You are not logged in.
I mean do it.
Would you care to guess how far short the resources available to me fall to make an outpost anywhere?
We're talking on an internet forum. We have nothing but words and pictures and the occasional video. Perhaps if you actually read my post you would find that I am saying things that have merit and very practical bearing on the functionality of a Mars colony. Obviously nobody can say for sure, but given that we want to try to create a colony at some point (is that not the ultimate reason for the existence of this forum?), we have to look at the situation and use our (on this forum, considerable) knowledge of chemistry and physics and industry on Earth to take a look at how we think things will work on Mars.
I find that I in general post more from the perspective of an engineer than a scientist. We want to make it happen; therefore we come up with ways to do that.
Last edited by JoshNH4H (2011-12-13 00:43:40)
-Josh
Offline
First of all, a colony is not going to need trillions of dollars per year. Nowhere close.
I didn't say trillions per year. Please retract that.
I don't know where you got a figure of trillions of dollars from, but it's completely ridiculous.
Apollo launches were about ten billion a pop. For each Mars Semi-Direct mission you'd need 4 or 5 HLV launches.
Some of the payloads would be extremely costly. In some ways an Mars Transfer Vehicle is more challenging than the I.S.S. The I.S.S. keeps people alive beneath the protective Van Allen belts. The I.S.S. also enjoys frequent supply and maintenance. And the I.S.S. cost about 100 billion. You also need to land nuclear reactors, CO2 cracking plants.
50 billion each 2.14 years is optimistic. 20 such missions would be a trillion. And I don't think a Mars colony would be self sufficient after 40 years. Multi trillions to establish a Mars colony is not ridiculous at all.
For the handful of Mars colonists to export ideas at a profit, they'd need to do better than Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg combined. You still haven't explained how the Mars environment could stimulate such profitable creativity.
Trillions of dollars per year? Now that is completely ridiculous. However that figure comes from you, not me.
Hop's [url=http://www.amazon.com/Conic-Sections-Celestial-Mechanics-Coloring/dp/1936037106]Orbital Mechanics Coloring Book[/url] - For kids from kindergarten to college.
Offline
So a small population could sit down on Mars and come up with multi-trillion dollar ideas?
Sounds like trillions of dollars per year to me. I am assuming subsidized development up to 500 people as a scientific base/outpost. I don't know why that one sentence is your biggest concern. For a self-sustaining colony, I think we're looking at about .1-.2 kg of imports per person per year. For a 500 person colony, perhaps $250,000/year. Maybe a little more, but not all that much more.
In the long(ish) run, I think we're looking at a cost somewhere below a million dollars per person to emigrate. Keep in mind that Apollo was not in the least cost-focused. The minimum launch price per kilo for a payload in the range of tonnes went down from $10,000/kg to $15,000/kg to $5,500/kg (Falcon 9) in a very short period of time. We can anticipate that they will go down significantly more in the long run. The private space age is really just beginning.
-Josh
Offline
You wrote:So a small population could sit down on Mars and come up with multi-trillion dollar ideas?
Sounds like trillions of dollars per year to me.
No "per year" in what I said. "Trillions of dollars per year" is a complete fabrication on your part.
I am assuming subsidized development up to 500 people as a scientific base/outpost.
Mars semi-direct assumes 4 people each launch window. 500 people would be 125 missions. To be less than 1 trillion, each mission would have to cost less than 8 billion.
I think we're looking at about .1-.2 kg of imports per person per year. For a 500 person colony, perhaps $250,000/year. Maybe a little more, but not all that much more.
The South Pole base is in a much more hospitable environment. Smaller than 500 people. And the transportation is much less expensive. $.25 million per year is short even for this much more modest endeavor.
In the long(ish) run, I think we're looking at a cost somewhere below a million dollars per person to emigrate. Keep in mind that Apollo was not in the least cost-focused. The minimum launch price per kilo for a payload in the range of tonnes went down from $10,000/kg to $15,000/kg to $5,500/kg (Falcon 9) in a very short period of time. We can anticipate that they will go down significantly more in the long run. The private space age is really just beginning.
In this Mars Semi Direct architecture it takes 694 tonnes to LEO to deliver 4 people to Mars. But Mars Semi Direct provides for a return trip and we're talking one way. So 300 tonnes instead of 694. That's 75 tonnes per person. 1 million dollars per person? That comes to about $14 per kilogram to LEO. And that's assuming all the payloads are free. You're being a tad optimistic here.
Hop's [url=http://www.amazon.com/Conic-Sections-Celestial-Mechanics-Coloring/dp/1936037106]Orbital Mechanics Coloring Book[/url] - For kids from kindergarten to college.
Offline
Hop -
You must know that a huge part of the cost of teh ISS was down to (a) the fact that it was teh Space Shuttle doing the lifting (b) the ad hoc nature of the station and (c) the fact its development was spread over - what? - 20 years??
If you gave the job to Space X now I am sure they could get you a Space Station up and running within 5 years at a fraction of the cost.
We know Musk is steering a course for Mars. I don't see why the costs of getting to Mars, once one discounts the initial development costs should exceed a space launch to LEO by more than a factor of four. So I think a reasonable estimate for transit costs would be $20,000 per kg.
75 tonnes per person is in my view a ludicrously high figure.
A lot of Mars supplies can in any case be taken to Mars robotically in small loads - in the same way that Curiosity is going to be landed.
Of course, what one has to factor in is the incredibly high value of the material returned from Mars - which will be worth far more than $20,000 per kg.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
75 tonnes per person is in my view a ludicrously high figure.
They give itemized lists at the Mars Semi Direct paper. What would you cut?
A lot of Mars supplies can in any case be taken to Mars robotically in small loads - in the same way that Curiosity is going to be landed.
This wouldn't lessen the mass you need to launch to LEO.
Of course, what one has to factor in is the incredibly high value of the material returned from Mars - which will be worth far more than $20,000 per kg.
You envision return trips? Then the ascent vehicle can't be cut. Nor can a lot of the other stuff I cut assuming a one way trip. Back to 694 tonnes if you have Mars Ascent vehicles, Earth Return Vehicles, etc. Now it's back to 170 tonnes per person And if astronauts are coming back as well as going there, the population growth rate will be slower.
You're hoping collectors of rare asteroids will pay for this. I don't think this niche market can provide enough revenue. And when you flood the market, asteroids are no longer rare.
Hop's [url=http://www.amazon.com/Conic-Sections-Celestial-Mechanics-Coloring/dp/1936037106]Orbital Mechanics Coloring Book[/url] - For kids from kindergarten to college.
Offline
To be fair, we're not really talking about the initial mission anymore (I do believe that we've told you this before). I agree that the first few scientific exploration missions are better off being return missions. When we get to colonization, launch costs are going to be significantly lower (the exploration and promise of colonization of Mars provides a significant market for launch services, which will drive competition and innovation and reduce launch costs) and this can potentially change the entire way that we look at building things for Mars. I would note that the costs that NASA pays for things are way higher than people pay for them in the regular commercial world, and that part of this (though admittedly not all) is due to the need to minimize mass. By the time we get to colonization, there should be a relatively robust space transportation infrastructure, including in-orbit refueling and reusable LEO-LMO transports, with heat shield and parachute construction on phobos.
-Josh
Offline
To be fair, we're not really talking about the initial mission anymore
Whether it's the initial or the 20th mission, delivering humans to Mars will require lots of mass to LEO.
I offered one assessment of what's needed. It's a starting point for a conversation.
Their estimate was 694 tonnes and 4 people. About 170 tonnes per person.
Louis thinks 75 tonnes to LEO per person is ludicrous, much less 170.
Do you concur? If so, please show me an itemized mass budget as Willson and Clarke have done. So far I have seen nothing indicating you've invested and time and effort learning what it'd take to keep the passengers alive for the Mars trip.
If 75 tonnes is needed, launch prices need to drop to $14 per kilogram to meet your million dollar a person tickets to Mars.
Hop's [url=http://www.amazon.com/Conic-Sections-Celestial-Mechanics-Coloring/dp/1936037106]Orbital Mechanics Coloring Book[/url] - For kids from kindergarten to college.
Offline
louis wrote:75 tonnes per person is in my view a ludicrously high figure.
They give itemized lists at the Mars Semi Direct paper. What would you cut?
louis wrote:A lot of Mars supplies can in any case be taken to Mars robotically in small loads - in the same way that Curiosity is going to be landed.
This wouldn't lessen the mass you need to launch to LEO.
louis wrote:Of course, what one has to factor in is the incredibly high value of the material returned from Mars - which will be worth far more than $20,000 per kg.
You envision return trips? Then the ascent vehicle can't be cut. Nor can a lot of the other stuff I cut assuming a one way trip. Back to 694 tonnes if you have Mars Ascent vehicles, Earth Return Vehicles, etc. Now it's back to 170 tonnes per person And if astronauts are coming back as well as going there, the population growth rate will be slower.
You're hoping collectors of rare asteroids will pay for this. I don't think this niche market can provide enough revenue. And when you flood the market, asteroids are no longer rare.
I replied at some length earlier but I think I was timed out - anyway I lost the post.
So here's a quick summary:
1. Thought you were referring to transit and surface supplies rather than total tonnage. My total tonnage estimate would be nearer 35 tonnes per person. My figure for supplies on the surface of Mars would be more like 7 tonnes per person.
2. Not had an opp to go through all of Semi-Direct but as examples, I criticise (a) the Hab - too big. People have survived in much more constricted spaces for years. That could be cut back maybe 50% and (b) the medical allowance - no one ever came to grief on the Apollo missions...we can't plan for every eventuality...one tonne could probably be reduced by 80%.
3. Yes I would have a return trip with ascent vehicle - but fuel/propellant would be manufactured on Mars.
4. Because of my piecemeal approach with robot landings as well, the lander/ascent vehicle can be much smaller. Makes everything cheaper and more doable. I reckon Musk is thinking along these lines as well.
5. How much did lunar dust decline in price? It's a rubbish idea. It's still incredibly valuable even after 17 missions. Meteorites will pick up fantastic sums. And the colony only needs revenue from this source for maybe 10-20 years. But it will be a real boon in the early years.
6. Population growth. Each set of colonists should build an additional hab space (using Mars materials) to house the same number of people. That way, people following don't need to bring heavy habs with them. They can bring useful machines and chemicals, PV panels etc. to help build productive capacity on Mars.
Eventually I think the people of Mars will be able to build primitive rockets - that will be the real breakthrough. When they can to LMO themselves with their own resources. And that's what will allow a much quicker population build up.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
You are correct in saying that I have not yet done a significant amount of research on the topic. But I can offer suggestions that make a lot of sense in the context of a mass colonization program that have the potential to reduce the costs by significant amounts. For example, refueling bases on Phobos or Deimos and the Moon (our just phobos/deimos; launch windows from there are much less frequent but if you can do aerocapture the delta-V is lower, and you have one fewer base to keep going) can reduce the amount of fuel that needs to be brought from Earth down to zero.
Likewise, reuse of space vehicles will result in a potentially huge savings in terms of the mass required to get from Earth to Mars. If there was a farm somewhere in the earth-moon-mars system you wouldn't even have to send up food. Obviously there will be some support costs from Earth but not nearly on the scale you're suggesting.
-Josh
Offline
You are correct in saying that I have not yet done a significant amount of research on the topic. But I can offer suggestions that make a lot of sense in the context of a mass colonization program that have the potential to reduce the costs by significant amounts. For example, refueling bases on Phobos or Deimos and the Moon (our just phobos/deimos; launch windows from there are much less frequent but if you can do aerocapture the delta-V is lower, and you have one fewer base to keep going) can reduce the amount of fuel that needs to be brought from Earth down to zero.
Likewise, reuse of space vehicles will result in a potentially huge savings in terms of the mass required to get from Earth to Mars. If there was a farm somewhere in the earth-moon-mars system you wouldn't even have to send up food. Obviously there will be some support costs from Earth but not nearly on the scale you're suggesting.
I agree with all those points I think. Essentially the Mars colony could reduce Earth input to launch to LEO plus occasional infrastructure investment in Mars transit vehicles and specialist equipment to go to Mars.
If you add in the revenue earning potential of Mars, then you can see there is here the potential to grow the colony to about 1000 fairly easily, with lengthening stays by people as our knowledge of living on Mars is increased. Beyond that, the need to construct sophisticated Mars Transit Vehicles may become prohibitively expensive, and there may not be enough revenue coming in to cover costs, at which point thoughts will turn to babies being born on (or in orbit around) Mars and the colony extending itself naturally and supplying most of its own needs (food and energy production, housing etc).
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
About the 3D printer that requires only, “stainless steel, binding agent, and bronze.”
For stainless steel you need iron and chromium. Which means you need to prospect for and mine the ore for iron and chromium. The ore for chromium is the mineral chromite (FeCr2O4), which has to be reduced somehow. On Earth we use an aluminum or silicon reaction yielding chromium and (I think) FeAl2O4. This all gets rather involved. I don’t know if the iron can reasonably be extracted from the FeAl2O4, nor, if practical, in which comparable quantities. In any case, one would also need to obtain aluminum or silicon.
On the Earth iron is generally obtained from iron ores, which would again need to be prospected, mined and processed.
Bronze is an alloy of copper and tin (more or less). More prospecting, mining and processing.
Producing a “binding agent” is not likely to be simpler than the above.
Without plate tectonics on Mars, geologic processes on Earth enabled by the existence of large amounts of liquid water, how likely are these ores to be easily accessible? I think a fair answer has to be, "Nobody knows. Yet."
All of this ore and finished product have to be transported all over the place to the 3-D printer. How are the transporters (which may have to travel hundreds of kilometers carrying very heavy loads) to be manufactured? Probably more prospecting, mining and processing. What about roads even of the most minimal type?
Most of these processes and projects would require huge amounts of electrical and heat energy, which will have to be built and maintained while scattered over all of the necessary sites, at least dozens.
Then I have a feeling that making additional 3-D printers, or just providing parts for the one, would require more than iron, chromium, aluminum, silicon, copper, tin and a binding agent.
How many people will it take to do all of this?
And provide food, potable water and other life support essentials like heat, light and air? And all of the equipment and energy all of that requires? Who’s going to make the furniture, cleaning and office supplies, clothing, toothpaste and brushes, cooking, storage, eating and cleaning equipment and utensils, etc., etc.?
Are the colonists going to do without CAT scans and MRIs? Dental X rays? EKGs? EEGs? Sonograms? Defibrillators? And thousands of other types of medical equipment? Any drugs they don’t make would have to be imported, and that could be a huge variety (thousands?) and an awful lot of volume and complexity. You wouldn’t want to run out of anesthesia, antibiotics and a bunch of other stuff.
Everything, but especially the imported stuff, would require very accurate inventory forecasting and control.
To be even mostly self-sufficient, I think, would require a rather large colony, at least several thousand people and a huge industrial infrastructure. Even with super-duper 3-D printers. Which I have my doubts about, but I'll keep that to myself.
Offline
It costs more than $400 to ship 100 kilograms from Chicago to London. I find it hard to imagine that, in this century, it could cost less than 4 times that amount to low Earth orbit, especially considering that it currently costs three or four orders of magnitude more. And, in the last half century that cost has not declined by even one order of magnitude.
Offline
The Antarctic example may be instructive. There are currently 29 countries that spend about $500 million per year keeping an average of about 3,000 people on the continent – more in summer than winter. That’s about $167,000 per person per year.
Transportation costs to Antarctica are trivial compared to transportation costs to Mars, and Antarctica is much more hospitable with readily available air and water requiring essentially no processing. Temperature control and radiation exposure are not as significant issues as on Mars. There are no problems about corrosive dust, 38% gravity or other unknowns.
From anywhere in Antarctica in a few hours one can reach New Zealand, Chile or South Africa, a fact which makes inventory control much less critical and eliminates the necessity for full scale medical services, as well as numerous other simplifications. Also, these facilities have been developed over a period of more than 50 years, so $167,000 per person per year is the cost after more than 50 years of development.
Of course, these guys do actual, valuable scientific research. But they don’t need to mine anything, process ores, manufacture anything and certainly don’t have to worry about developing an export industry. Far, far more support would be needed in they wanted to do any of those things.
Josh is proposing $500 per person per year to support a Mars colony. To me the $167,000 per person per year spent on the Antarctic colonies suggest that Josh’s estimate is about 4 orders of magnitude too low.
Last edited by bobunf (2011-12-14 01:13:03)
Offline
Bobunf, do you happen to have a breakdown of the costs involved supporting an antarctic base? I'm curious why it costs so much.
Last edited by Decimator (2011-12-14 09:21:08)
Offline
Bobunf et al,
I think as usual we need to break down the problem and look at the timescale.
Essentially I think we are writing off the initial development costs. If we build a bridge at a cost of $100million and the bridge is there, and it is then crossed by 100 people in year one, it doesn't make sense to say the crossings cost $1million each.
We really need to focus on operating costs of an expanding colony - which will of course include the amortised costs of producing new Mars Transit vehicles in the future.
Re the operating costs we need to note:
1. The cost of producing MTVs will reduce sharply if we are essentially repeating the standard model.
2. Operating costs will be defrayed by revenue. I think revenue earning potential is huge. No one can deny the huge sums that meteorites and rare regolith would command on Earth.
I would agree that trying to make a technological leap forward to 3D printers would be a quick way to bankrupt the mission. Much better is to develop what one might call Victorian plus technology. The basic ISRU technology would be Victorian - steam engines (powered by solar reflectors), brick built accommodation (covered in regolith), iron and steel production, lots of use of glass, ceramics, gas production and other basic materials. This would allow for production of a wide range of useful tools including agricultural implements, wheelbarrows, pots and pans, kitchen utensils, and a range of glass vessels. On top of that would be layed the 21st century technology: sat coms, computer monitoring, sophisticated pumps, imported pressurised rovers and so on.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Louis wrote, "No one can deny the huge sums that meteorites and rare regolith would command on Earth."
I can. The total sales of meteorites (comets, asteroids, Moon, Mars, genuine and fake) in the whole world are probably less than $10 million per year. The retail asking price is around $100 per gram. Actual wholesale prices are around a third of that, maybe less. So, if you sold a ton of Mars rocks at the meteorite price, you’d gross about $30 million.
I think you’d be lucky to break even, but even if there were no cost to acquire the stuff and get it back to Earth, $30 million is almost trivial in a project whose cost will certainly exceed many, many billions of dollars, even if not the trillions suggested by Hop, although I suspect he’s about an order of magnitude too low.
Tripling the quantity of space rocks arriving on the market each and every year would obviously depress the market. Besides, one would undoubtedly also be competing with Moon, asteroid, Phobos, comet and who knows what other kind of rocks. Maybe even Mercury and Venus rocks. Bear in mind that markets look forward, so your gross would probably not approach $30 million even in the first year.
What will be the price of these rocks after the first 100 tons of Moon, Mars and asteroid rocks arrive on the market? 10 million or more collector pieces with much more on the way? There are currently only about 30,000 meteorites in collections.
Moon dust has not declined in value because it’s not legal to sell, and there is virtually no chance in the foreseeable future of replenishing whatever finds its way into the black market.
This is all wishful thinking.
Offline
Bobunf, do you happen to have a breakdown of the costs involved supporting an antarctic base? I'm curious why it costs so much.
For one obvious thing, you have to pay these 3,000 or so people. I know Lewis feels everyone on Mars will work for free, but my own view is that supporting Mars colonists will be far more expensive than supporting people in Antarctica. It's not going to work to tell doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, plumbers and a host of other necessary professions: "You'll have to work till you drop dead, you'd better be healthy because you're not going to get much in the way of medical care, your kids won't get much of an education or choice of occupation, and neither will you. Even the video games won't be much."
Offline
For one obvious thing, you have to pay these 3,000 or so people. I know Lewis feels everyone on Mars will work for free, but my own view is that supporting Mars colonists will be far more expensive than supporting people in Antarctica. It's not going to work to tell doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, plumbers and a host of other necessary professions: "You'll have to work till you drop dead, you'd better be healthy because you're not going to get much in the way of medical care, your kids won't get much of an education or choice of occupation, and neither will you. Even the video games won't be much."
Well, he might be right that they'll work for no pay, but in that case they'd be working for the fruits of their labor(i.e. not for free). What good is Earth money on Mars, anyway?
Offline
Louis wrote, "No one can deny the huge sums that meteorites and rare regolith would command on Earth."
I can. The total sales of meteorites (comets, asteroids, Moon, Mars, genuine and fake) in the whole world are probably less than $10 million per year. The retail asking price is around $100 per gram. Actual wholesale prices are around a third of that, maybe less. So, if you sold a ton of Mars rocks at the meteorite price, you’d gross about $30 million.
I think you’d be lucky to break even, but even if there were no cost to acquire the stuff and get it back to Earth, $30 million is almost trivial in a project whose cost will certainly exceed many, many billions of dollars, even if not the trillions suggested by Hop, although I suspect he’s about an order of magnitude too low.
Tripling the quantity of space rocks arriving on the market each and every year would obviously depress the market. Besides, one would undoubtedly also be competing with Moon, asteroid, Phobos, comet and who knows what other kind of rocks. Maybe even Mercury and Venus rocks. Bear in mind that markets look forward, so your gross would probably not approach $30 million even in the first year.
What will be the price of these rocks after the first 100 tons of Moon, Mars and asteroid rocks arrive on the market? 10 million or more collector pieces with much more on the way? There are currently only about 30,000 meteorites in collections.
Moon dust has not declined in value because it’s not legal to sell, and there is virtually no chance in the foreseeable future of replenishing whatever finds its way into the black market.
This is all wishful thinking.
I think it's time to start trading some citations. This will do for starters, confirming that Mars meteorites found on Earth are trading at between $500,000 and a million dollars per Kg.
http://www.meteoritemarket.com/SAU008.htm
I hope to get some figures on the total worth of the meteorite market. I would also add that it is clear far more meteorites are found per year than 50 years ago, which I think gives the lie to the argument that increased supply will lead to a decrease in price (because the price has also been rising).
Bobunf, come on - how often do you hear about the costs of a Mars mission and how often do you hear about the revenue to be earned? So far everything has been loaded on the cost side of the equation. We need to start focussing on the potential revenue.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
I spent some time in the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul. It didn't take long to learn not to take the asking price too seriously.
The meteorite market you describe is truly amazing: the greater the supply, the higher the price; sort of like anti-gravity.
I reason we don't hear about Mars revenue is because revenue will be close to zero for at least the rest of this century. Please note that so far I'm right.
I forgot to mention that besides Moon, asteroid, Phobos, comet, Mercury and Venus rocks, competition for the Mars rock market would also come from fakes. Another thing I picked up at the Grand Bazaar.
Offline
Decimator wrote: "What good is Earth money on Mars, anyway?"
It's good for imports.
Offline
Scanning through the final page of this conversation, I noticed two things: (1) the huge difference between exploration and colonization efforts is becoming recognized, and (2) there is a need to explore further at Mars, because we don't really know what resources are really available there, not yet.
The paper I gave at the recent August convention of the Mars Society in Dallas deals with those issues, plus the "prospecting" phase that fits between exploration and colonization. Exploration can be done with the tinkertoys we have right now, although it would be easier to do effectively if we were to resurrect the old solid core nuclear thermal rocket technology that did everything but fly 4 decades ago. Exploration seems to me best based from orbit, from which you can do science while you watch over the team on the surface.
"Prospecting" seems to me to be best done with a few surface bases where we learn how to live off the land and to produce some sort of commodity (as yet unknown) that would make a trading colony viable. The same existing spaceflight tinkertoys could be used for this as well as exploration.
Exploration answers two deceptively-simple questions: (1) what all is there? and (2) where exactly is it? And I do mean those questions exactly as worded, that is not slang or dialect. Answering these requires (as one of many parts) the drilling of samples deep under the surface: kilometers, not centimeters. I'd recommend making a bunch of widely-separated landings all in one trip, effecting what amounts to a planetary survey, based from orbit. This concept is way far more than an Apollo-style flag-and-footprints mission. Yet it can be done with chemical or nuclear thermal ships built in LEO massing a few hundred tons, not some ridiculous "Battlestar Galactica". Depending upon who leads it and who does the work, such a mission could be done for 10's of $B (billions), not $T's (trillions). But it cannot be done Apollo style, not for that price. NASA's underestimate for an Apollo-like mission is $450B, last I heard.
Colonization comes later, and actually requires really big ships to be affordable. We don't have anything like that yet. In the absence of any better candidate technologies, I'd suggest the old nuclear pulse propulsion idea, perhaps updated a bit. Half a dozen vessels like that could enable colonies all over the solar system, spread over a century or so. The place to build and test stuff like that safely is the moon.
Just some out-of-the-usual-path ideas for your discussions.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
In my view, discussion of financial bonanzas from Mars rocks are fruitless, and I don’t want to play that game any more.
Exporting anything material from Mars to Earth will, I think, be hugely uneconomic at least for the balance of this century, and maybe forever. The cost to obtain things on Earth will be far, far less the cost of sending mining and processing equipment and crews to Mars, mining ores on Mars, processing the ores to obtain the unobtainium, and returning it to Earth.
All of the mining and processing will, of course, occur in, what is for humans, essentially vacuum, with radiation hazards, potentially corrosive soil and dust and 38% gravity which will require adaptations from Earth practice. There will be no water available for processing or transporting the ore, and energy for various purposes must be supplied, which will be a large additional project. On Earth, you just connect to the grid or burn oil.
For instance, Nautilus Minerals is working at mining ore from a hydrothermal vent located about 1600 meters below the surface of the Bismarck Sea. The capital cost will be $393 million. The operating costs to the Port of Rabaul will be about $70 per ton of ore. Each ton is estimated to contain, on average 68 kilograms of copper, 4 kilograms of zinc, 23 grams of silver and 5 grams of gold. They plan to mine and process about 150 million tons of ore per year, which would yield an estimated 10.2 million tons of copper, 600,000 tons of zinc, 3,450 tons of silver and 750 tons of gold. http://www.nautilusminerals.com/s/Projects-Solwara.asp
It seems obvious to me that setting up an operation on Mars to prospect for, mine and process 750 tons of gold (and a hundred thousand times as much ore, or more) per year would exceed $393 million by many orders of magnitude, and that the operating costs to mine, process and send to Earth 750 tons of gold per year (which would involve mining and processing many millions of tons of ore at the very least) would far exceed $10 billion per year. Obviously exporting less valuable precious metals would be even less practical.
Serious people are investing very large sums of their own money in this project, and they expect a significant return. There are a very large number of hydrothermal vents in Earth’s oceans. As this company puts it, “Nautilus plans to launch additional projects on our extensive tenement holdings across the South Pacific.” How can a Mars export expect to compete with such operations?
If Mars export could be remotely competitive, one would expect to find some entrepreneurial mining companies interested in prospecting Mars. There aren't any such.
Last edited by bobunf (2011-12-15 02:24:47)
Offline
Louis wrote, "No one can deny the huge sums that meteorites and rare regolith would command on Earth."
I can. The total sales of meteorites (comets, asteroids, Moon, Mars, genuine and fake) in the whole world are probably less than $10 million per year. The retail asking price is around $100 per gram. Actual wholesale prices are around a third of that, maybe less. So, if you sold a ton of Mars rocks at the meteorite price, you’d gross about $30 million.
I think you’d be lucky to break even, but even if there were no cost to acquire the stuff and get it back to Earth, $30 million is almost trivial in a project whose cost will certainly exceed many, many billions of dollars, even if not the trillions suggested by Hop, although I suspect he’s about an order of magnitude too low.
Tripling the quantity of space rocks arriving on the market each and every year would obviously depress the market. Besides, one would undoubtedly also be competing with Moon, asteroid, Phobos, comet and who knows what other kind of rocks. Maybe even Mercury and Venus rocks. Bear in mind that markets look forward, so your gross would probably not approach $30 million even in the first year.
What will be the price of these rocks after the first 100 tons of Moon, Mars and asteroid rocks arrive on the market? 10 million or more collector pieces with much more on the way? There are currently only about 30,000 meteorites in collections.
Moon dust has not declined in value because it’s not legal to sell, and there is virtually no chance in the foreseeable future of replenishing whatever finds its way into the black market.
This is all wishful thinking.
Go on the websites and you'll see that Mars meteorites will set you back about 50-100 dollars per gram. Meteorites found on Earth will be even rarer. These sites make it clear my figures are not fantasy figures.
http://www.astronomy.com/en/News-Observ … 0cost.aspx
http://geology.com/meteorites/value-of-meteorites.shtml
http://www.meteorites-for-sale.com/
http://www.spacerocksuk.com/lunarmars.html
The total amount of meteorites on Earth in human possession is less than annual gold production. They are intrinsically rare and valuable. To bring back say two tonnes of meteorites per annum will not crash the market, any more than availability of sugar from the West Indies shrank the value of the sugar economy. Colonists will be dealing at the upmarket end of the meteorite economy.
All institutions with geology and astronomy departments, all Space agencies and many private individuals will be interested in acquiring these new types of meteorites.
If anything I have been underestimating the value as they can go up to $25,000 per gram i.e. $25million per kilogram, depending on the nature of the meteorite.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline