of a Stellar Commonwealth. You get to govern yourself and the Laws by which all live must be voted on every four years so they represent what the majority want. That should have considerable appeal for all those folks who are so angry at their own government that they no longer vote.

Which is of greater benifit in the long run:

Several (hundred passenger) space planes (used to provide a contracted free transport service for two hundred years) and a ten thousand colonist space station/transport propelled by nuclear propulsion to get ten million to mars and drop to Mars surface using six passenger Crew Emergency Vehicles (The Space Colonies themselves will require two hundred year life spans and would go on to become 'space colonies' in their own right as they retire after fifty years to space tourism and space colonization).

or

six crew inflatable transhab with nuclear propulsion at one end and CEV at other and even though we can send as Many, we leave no infrastructure in Space itself for a Space Faring Civilization to develop.

A small capsule used for Earth to LEO, then attached to a cycler ship, then dropped on Mars, one way, might very well be cheaper than building a dedicated Mars spaceplane IF the number of incoming settlers is not high enough to justify frequent flights.
An idle spaceplane bleeds money.

Space planes will never be idle. Takes almost a mars year to load ten thousand on a space habitat. Space habitat one leaves and start loading space habitat two. Space Planes will need to fly once a week into Earth-Moon Docking point along with two thousand new CEVs for the next wave of Mars landings.

They will have to knock out CEV's Like Toyotas off an assembly line...two million of them over a hundred years.

Grypd · 2005-06-01 11:26:32

srmeaney, the federal government of the United of America will not permit a sovereign government on Mars or any other celestial body until it has strength. History of the U.S. is that it only respects strength. Not good, it violates many of the founding principles of the U.S. constitution, but true. The U.S. military wants to maintain dominance over space because that's the high ground. Military thinking views holding the high ground as maintaining a strategic advantage. This means the U.S. will want to retain ownership of Mars until a Mars colony is able to force independence. It may not require a violent revolution like the War of Independence, but perhaps a show of organized strong government with unique culture and ability to defend itself like Canada when it separated from England. This means you have to build the colony first, establish the Commonwealth of Mars later.
No, you do not. It has only been done that way in the past because the world is built on 'plunder and occupy then get recognition'.

It is not the world that is built on "plunder and occupy" it is the people. Still people change and with luck we will get over this, but right now and with the recent history and the state we find the world in it means it will be a long while before this happens. pity

While im quite aware of the US Military's dreams of Orbiting Mass Drivers and singular Dominion over the Universe, Mars does not need a military to be strong.

The US is not the only country in the world that plans to increase its prescence in space but for the US it has the problem that these other countries are catching up to the USA quick in science and financial power. If it wishes to appear to be a superpower it has to have the ability to show power all across the world and still defend its assets. At the moment for the USA its dominance of military space is giving it this advantage. It has to protect this. Still in historic terms there has been really too effective ways that colonisation has happened. One was for commercial benefit of the host nation and the other was as a result of military technical improvement allowing for the host nation to expand.

It seems to go in waves with a military rivalry that results in an improved transportation method that then allows commercial benefit which then begets military involvement with another rivalry and then to commercial again, each time the transportation improves. And with improved transportation you get people able to more freely move and this means colonisation.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-01 11:39:08

Just an example of that changing face:

Iran Makes Ballistic Missile Breakthrough

Iran announced Tuesday it had successfully tested a new solid fuel motor for its arsenal of medium-range ballistic missiles, a technological breakthrough that sparked fresh alarm in Israel.

Grypd · 2005-06-01 11:51:15

Grypd, if a cycler is tracking a free return orbit (more or less) being "full" or empty" would seem largely irrelevant. Mars orbital capture and landing will require delta V - - going back to Earth's vicinity will be "free" - - no?
Solar thermal rockets (for example) can be used to incrementally adjust trajectories to remain "free return" meaning fuel requirements are minimal.
As far as re-using rockets, what about landing RL-10 propelled payloads on the Mars surface, refurbish the engines and send them back to Earth?
Ummm, free-return is not "free" by any means, free is simply referring that you are letting the suns' gravity do alot of the work so that you can depart from Mars at any time without any extra fuel compared to regular HTO. You still have to burn considerable fuel to leave Mars orbit.
No Bill, the vehicle used on the Mars-to-Mars Orbit and back must be reuseable AND stationed on Mars. This is the only way to sufficently leverage Martian propellant production in order to hold down the per-sortie mass of each cargo trip.
By http://courses.ncssm.edu/math/TCMConf/T … t.pdf]free return I mean a trajectory that arrives in the vicinity of Mars and then Earth using gravity assists only. Such creatures exist but are difficult for Mars because of certain peculiarities in the Mars orbit. Aldrin cycler is another term that is used.
Tiny adjustments can be made by solar ion or solar thermal during the long passages between Earth and Mars and at Mars the colony simply does not stop, or even slow down - - one way settlers re-enter small capsules for aerobraking, aerocapture and landing while the more luxurious mother ship keeps going, with no aerobraking.
Perhaps the mother ship alters its course to stop at an Earth-Moon LaGrange point for another set of colonists. This way, tiny capsules (t/Space sized) can carry settlers from Earth to LEO/L1 and the colony ship and those same capsules are used to land on Mars while the six month journey is made feasible by living on board a larger ship.
With a genuine free return trajectory, the fuel needs are minimal to none. Mars Direct free returns are chosen based on propulsion failure.
= = =
The linked exercise is to design a lunar free return, defined as the ability to return from the Moon without any propulsive engines burns after the trans-lunar insertion burn.
A Mars free return would return a spacecraft to Earth, after a Mars fly-by without propulsive engine burns.
= = =
A http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4eve … .html]2014 Mars free return trajectory that assumes main engine failure, thus very little propulsion is needed so that attitude control thrusters are sufficient.
Longuski and graduate student Masataka Okutsu discovered that the safest route to take would be one that permitted a quick return trip, via Venus, in case of an accident that forced the Mars landing to be aborted. The Martian gravity would bend the spacecraft's trajectory, hurtling it toward Venus, where another gravity assist would guide the ship to Earth. Because of the gravity-assisted trajectories, the spacecraft could make the return trip with only minor attitude adjustments from small thrusters, even if its main engine were disabled, Longuski says.
Using solar thermal, doing continuing burns between Earth & Mars, fuel consumption would be miniscule.

There will still be a fuel/supply need that could be fueled by water and chemical extraction by asteroidal mining. There is also the possibility of supplying the cyclers with breathable air and water. Even with a reasonably free return there will still be a fuel use and the craft that have latched on to them will also likely need a resupply to replace losses.

The asteroidal miners that this method envisages will be automated processors and they could have there production collected by automated means too. There is nothing to stop a few robotic "tankers" going from asteroid to asteroid deploying new miners and siphoning off the previously dropped miners and delivering this to Mars area space. With an effective permanently based Mars shuttle these could be collected and the supplies not used by the shuttle or Cycler can be dropped off in Earth orbit.

It comes down to economics and an earth TSTO or SSTO will have a very good passenger capacity but not necassarily a good cargo capacity. The economics of resupplying from C type asteroids the consumables of the cyclers and any station in Earth orbit, plus Mars shuttles and even manned Moon bases is very close.

RobertDyck · 2005-06-01 19:36:43

Discussions about space always devolve into U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. military doesn't seem to understand, being a superpower is not compatible with freedom and liberty. Iraq is a prime example; Washington is imposing a U.S. style government initially with hand-picked politicians but they will be replaced with elections that are carefully controlled by Washington to ensure results are what Washington wants. This isn't any different than the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Remember, as soon as the Soviet Union said it wouldn't use military force in Eastern Europe those countries kicked out their Soviet-style governments, Yugoslavia broke-up and Eastern Germany unified with Western Germany. Ronald Regan called the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire"; do Americans want their country to be the Evil Empire?

Perhaps an analogy from Star Wars: Episode 3. Supreme chancellor Palpatine created a state of emergency by supporting a trade alliance to mount a war of rebellion. He used that to enact emergency powers that transferred authority from the senate to himself and eliminate civil rights. When supreme chancellor Palpatine declared the state of emergency to be permanent, that the republic was now an empire and he himself as the emperor, senator Amidala said "This is the sound of the end of liberty - thunderous applause".

As for Iran: Russia sold a nuclear power plant to Iran, America didn't like it. Now George W. is threatening to invade Iran to take that reactor away. Russia could not possibly stand for that, such an invasion could lead to World War 3. Remember when America asked the U.N. Security Council to declare war on Iraq, not only did the Security Council say no, the president of the Council said if America invaded anyway the U.N. may have to take action to stop it. Luckily the U.N. did not declare war on America. It's been more than 2 years since the war against Iraq and George W. has been threatening to do the same thing to Iran. You wonder why Iran considers it necessary to prepare its military to defend itself? Russia did offer to send U.N. inspectors into Iran to ensure there are no nuclear weapons; an action I'm sure Iran wouldn't like but it is in Russia's best interest to ensure that reactor isn't used for weapons. After the Iraq war it was discovered U.N. inspectors were correct about Iraqi weapons. U.N. inspectors were good at their job. The bottom line: do not act surprised that countries America threatens don't lie idly by with their proverbial throat exposed. If you threaten a country their response will be to strength their defences. If you don't want them to increase military strength then don't threaten them.

Getting back to Mars, if the U.S. doesn't object to Mars settlers being independent then we could establish a Mars colony quickly. The trick is to ensure it's a profitable venture from the beginning.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-01 20:05:40

"The U.S. military doesn't seem to understand, being a superpower is not compatible with freedom and liberty. Iraq is a prime example; Washington is imposing a U.S. style government initially with hand-picked politicians but they will be replaced with elections that are carefully controlled by Washington to ensure results are what Washington wants. This isn't any different than the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe......."

Oh please Robert, I would not be surprised to hear this kind of stupid liberal-dreamworld drivvel from Martian Republic, but you? Haven't you at least the notion that three large contiguous paragraphs of radical leftist nonsense, which comprise >90% of your post, that don't have a single thing to do with space travel other then the first and last sentences don't belong in this thread?

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-01 20:55:08

Now that the backup is complete and the board is open again...

A Mars colony being profitable? From the beginning? What in the world are you talking about? Thats obviously, plainly, clearly impossible nonsense... the new Martians simply don't have anything to offer the home planet of comperable worth compared to the investment of planting the colony to begin with.

RobS · 2005-06-01 21:20:54

My dear srmeaney,allow me to introduce you to a very useful word. . . quadrillion. "Two hundred million billion" is another way of saying 200 quadrillion. Trillion is a thousand billion; quadrillion, by the way, is a thousand trillion. (At least, in American English; in British English billion, trillion, and quadrillion are I believe a thousand times bigger.)

Where do you get this figure of 200 quadrillion dollars? If you think that's how much it will cost to put a colony of 10 million on Mars, think again; you just spent 200 billion dollars per person!

The Earth's current gross planetary product is 32.3 trillion, of which the United States produces 10 trillion. If you assume this will increase a lot over a century and multiply by 1000 (instead of by 100) then perhaps the twentieth century will see a total economic output of 32.3 quadrillion dollars. That's only 15% of the amount you want to spend on Mars!

Perhaps you should try a different formula for calculating the cost.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-01 21:32:01

Spaceplane... Capsules are financially inefficient.
Not if they're reusable, wings are not a must to be cost efficient.
A small capsule used for Earth to LEO, then attached to a cycler ship, then dropped on Mars, one way, might very well be cheaper than building a dedicated Mars spaceplane IF the number of incoming settlers is not high enough to justify frequent flights.
An idle spaceplane bleeds money.

Noooo no Bill, you really really have to get away from expendables if we're talking colony building... a reuseable Mars-to-LMO-and-back vehicle is non-negotiable. You could easily keep a small number of such vehicles quite busy hauling cargo and colonists down from the ships and fuel back up for them if you don't mind leaving cargo in orbit for a little while.

It very probobly wouldn't be an airplane either, and would probobly look and operate something like the DC-X, except burning Methane instead of Hydrogen most likly.

RobS · 2005-06-01 21:36:11

Regarding US foreign and military policy, I am not sure how relevant it is to our discussion. The military has been interested in the "high ground" in terms of the skies, but it has yet to figure out a cost-effective way to militarize low earth orbit and it has hit rather fierce domestic resistance to plans to do so. It is not clear the moon is a strategic asset in defending the United States from attacks, except maybe protecting it against Romulans and the Borg. It certainly isn't a useful platform for defending the US against North Korea or Iran or even China.

That's even more true of Mars. The moon and Mars may acquire strategic importance in the 22d century or 23d century if we have hundreds of millions of people in space. But they are about as strategically important now (and any time in this century) as Australia was to Europe in the eighteenth century (no offense meant to Australians).

Frankly, the much bigger danger to Mars exploration is this new law that bans technology transfer. It is threatening the use of ISS as a platform for international cooperation. An ideal way to lower the cost of a Mars mission would be to pool resources and build different parts in different places. Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and Russia all have talented and experienced engineers and companies that could contribute different equipment or entire vehicles to a Mars exploration system. But if technology sharing is banned, everyone will have to build their own equipment. I would much prefer the approach of IBM to Mac, as it were, in this case. IBM licensed its technology widely. Let different companies internationally build, for example, interplanetary transit vehicles within certain specifications and with a certain standard of technology that they can always improve on. But if cutting-edge technology can't be shared, we either go to Mars with 1990s technology (that isn't cutting edge any more, and can be shared) or only one country can do the bulk of the effort.

A comment was also made about the United States claiming Mars. The US landed on the moon and didn't claim it, and reputiated the idea that anyone could or should claim the moon. I don't think the US will claim Mars. More likely, its initial exploration will follow the model of Antarctica, with different countries building bases near each other at a Martian McMurdo or leasing space at the same.

-- RobS

RobertDyck · 2005-06-01 21:59:58

My single-paragraph post got lost during the backup. GCNRevenger, it's not drivvel but I did say you have a valid point about staying on topic. It was Norse culture for young people (in their early 20s) to leave and establish a new colony at a frontier location. The point was to get away from parents, they were independent from the beginning. The point was whether we can establish an independent colony without U.S. government demanding jurisdiction. If we can, then it's just a matter of sound financial management.

I did say I expect there will be people willing to sell their home and spend their entire life savings for a ticket to Mars. Transporting settlers to Mars will be a profitable business if managed right. Operating a frontier town to support immigrants on Mars will be simple frontier economy. Initially it will be self-sustaining without a lot of export to Earth, but asteroid mining will have exports to Earth immediately. Mars can support asteroid mining more cost effectively than Earth, so I see this as a financial reason to go to Mars. Then there's science data that can be sold to universities and research institutes.

RobertDyck · 2005-06-01 23:01:25

More likely, its initial exploration will follow the model of Antarctica, with different countries building bases near each other at a Martian McMurdo or leasing space at the same.

That's another worry, though a lesser one. Antarctic treaties prevent economic development including mining and heavy industry. It's a measure of how rich the planetary economy has become on Earth that we can afford to designate one of our 7 continents as a park for tourists and scientists. There is no way Mars could afford to do that over it's entire planetary surface. Last year's Mars society conference one guy seriously proposed creating laws based on Antarctica to create requirements for environmental impact studies for any mining or industrial operation, designate wilderness parks, the whole thing. This on Mars?! Before we even get there?! As I said during questions after his presentation, if we implemented everything he was asking then what would be the point of going to Mars? I believe if any areas are deisgnated as parks, that decision should be made by people who live on Mars, not someone on Earth.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-02 05:33:00

RobertDyck does have valid point of cause

Russia did offer to send U.N. inspectors into Iran to ensure there are no nuclear weapons; an action I'm sure Iran wouldn't like but it is in Russia's best interest to ensure that reactor isn't used for weapons. After the Iraq war it was discovered U.N. inspectors were correct about Iraqi weapons. U.N. inspectors were good at their job.

This would be a good first step if unabated and something that Russia should probably do all on its own. Forget inteligence agency telling anything to the contrary about the measure of nuclear program, for we know how inacurate they can be. But using the UN to control rogue nations, this only works if the UN is united in its actions and willing to stand behind them.

Does any colony, Moon or Mars need a military presence to defend its self is the bigger question and from whom? Only if we fear..

As for lowering of cost for exploration, once in space any vehicle if built hearty enough can be reused if it remains in space. This at least saves on the hardware costs but maybe not on maintanence.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-02 07:38:00

UN inspectors? Please, a favorite liberal meme that they were anything other then a joke. The Iraqi intelligence apparatus ran circles around them for years, and the Iranian one would too, or they could just say no and thumb their noses at "resolutions"... Secretly switch bomb-grade Uranium for reactor grade, or mix in fake fuel rods for the real thing, plenty of ways to sneak around I'm sure. Or Iran could just tell Russia and the UN to get lost and make & recycle their own fuel too while stalling "negotiations" for years like they are today. I hope GWB follows through with his threat to unleash a Bosnia-scale air campaign on their nuclear and military facilities, Osirak style. Anyway...

"Transporting settlers to Mars will be a profitable business if managed right."

No it wouldn't, the huge cost of operating a Martian colony would take every penny of their fortunes and then some most likly. The cost of getting there, expanding the colony, and importing nessesarry materials & support from Earth per-head would easily absorb the entire fortune of your average colonist and then some. A very signifigant critical mass of colony-owned Earthly investments would be nessesarry to generate sufficent income to mitigate the cost per-head by that amount.

I still don't think you've got a clue how hard asteroid mining will be, I think that it will basically never be cheap enough on any really useful scale versus digging it up from craters next door on the Moon. Even if asteroid mining were practical, the majority would obviously be based from Earth and not Mars, given the distances to the market you are selling to (Earth, not Mars) and that Earth, not Mars, will be where the mining ships/equipment will be built and based.

RobS · 2005-06-02 10:11:16

Let's not hope the US will bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, because

1. We don't even know where all of them are; believe it or not, no intelligence agency on Earth has a good system of spies in Iran
2. A lot of the facilities are deep underground or in civilian areas
3. This is a country almost the size of the US west of the Rockies with 75 million people who are very nationalistic and who can make a lot of grief for us
4. The population largely hates the clerical establishment, but will be loyal to it if we attack them

(And besides, my wife has relatives there.)

As for the Antarctic analogy, I was referring only to the establishment of a "McMurdo." I definitely agree we can't declare the planet off limits to ownership of land and mineral exploitation. No doubt there will be areas of Mars that are so beautiful or special that they will be parks, but let the Martians decide where they will be and how large they will be.

Unlike Antarctica, Mars eventually will have a settlement population and families. They'll want to own an acre/hectare (or two) of their own. Mars has to have a property law system so people can buy pieces of it.

Regarding families immigrating on their own: it'll be a long time before one could raise enough money from sales of terrestrial real estate to fund tickets to Mars. I doubt tickets will drop below several million US dollars each for a very long time. Besides, a condo on Mars may be immensely expensive; a tiny one-room efficiency may cost more than a Manhattan luxury apartment because of the need for them to stay airtight in emergencies. The family may need every penny from their terrestrial savings to get established on Mars, let alone to get there. How much will a couch cost when every part making up the couch has to be made by people paid five times as much as on Earth using equipment imported for a few million bucks per tonne?

-- RobS

Grypd · 2005-06-02 10:22:31

I honestly believe that it will be the exploitation of the Moon commercially, that will drive the creation of cheaper in operation TSTO or even SSTO craft. And with these in place and an increasing industrial capacity we will be able to then go for colonisation of Mars.

And for actually getting there the use of cyclers will be essential. If these can be assembled from Earth launched components all the better but it is more likely the structure will be assembled in a lagrange point from lunar materials with all the hi tech coming from the Earth.

I just dont believe that TSTO or SSTO will ever have a very high cargo capacity and that though very cheap to operate they will find that bulky or large cargoes will have to be sent up by rocket and as such expensive in comparison.

Fledi · 2005-06-02 11:16:09

How much will a couch cost when every part making up the couch has to be made by people paid five times as much as on Earth using equipment imported for a few million bucks per tonne?

It shouldn't be that much of a problem to make the equipment for making couches on Mars. What we will need is some highly automated versatile machinery, the bulkier components of which could be manufactured at Mars.
Especially for the couch it depends on what quality you like. If the support frame has to be made of mahagony trees, it could take a while to grow those in the greenhouse, but plastic materials should be enough for the beginning.
And the reduced gravity means the couches can be made less durable, maybe except for the really heavy or for lying outside in a spacesuit.
For the transport costs we will have to get down to 100$/kg, which is not impossible at all with a tether and/or some advanced RLV.

Fledi · 2005-06-02 11:21:32

I just dont believe that TSTO or SSTO will ever have a very high cargo capacity and that though very cheap to operate they will find that bulky or large cargoes will have to be sent up by rocket and as such expensive in comparison.

If you combine those with a tether system you can count with 10 times the payload they would be able to get to full LEO.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-06-01 05:24:42

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#27 2005-06-01 08:27:12

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#28 2005-06-01 08:39:50

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#29 2005-06-01 08:51:30

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#30 2005-06-01 08:53:02

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#31 2005-06-01 09:20:30

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#32 2005-06-01 09:28:21

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#33 2005-06-01 09:34:30

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#34 2005-06-01 11:26:32

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#35 2005-06-01 11:39:08

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#36 2005-06-01 11:51:15

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#37 2005-06-01 19:36:43

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#38 2005-06-01 20:05:40

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#39 2005-06-01 20:55:08

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#40 2005-06-01 21:20:54

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#41 2005-06-01 21:32:01

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#42 2005-06-01 21:36:11

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#43 2005-06-01 21:59:58

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#44 2005-06-01 23:01:25

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#45 2005-06-02 05:33:00

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#46 2005-06-02 07:38:00

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#47 2005-06-02 10:11:16

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#48 2005-06-02 10:22:31

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#49 2005-06-02 11:16:09

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#50 2005-06-02 11:21:32

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

Board footer