Ordinary people...?

RobertDyck · 2004-12-28 14:48:31

I was at your presentation about endorsements at the Mars Society conference last August. A NASA person pointed out they can't accept endorsement money. Boeing and et. al. have giant logos painted on the back wall of the Space Shuttle, in clear view of the cameras, but they're only allowed to do so because they're involved with the Shuttle or that mission. At your presentation I suggested getting Nike to make boots for the EMU or a Mars suit, then put the Nike swish on everything. But a NASA person said Nike couldn't pay to do so, again NASA can't accept endorsement money. If Nike got a contract with NASA, a clause in the contract would prevent them from advertising or advocating space exploration; the same restrictions for NASA apply to contractors. Congress closed the loop-holes to prevent a government agency from advertising to rally public support of their budget.

But private enterprise? No holds barred! A commercial space mining company could accept endorsement money. In fact, when SpaceShipOne made its X-Prize flights it had a Virgin logo in clear view of the camera. Would a work-boot manufacturer pay to have their logo on asteroid miners' spacesuits? Would a battery manufacturer pay for their logo on the PLSS? Would a scuba rebreather manufacturer pay to fly their logo? Etc. A well run company could make a lot of profit.

Oh, national security: Would the Airforce be interested in a ready and inexpensive supply of propellant for satellites from a space mining operation under the American flag?

BWhite · 2004-12-28 15:02:59

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

C M Edwards · 2004-12-28 15:10:35

A three year contract for media rights isn't excessive. It might cover a big chunk of expenses.

True, I feel some reluctance at the realization that the first mission to Mars might be "Reality TV" as far as the rest of the world ever sees. I can only hope that it's done like one of the classier "reality" shows, like... such as... umm... (Somebody help me here...)

Oh, forget it. Who am I kidding!

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.

Media rights are bound to be important incentives. The world is going to want to see, and there's nothing wrong with bringing a sponsor's logo along to show them. But we should avoid a situation where we're completely dependent on something as fickle as advertising. The mission has to have an existence independent of its television audience.

That's the difference between National Geographic and "The Amazing Race".

BWhite · 2004-12-28 15:31:06

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

RobertDyck · 2004-12-28 18:04:51

microwave smelting can render raw ores into metal without any additive at all, and I bet that some mechanical or electrical method can be come up with to perform a crude seperation without additive either.

Smelting by heat alone requires gravity or centrefuge, and won't separate metals. Platinum won't separate from nickel and gold won't separate from iron. Iron and nickel are too close in density to separate from eachother that way. The carbonyl process removes ferrous metals, leaving precious metals. Controlling heat and pressure can differentiate iron from nickel from cobalt. Furthermore nickel carbonyl vapour decomposes at +200°C, precipitating nickel metal. Carbonyl is formed even cooler, requiring very little heat. That can run on solar energy.

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.

Could US politicians really destroy free enterprise? Especially if it supports their military industrial complex?

Grypd · 2004-12-28 18:25:52

I looked at the treaty that binds most space going nations in this case the Moon treaty. It does clearly state that no Nation may permanently claim any body in space. But it then goes and says that the resources of space are to be used for the Benefit of all mankind. Also any base made in space or on a body in space is national territory.

Apart from being a very weak treaty it does mean if we go to space to procure minerals like platinum so as to make available materials that reduce pollution then that is a benefit to all mankind and therefore is perfectly legitimate. And any base made so as to do so is the territory of the nation that does so make this base and cannot be interfered with.

But as has been previously noted the minerals that make up the Asteroids are very valuable especially when there are more PGMs than just platinum the rest can be mined purely to make money. And it is allowed when compared to the Moon treaty as it a side issue to the main purpose of the mining Platinum

SpaceNut · 2004-12-28 20:29:40

Financing:
If income stream could be generated then the group doing so could purchase the same rockets that Nasa would use to do the same exploration and or settlement.

MoonTreaty:
Much like the ISS in that one nation can charge for services but can not exclude nations that want to put forth the funds to have a presence there.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-29 18:29:25

Since 1997 access to UN treaties requires a paid subscription. Luckilly I saved a copy of the full text of all space treaties just before that came into affect. I wish to once again express my agreement with this policy. I feel failure to make all laws freely available to those they apply to invalidates those laws. Yes, that means I feel the UN subscription invalidates all UN treaties. I'm sure lawers would argue that point. The excuse has often been that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but failure to make said laws available to those you wish to apply those laws to means those who have created the encumberance have full responsibility, not the potential offender. Obviously the UN legal eagles ignored my objection.

The full formal name of the Moon Treaty is "AGREEMENT GOVERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF STATES ON THE MOON AND OTHER CELESTIAL BODIES (1979)", entered into force: 11 July 1984.
Article 11, paragraph 3:

Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person. The placement of personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on or below the surface of the moon, including structures connected with its surface or subsurface, shall not create a right of ownership over the surface or the subsurface of the moon or any areas thereof. The foregoing provisions are without prejudice to the international regime referred to in paragraph 5 of this article.

Paragraph 5:

States Parties to this Agreement hereby undertake to establish an international regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the exploitation of the natural resources of the moon as such exploitation is about to become feasible. This provision shall be implemented in accordance with article 18 of this Agreement.

Article 18 regards review after 10 years.

Article 11, paragraph 3 sounds really bad; appearing to prevent any utilization of resources. Paragraph 5 contradicts that, permiting exploitation of resources. How do you exploit resources if the miner doesn't have property rights to his/her claim? Furthermore, I know of no such international regime to govern such exploitation.

There is one big loop-hole. It applies to the moon but no other celestial bodies!

The Outer Space Treaty is formally known as "Treaty on Principles Governing The Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1967)", entered into force: 10 October 1967. This treaty coveres other celestial bodies, and does specify "use" of them, but doesn't explicity mention resources. It also doesn't mention non-governmental bodies.
Article 1:

The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind. Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies. There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such investigation.

Article 2:

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

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.

BWhite · 2004-12-29 21:30:43

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

RobertDyck · 2004-12-29 21:35:42

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

BWhite · 2004-12-29 22:11:35

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 · 2004-12-29 23:08:42

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

RobertDyck · 2004-12-29 23:09:14

When diamonds were found in northern Canada, DeBeers had geologists staking claims along with Canadian mining companies. They didn't mine all their claims, they're just sitting on them, but they didn't just seize the assets of Canadian mining companies or send hitmen to kill their executives. Polar Bear diamonds are now quite well known in Canada. Diamonds mined there by Canadian mining companies have a tiny Polar Bear laser engraved on the girdle (side band). Competition, but all very civilized. Diamond studded asteroid? I'ld love to sell prospecting probes to DeBeers.

Perhaps the solution is what Grypd suggested, hydrogen fuel cell cars will dramatically increase demand. Oil companies are doing everything they can to prevent conversion to hydrogen, and you can bet they led the campaign to make SUVs popular when the US government got auto-manufacturers to increase fuel economy. Now SUVs consume as much gasoline as cars did in the 1970s. I could see the government falling for an excuse like platinum being controlled from South Africa as a reason to avoid introducing fuel cells. But California government officials feel the need to do something drastic to stop pollution, and the most efficient means of producing hydrogen in states that use petroleum products for electric production would be catalytic refinement from oil, perhaps a catalyst like platinum or palladium. In the short term oil companies just sell a different product. Ballard fuel cells are now efficient enough for mass production, the only things holding back fuel cell cars are fuel storage and electric motors. Ideal is in-wheel direct-drive electric motors: no transmission, no differential, no gears at all. They have been built, in fact some race cars use rare-earth in-wheel motors to increase power and reduce weight. But you can run electric cars with a normal motor and transaxle. Carbon nanofibre fill can reduce the weight of hydrogen fuel tank, but isn't strictly necessary. Cars are now running with steel fuel tanks. A fibreglass tank with plastic film liner and carbon nanofibre fill would be much lighter; hydrogen bonds to carbon nanofibres so the tank holds 3 times as much hydrogen for the same pressure. I read a paper in Science about carbon nanofibres grown as a bulk sample several millimetres long; that's about 100 times longer than previous attempts and the perfect length for fuel tanks. The trick was to grow them in water, a rather easy substance to work with. So we're ready for hydrogen fuel cell cars now; that sounds like a great customer for platinum. Perhaps the US government would be willing to support (prevent hostile competition) for a domestic company that would harvest platinum from asteroids.

I think a large-scale passenger ship for Mars would have to be built from aluminum, not steel. Perhaps we also need lunar mines. Would the US like to champion formation of a body to regulate space resources? The report of the http://www.un.org/events/unispace3/docs … .pdf]legal subcommittee of the UN, 6 April 1998, stated:

Some delegations expressed the view that a lack of accession to the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (General Assembly resolution 34/68, annex, of 5 December 1979) by the major space-faring States weakened its universal nature and discouraged other States from acceding to it. The view was expressed that failure to establish an international regime to govern the exploitation of natural resources of the Moon in accordance with the provisions of the instrument contributed to the problem. The view was also expressed that current space-faring States should play a leading role in the development and improvement of the legal principles and regimes governing the peaceful use of outer space.

BWhite · 2004-12-29 23:11:53

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

RobertDyck · 2004-12-29 23:26:57

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.

BWhite · 2004-12-29 23:33:09

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

Austin Stanley · 2004-12-30 03:20:05

I think you will be hard pressed to bring back 20MT of materials from mars/moon/NEA for under 500Million, much less profitiably mine and refine it. Even with the possible incresed ore densities you are still talking about mining tons of rock to get ounces of refined metal. Not to mention that the capital investment would have to be incredibly massive (like in the trillions of dollars) to get such an opperation going in the first place.

I also do not think the diamond and bottled water analogies apply either. Platnium (as well as gold, irridium, and other rare earth metals) are simple commodities. Your exterrestrial platnium is no better than simple terrestrial platnium, and so there is no reason that your main consumers (industrial users) would pay any more for it.

Furthermore increasing the supply of any commaditie is going to lower the price, this is simple supply and demand, especialy since since to start repaying the HUGE capital investments you have made you are going need to start selling large quantities of metal. Which may actualy prove to be a good thing as some of the possible uses of platnium (like fuel tanks for hydrogen cars) will probably only become practicle one the supply increases and the price drops. But in any case increase supply will still probably result in decrease in price.

Put simply, exterrestial minning as higher opperating costs the terrestrial minning, higher transport costs, and much, MUCH higher startup costs then terrestial minning. And the increase supply will only decrease the price. I don't see the exterrestial minning of commodities as being profitable in the near future. At least not untill the costs for transportation drops drasticly and/or the price for these rare earth metals rises drasticly.

------------------

Thats not to say I think it is entirely hopless. In the near term I could see simple manufactured goods being sold profitably from mars. For example, an engraved slab of martian steel, perhaps suitable for a necklace. Could be produced fairly cheeply on the planet and sold for Far more than it's true value as a peice of "authentic" martian metal. Supply would be scarce, and the demand would be artificaly high. And mining, refining, and manufacturing simple steel would be alot simpler than that of platnium and other rare earths.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-30 05:42:12

All have sort of danced around the financial issue. People want what ever is usually cheapest of any commodity and the roll of supply versus demand changes that field of play. When companies control product flow and pricing it takes away the middle man thus putting them in control. By limiting the flow of diamonds they control the pricing of the available product.

So if no competition for market share then no fluctuation of product pricing and or demand.

As for the lunar or asteroid property claims if no one is there at the site to also mine the resource then there is no competition for deliverable of that commodity for space.

The only challenge to this is if Earth mining produces extra product to be delivered to space. Then the price can be less than the resource of space mining for space use. It would be very hard to make space products to cost less than those that are already available here on earth. Other than the example of He3 space can only supplement the amount of total resources that earth already has. But space can supplement other space locations where there are shortages of key items such as the low carbon content of the moon or the lower oxygen content of mars. But in either case they both have low water H2O availability which make shipping short term to space from earth a market for colonization's support. That list of support is more than just water thou and would increase as need increases if self sufficiency is not started early on.

BWhite · 2004-12-30 09:12:38

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.

RobS · 2004-12-30 10:10:14

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.

If Mars has fossiliferous rocks--that is, rocks where the fossils are actually visible to the naked eye--there will be a market for a few dozens or maybe even a few hundreds of tonnes, possibly at a pretty high price. A thin piece of shale with fossils on the surface might weigh 3 ounces/100grams, for example; if it sold for $50 wholesale, that's $500 per kilo and $500,000 per tonne. The problem would be lowering transportation costs enough to make that profitable. If most of those costs were Martian costs, even if the profit were small, the bulk of the money would still be returning to Mars to cover staff costs.

But I doubt there's much money to make that way.

-- RobS

RobertDyck · 2004-12-30 11:35:26

the capital investment would have to be incredibly massive (like in the trillions of dollars)

Don't assume it would actually cost that much. Industry does not pay the sort of prices NASA does. NASA pays for everything with laboratory or research scale prices. Check the price of a laboratory vacuum pump vs. an industrial vacuum pump. The laboratory model costs 10 to 100 times as much. Now apply laboratory scale prices to something as large as the Space Shuttle or Space Station and you understand why NASA's budget is so high. Asteroid mining would start with the carbonyl process to concentrate around 750,000 tonnes of ore per year, but do so very efficiently using sunlight for energy. Concentrate would be 1.5% of that mass or 11,250 tonnes per year. The equipment to do everything would cost billions, but at industrial prices it would cost significantly less than ISS. That means billions, but much less than the $53 billion spent so far on ISS; no where near trillions.

BWhite · 2004-12-30 12:55:02

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.

Austin Stanley · 2004-12-30 13:37:14

Don't assume it would actually cost that much. Industry does not pay the sort of prices NASA does. NASA pays for everything with laboratory or research scale prices. Check the price of a laboratory vacuum pump vs. an industrial vacuum pump. The laboratory model costs 10 to 100 times as much. Now apply laboratory scale prices to something as large as the Space Shuttle or Space Station and you understand why NASA's budget is so high. Asteroid mining would start with the carbonyl process to concentrate around 750,000 tonnes of ore per year, but do so very efficiently using sunlight for energy. Concentrate would be 1.5% of that mass or 11,250 tonnes per year. The equipment to do everything would cost billions, but at industrial prices it would cost significantly less than ISS. That means tens of billions, but much less than 100 billion; no where near trillions.

I don't disagree with this, but I think there are some important parts you have left out the equation, namely development, infastructure, and transportantion costs. Currently no one uses the carbonly process to refine platnium, much less doing it in an exterrestial enviroment (be it mars/moon/asteriod), so you would have to pay the costs to develope the equipment as well. Likewise, you have to develope tools and techniques for minning this stuff in an exterrestial enviroment. This will probably prove to be quite difficult, as all terrestial methods are either labor intensive (shaft minning) or requires very large quantities of explosives and equipment (pit minning) and both may prove hard to impossible to use off of earth.

Earth also has the advantage of a developed infastructure to rely upon. A terrestial mining company doesn't have to pay the for the powerplants, roads, water facilties, ect... it needs to use, those resources are already developed here on earth. An off planet facility has to pay for all those and more, including housing and lifesupport for it's workers. And the company will probably have to develope some sort of system for delivering the metal back to Earth as well.

But most importantly of all, is the cost to transport all this equipment to your destination. Minning equipment is heavy, as is the equipment to refine it. Launch costs being what they are, and given the small fraction of that payload that is actualy deliverable to your destination, I think the cost for transporting you machinery may quickly overwelm the cost of the machinery itself.

Given all these factors, I don't think investment costs in the trillions of dollars is out of line.

Grypd · 2004-12-30 16:52:29

It is true that the Carbonyll process is not used on Earth but that is for reasons that benefit operation in low atmosphere energy rich enviroments like the Moon and Asteroids etc. With the Carboyll process you need to control your manufacturing very carefully with no leakages of either heat or atmosphere into the facility. It is very hard to do this on Earth but not so in space.

Platinum has reached a price of $879 this is mainly due to shortages as a result of demand not able to meet our supply needs. This will not change and will get a lot lot worse as Platinum is too important to the Electrical and chemical industries and our supplies are running out. We cannot go to a hydrogen economy with the amounts of platinum available now. Dennis Wingo in his book Moonrush states that many platinum loaded asteroids will have collided with the Moon and due to the low gravity are intact. I sort of really doubted this but have since found out that this is very likely to have happened. This frankly means that there will be incredibly rich sources of platinum in incredibly concentrated form to be found.

We just have to have a means to actually get these deposits and develop a means to get them back here. It can be done right and with this make platinum a lot cheaper so allowing cheaper fuel celled cars.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-30 17:00:33

Thats an awfully pessimistic estimate I think Austin... The cost will probobly be over a hundred billion, but not a trillion.
~$20Bn for few copies of a true, honest to god, everything-comes-back RLV

~$5Bn for the cryogenic tugs to and from an asteroid mine plus a little more for several copies, aeroshield standard

~$5Bn for a manned crew ferry from LEO to asteroid and back designed to ride on said tug

~$10Bn for the unmanned LEO fuel/cargo depot, just a truss with fuel tanks and a cryogenic condenser, equipment boxes

~$30Bn for a small space station on the asteroid mine. No spinning nothing, using the asteroid for radiation/thermal protection, little bigger then a few ISS modules strung together or a pair of small TransHabs with an airlock and a logistics module. Five or six flights of payload total to deliver all componets including solar & radiator arrays.

~$5Bn for a second fuel depot at the asteroid, perhaps less.

~$10Bn to develop and deploy a zero-G ISRU plant with Carbon Monoxide generator/recycler. No more then two payloads worth of equipment.

Around $85Bn, just lacking the mining and refining equipment, which would probobly not cost more then everything else. $200 billion is not outlandish if you throw in a few more for infrastructure, startup, and misc. launch costs (orbital assembly etc).

The real technical key though is to build an "no really!" RLV fleet capable of flying often, like weekly, which can be done as long as nothing like Shuttle happens again... in which case, launch costs could fall well below $1,000/lb, maybe much less. Free the constraints of launch cost strangling the operation, and everything gets quite a bit cheaper.

The motivation being, that fuel cells do apear to be the only solution to the majority of fossil fuel problems, and the Earthly supply of catalyst metals are not sufficent to support this goal. As a commodity, the price will rise cataclysmically as the supply from the meager African mines runs out. Unless someone can come up with a catalyst that doesn't need rare elements, then we will just have to get more. $200 billion doesn't seem like such a big number if you look at it, only double the cost of the ISS.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-12-28 14:48:31

Re: Ordinary people...?

#27 2004-12-28 15:02:59

Re: Ordinary people...?

#28 2004-12-28 15:10:35

Re: Ordinary people...?

#29 2004-12-28 15:31:06

Re: Ordinary people...?

#30 2004-12-28 18:04:51

Re: Ordinary people...?

#31 2004-12-28 18:25:52

Re: Ordinary people...?

#32 2004-12-28 20:29:40

Re: Ordinary people...?

#33 2004-12-29 18:29:25

Re: Ordinary people...?

#34 2004-12-29 21:30:43

Re: Ordinary people...?

#35 2004-12-29 21:35:42

Re: Ordinary people...?

#36 2004-12-29 22:11:35

Re: Ordinary people...?

#37 2004-12-29 23:08:42

Re: Ordinary people...?

#38 2004-12-29 23:09:14

Re: Ordinary people...?

#39 2004-12-29 23:11:53

Re: Ordinary people...?

#40 2004-12-29 23:26:57

Re: Ordinary people...?

#41 2004-12-29 23:33:09

Re: Ordinary people...?

#42 2004-12-30 03:20:05

Re: Ordinary people...?

#43 2004-12-30 05:42:12

Re: Ordinary people...?

#44 2004-12-30 09:12:38

Re: Ordinary people...?

#45 2004-12-30 10:10:14

Re: Ordinary people...?

#46 2004-12-30 11:35:26

Re: Ordinary people...?

#47 2004-12-30 12:55:02

Re: Ordinary people...?

#48 2004-12-30 13:37:14

Re: Ordinary people...?

#49 2004-12-30 16:52:29

Re: Ordinary people...?

#50 2004-12-30 17:00:33

Re: Ordinary people...?

Board footer