Perspective

Terraformer · 2008-04-16 07:55:19

I'm sick of hearing people talking like a $1 trillion is a lot of money. It isn't, not when you look at the population of the world. Assuming there are 1 Billion people who have $10 Dollars to spare every month, each year that is a total of $120 Billion dollars. Imagine what could be done with that.

That is why there should be the $25 project, aiming to get m/billions to part with their cash.

JoshNH4H · 2008-04-19 12:09:01

It's the other way around. 1 trillion is a HUGE sum of money. Appx. 2% of world GDP. Now that may not seem like much, but that means that on average, that means that 100,000,000 people constitute a 1 trillion dollar society.

Terraformer · 2008-04-19 14:20:25

Eh? What do you mean?

I was talking about the amount of cash, when you divide by the Population, isn't much. Think about colonizing Venus or the Asteroids [Planet M left out deliberately due to it being, like, the worst place to colonize] with that cash.

X · 2008-04-27 02:00:37

So for 1% of 1 year's economic product we could have the Battlesar Galactica approach to Mars exploration. Not quite sure with the dollar weakening while that program's cost was figured in dollars, but still it looks a whole lot more reasonable when seen that way. I agree about the incremental approach of taking small donations for a privately funded approach.

bobunf · 2008-05-03 19:45:27

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

cIclops · 2008-05-04 04:57:21

Just because it won't happen doesn't mean that it's impossible

Don't forget that $10m Ansari gave to the X Prize, the $20m that Paul Allen put up to develop SpaceShip One and the recent $30m that Google offered. There's a factor of six on the $10m of donations. Why is that important? Because it doesn't need millions of donors, just a few can make a big difference.

(if there's no objection this topic will move to space politics)

SpaceNut · 2008-05-04 08:29:38

As you sort of indicated in that it is not how much you fund raise as it is more of how it is spent that is the issue.
I am sure that Paul Allen did not pay competitive Nasa wages for his effort in SpaceShipOne.... and while going outsourced for what was needed could have been done he chose to keep it all in house.

Stormrage · 2008-05-11 15:28:19

Getting one Trillion from people is next to expensive. They have it but the chances of everyone giving it particularly to something related to Space is very low. People are happier wasting half a trillion every year on bad coffee.

Gregori · 2008-05-14 06:12:13

Getting one Trillion from people is next to expensive. They have it but the chances of everyone giving it particularly to something related to Space is very low. People are happier wasting half a trillion every year on bad coffee.

Yeah, but everybody gets a cup!

Ofcourse a Trillion is a lot of money! But it might be worth spending on space. I think Hubble brought both images that capture the imagination and provided good science. I think the MER rovers did a fantastic job. The Huygens-Cassini mission was also pretty awesome.

If we are serious about colonizing space, I think it will take an investment of a couple of trillion! We could do it on a smaller scale, but I doubt that will amount to much more than an outpost.

If we really want it to take off, it should be highly organized with rapid industrialisation of space. An economy of scale so to speak. We need to make colonies by sending 10 000's of people. There needs to be an infrastructure set in place with vehicles doing regular cargo and passenger transport between worlds and settlements.

dicktice · 2008-05-15 08:05:24

How about, as long as you're arguing blue-sky efforts to colonize the Moon, say, or even Mars: a space cooperative where everyone directly involved works for room and board without wages beyond what it takes to subsist upon within a self-contained community devoted to the success of that fixed objective? I bet the costs would go down 90%, making donated finances from a million space nuts like me adequate to pay for the project.

Gregori · 2008-05-15 09:42:06

How about, as long as you're arguing blue-sky efforts to colonize the Moon, say, or even Mars: a space cooperative where everyone directly involved works for room and board without wages beyond what it takes to subsist upon within a self-contained community devoted to the success of that fixed objective? I bet the costs would go down 90%, making donated finances from a million space nuts like me adequate to pay for the project.

Interesting idea. I don't think your work in the space community would ever make back the money it took to send you and support you there but volunteering and co-operation is always good. I reckon that space will be very wasteful for a few decades. It'll require an almost Stalin like approach to get it into good shape (5 Year plans), but once its developed on a large scale, it will pay off big time!!

Space settlement will require a lot of co-operation amongst people. The dangers of it are so extreme that being selfish and careless in one's actions could potentially kill everyone involved. I don't think the 'wild west' attitude to space will get you very far.

bobunf · 2008-05-15 10:31:32

Volunteer labor tends to be a lot less productive than paid labor. There’s a smaller pool of candidates, lower motivation and less control. Hospitals have lots of volunteers; but it’s pretty rare to see a volunteer doctor in the operating room.

Going to Mars would be a minimum three year stint—probably more like four or five years with training, debriefing and reconditioning. And it would cost at least $5 million (really, probably closer to $20 million) to send somebody to Mars and back with consumables and personal effects and supporting him the whole time. From which about four or five thousand hours of work would be derived. That’s $1,000 an hour as a super low ball figure for an unskilled volunteer.

I’d rather pay somebody an extra $200 or $300 per hour, get somebody who knows what they’re doing from day one, is motivated and will do what they’re told.

I think the role of volunteers in space will be pretty limited; as it is in all industry.

Bob

Gregori · 2008-05-15 12:08:23

I think they should send the Army!

They're supposedly trained for the hardest conditions and to survive with a bare minimum

It would be a pretty positive way to serve the country without causing havok and death on Earth.

I'd rather see members of the armed forces (who are so regularily shitted upon by goverments) get the opportunity to see Moon/Mars than a few rich kids who effectively bribed their way there!

I think they would need a lot of training however. We would also need a more versatile suit design that allows for greater dexterity and nimbleness.
(a powered exoskeleton or mechanical counter pressure suit)

These guys expressed some interest in doing so:

http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2008/0 … nd-beyond/

Stormrage · 2008-05-16 16:34:16

I think they should send the Army!
They're supposedly trained for the hardest conditions and to survive with a bare minimum

Well seeing how they managed to fail to adapt to Iraq and Afghanistan. They would probably just shoot each other.

Gregori · 2008-05-16 17:54:56

I think they should send the Army!
They're supposedly trained for the hardest conditions and to survive with a bare minimum
Well seeing how they managed to fail to adapt to Iraq and Afghanistan. They would probably just shoot each other.

probably, but they would being doing so off Earth and to each other so we don't hav to worry too much about them being used for general havok on Earth.

Stormrage · 2008-05-18 03:48:26

I think they should send the Army!
They're supposedly trained for the hardest conditions and to survive with a bare minimum
Well seeing how they managed to fail to adapt to Iraq and Afghanistan. They would probably just shoot each other.
probably, but they would being doing so off Earth and to each other so we don't hav to worry too much about them being used for general havok on Earth.

If a bunch of idiots blew their heads of in space. That would tarr space exploration for a long time. You would get Fox News and other reactionary American news channels inviting guests with agendas talking about how bad space is and how useless it is to go there.

Terraformer · 2008-05-18 08:06:59

Can we get back on topic please before it goes totally?

Stormrage · 2008-05-25 13:27:57

All right then. The best way to get 1 trillion is to probably tax people. SHOCK! HORROR! Thats probably going to upset you guys but it's true,

Adding the population of EU,USA,Canada,New Zealand and Australia. You can get $1 Trillion in a year if you tax people an extra 1200 a year. That would be easy in the EU,New Zealand and Australia where the dollar is weak. This would obviously make people protest. How ever if you decrease it to 117 dollars which is easily manageable. Especially if the burden is increase on the middle class and upper class while lessing it for the poor ones. This would get $1 Trillion in a decade.

That's the only way to get $1 Trillion in a short time. Donations never work at getting huge results. Especially from the public. When ever there is a disaster in a third world country. The UN has to beg for money and even when they do get millions pledged. Some of it never arrives.

Edit: Scratch that.

I was wrong. There is an another way of getting 1 trillion. It doesn't even need the world. America can do it by itself. The American military budget is 583 billion. The nation that comes closet to matching it is France with 78 billion. WTF? The European Union spends 311 billion. That's 27 countries. America has taken willingly and sometimes unwillingly the role of the Goliath. It's the nation who's spending billions fighting drugs and terrorism around the world. But 583 billion is just to much. If the military budget was reduced by 500 billion and a fire sale of military equipment that are useless to keep was sold to European nations (note only Europeans). $1 Trillion would be freed up. The Iraq war debt which will reach $3 Trillion in the future can be paid of very easily with this.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2008-04-16 07:55:19

Re: Perspective

#2 2008-04-19 12:09:01

Re: Perspective

#3 2008-04-19 14:20:25

Re: Perspective

#4 2008-04-27 02:00:37

Re: Perspective

#5 2008-05-03 19:45:27

Re: Perspective

#6 2008-05-04 04:57:21

Re: Perspective

#7 2008-05-04 08:29:38

Re: Perspective

#8 2008-05-11 15:28:19

Re: Perspective

#9 2008-05-14 06:12:13

Re: Perspective

#10 2008-05-15 08:05:24

Re: Perspective

#11 2008-05-15 09:42:06

Re: Perspective

#12 2008-05-15 10:31:32

Re: Perspective

#13 2008-05-15 12:08:23

Re: Perspective

#14 2008-05-16 16:34:16

Re: Perspective

#15 2008-05-16 17:54:56

Re: Perspective

#16 2008-05-18 03:48:26

Re: Perspective

#17 2008-05-18 08:06:59

Re: Perspective

#18 2008-05-25 13:27:57

Re: Perspective

Board footer