Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

louis · 2011-12-15 07:47:13

bobunf wrote:

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.

YOu can't simply assert that it is impossible to make money from Mars gold. You have to give some reasons. Saying that gold production on Earth costs a lot of money is irrelevant: gold mining corps on Earth have to dig deep into the Earth, or trawl the ocean bed (in the future). That all involves huge costs and huge investment. They have to employ tens of thousands of people. They have to pay for land and mining rights, deal with environmental proteciton and pay taxes.

None of these apply on Mars. We would be looking for exposed gold seams at the surface, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be there since Mars had vulcanism and water. If they are there, they can be drilled out with a simple rock drill. There may be some issues with purifying the gold. That may require significant input but these gold seams would be the purest possible.

There's no way we would be mining 750 tonnes of gold! A couple of tonnes would be a good target I think, looking to realise revenue of around $100 million.

As for paying people. Don't you think universities, corporations, space agencies, military and others would be prepared stump up the money? Why ever not? They stump up money to get people through college and initially we are only talking of tens or hundreds of people. Wages are the least of our worries.

GW Johnson · 2011-12-15 13:30:08

Once somebody has actually been to Mars the first time and brought some rocks back, I kind of doubt that Mars minerals will remain as valuable commodities. It's a perception thing.

The real value to be derived is as yet unknown, because the exploration is not done. You have to find out what's there and where it is (unevenly distributed, just like here), before you can spend successful time learning to live off the land and figuring out what might actually be useful for trade ("prospecting").

But it is there. Somewhere. You just have to trust that this will be true, because it always has been before, here on Earth.

And you have to get all that exploration and "prospecting" done before it is probable that any colony you plant will be long-term successful. That's history. Just because we're talking about another planet makes no difference to that history lesson. We don't want any failures like Roanoke, or very-marginal survivals like Jamestown.

GW

louis · 2011-12-15 14:35:30

GW Johnson wrote:

Once somebody has actually been to Mars the first time and brought some rocks back, I kind of doubt that Mars minerals will remain as valuable commodities. It's a perception thing.
The real value to be derived is as yet unknown, because the exploration is not done. You have to find out what's there and where it is (unevenly distributed, just like here), before you can spend successful time learning to live off the land and figuring out what might actually be useful for trade ("prospecting").
But it is there. Somewhere. You just have to trust that this will be true, because it always has been before, here on Earth.
And you have to get all that exploration and "prospecting" done before it is probable that any colony you plant will be long-term successful. That's history. Just because we're talking about another planet makes no difference to that history lesson. We don't want any failures like Roanoke, or very-marginal survivals like Jamestown.
GW

I really can't let that pass.

1. Would you say that "Once people actually go out in the field on Earth and start searching for meteorites systematically I doubt meteorites will remain as valuable commodities. " No of course you wouldn't say anything as wrong headed as that - but it is the case that in the last 50 years or so meteorite gathering has become a professional enterprise so that many more meteorites are being gathered but meteorites remain valuable, indeed they have increased in value because universities and collectors have more money to spend on them and there is generally more interest in them. Mars meteorites will create their own market.

2. Even assuming you are right about the impact on the value, you can't possibly saying their value will become zero. If the value was $200 per gram, there is no reason to suppose it will fall below $20 just because a few more tonnes are brought back. What basis do you have more saying their collection will become unprofitable? You have no evidence - it's just pure assertion.

3. A lot of exploring and prospecting has already been done by satellites. A lot more can be done by cheap (compared with Curiosity) robot vehicles once people are on the planet. A lot of "prospecting" will happen naturally. Geologists will want to explore places like Olympus Mons. If they come across gold seams by chance, well obviously we then build on that knowledge. We DO know there is regolith and we know ordinary lunar regolith is v. valuable on Earth. Ordinary Mars regolith, requiring no prospecting of any great complexity will be v. valuable as well. Why do you doubt it when you have the example of lunar regolith before you?

2.

bobunf · 2011-12-15 16:00:59

Louis wrote, "YOu can't simply assert that it is impossible to make money from Mars gold." Well, yes I could, but I didn't.
"You have to give some reasons." Which I guessed you missed:

The cost to obtain things on Earth will be far, far less than 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.

Aside from the fact that, as Johnson points out, we have little idea what's actually there, that is, whether there are any remotely reasonably available sources of gold on Mars.

On the other hand, if it costs less to go to Mars, dig and process stuff and return to Earth, than to just dig and process on Earth, we really don't need to worry about it. All the greedy people on Earth, of whom there are a very, very large number, will just hop over to Mars (greed will show them how), scoop up huge quantities of gold and Mars rocks with greed once again solving all problems. It will be super profitable because the more stuff you bring, the higher the price. And especially profitable what with everyone on Mars working for free.

If we could just apply those principle to all of our needs on Earth, think of where we would be. Maybe back to the Golden age of the American deep south with all those useful slaves. And, if we would just cut the supply of oil, the price will fall; just as the price of Mars rocks will rise as the supply increases.

Eventually, there'll be enough of Mars on Earth that we won't need to go to Mars to enjoy Mars. It will be Mars on Earth, and we can disband the Mars Society.

Last edited by bobunf (2011-12-15 16:03:09)

louis · 2011-12-15 17:44:06

bobunf wrote:

Louis wrote, "YOu can't simply assert that it is impossible to make money from Mars gold." Well, yes I could, but I didn't.
"You have to give some reasons." Which I guessed you missed:
The cost to obtain things on Earth will be far, far less than 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.
Aside from the fact that, as Johnson points out, we have little idea what's actually there, that is, whether there are any remotely reasonably available sources of gold on Mars.
On the other hand, if it costs less to go to Mars, dig and process stuff and return to Earth, than to just dig and process on Earth, we really don't need to worry about it. All the greedy people on Earth, of whom there are a very, very large number, will just hop over to Mars (greed will show them how), scoop up huge quantities of gold and Mars rocks with greed once again solving all problems. It will be super profitable because the more stuff you bring, the higher the price. And especially profitable what with everyone on Mars working for free.
If we could just apply those principle to all of our needs on Earth, think of where we would be. Maybe back to the Golden age of the American deep south with all those useful slaves. And, if we would just cut the supply of oil, the price will fall; just as the price of Mars rocks will rise as the supply increases.
Eventually, there'll be enough of Mars on Earth that we won't need to go to Mars to enjoy Mars. It will be Mars on Earth, and we can disband the Mars Society.

Bobunf - I was replying to GW rather than you, which you don't make clear.

Your comments about all the mining equipment you need to take are irrelevant. We are talking about a virgin planet here where there will (in all likelihood - I agree we can't be certain) be rich unworked seams at the surface. You don't need deep mining equipment. You need a rock drill. #

The idea that there will be a flood of Klondyke miners will head for Mars is risible. To get this show on the road will cost tens of billions of dollars. Whoever gets there first will control who gets to the planet.

If gold is worth $50,000 per kg on Earth and it costs $20,000 per kg to transit it from Mars to Earth, then clearly you have $30,000 per kg to "play with" in terms of the cost of production.

Supply and demand analysis is really very much a matter of true by definition. All it does is hypothesis supply and demand from real life examples. The reason Ford sold more cars in 1920 than 1905 had nothing to do with supply and demand graphs. It had everything to do with increasing the productivity of labour.

But all markets are different.

Twenty years ago, you could drop the price of a Trabant by 10% - doesn't mean you'll sell any more. You could add 10% to the price of a Morgan - doesn't mean the waiting list would diminish. There's a difference between economic theory and economic reality.

The point about Mars meteorites is that they are a unique category of meteorite with innate rarity value and intrinsic scientific interest. The market will expand as they become available and institutions compete for prestige. If you are the Vice Chancellor of a University with a modest geology dept. you don't have to worry when Harvard takes first pickings. But when you find out the rival "modest" uni in the next state has bought a range of Mars meteorites and Mars regolith, then you realise suddenly you need to get your own collection to maintain prestige. In that way a competitive buyer market will develop.

I agree with Johnson that we don't really know yet what is there...but you are being obstinate and obtuse if you are saying "I don't care if we come across the purest gold seam in the solar system which we can get out with a simple rock drill and purify with some simple chemical processes. I don't care if we can make $20,000 per kg profit on transferring that gold back to Earth."
You have failed to demonstrate that such profit levels are impossible.

I am not sure what you mean by "There will be no water available for processing or transporting the ore" Do you mean running water as opposed to ice? There is plenty of water on Mars.

bobunf · 2011-12-16 00:50:34

Louis, I guess I'll wait for the gold and Mars rock rush. I don't think I'll hold my breath, but In the meantime I might try to get the US to try the "cut supply and reduce price" concept in a few fields. Say gasoline, petrol. Cut supply in half and watch the price drop. We'll be back to a dollar a gallon in no time. Who wants to join me in trying to convince Congress to do this?

louis · 2011-12-16 07:21:39

What, Bobunf - are you saying that less oil is being used on the planet now than when it's price was lower? Like to back that up with some graph references?

The links between supply and demand and price are much less clear in the real world as compared with textbooks.

The point about the Mars meteorite market (and other Mars products) is that it is a unique product and that it appeals to collectors, academic institutions and possibly the general public.

GW Johnson · 2011-12-16 11:03:10

Wait, I'm just trying to say that we don't know yet what Mars might have to offer economically. Whatever it is, it would have to be a very high value-added physical commodity, to justify the shipping costs. But, it might be an intellectual property, capable of being transmitted electronically. Or something else we simply haven't thought of yet. It will become clear, just give it time once folks are there.

I kind of doubt plain rocks would ever be that valuable. Lots of gold or diamonds might be, at least for a while before the market gets flooded. A supply of high-grade uranium or thorium might be worth it, if enriched and/or bred on Mars to high-grade fission fuels before transport to Earth. (Of course, that last would assume we get over our irrational fears about nuclear power, and proceed with rational solutions to the very real problems of waste disposal and plant vulnerabilities to natural disasters.) Not very likely for a while yet.

I quite agree that what I called "prospecting" would naturally occur, once manned bases get put on Mars. And having robots there working with the men at short distances, is exactly what needs to be done. I rather think we ought to do some serious exploring, based from orbit, at many landing sites, in a single first mission. Then the best 2 or 3 sites get the initial surface bases on the next mission, after we've had time to digest all the data from the first mission.

That's the most practical way to identify what actually might support a future colony. If you don't do that, the colonies never prosper: Spain's mistake 500 years ago with an extractive-mining-only model. Most of those colonies today are 3rd-world countries still.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2011-12-16 11:04:27)

JoshNH4H · 2011-12-16 13:37:31

Quite a discussion going on here. Anyway, specific points:

I don't think that it makes sense to try to get an operating profit out of the Mars base while it is still a "tour of duty" kind of place, and while it is not self sufficient. That seems to not make sense to me, in that before it is self sufficient (or nearly so, e.g. by self-sufficient I mean when it is capable of producing the vast majority of that which it consumes locally and to fill in the gaps with a minimal amount of imports paid for with locally generated funds), its primary goal should be getting to the point of self-sufficiency as opposed to generating income that will be absolutely minimal compared to the real program cost, e.g. the cost of developing equipment and getting there in the first place. It makes a lot more sense to me to do the stage where you're developing the colony's facilities and making it self-sufficient and, directly or indirectly, providing for hundreds of years of future development, correctly. Obviously if there's a way to make money that does not incur any additional costs, then by all means, but I tend to think that as long as the money being put into developing the colony is coming from Earth, it will not be economically feasible to even make an operating profit with exports.

As I mentioned before, though, all of this changes when the colony has its own internal economy that is basically separate from Earth. I saw that nobody replied directly to my argument that it does not make sense to talk about exports from a Martian colony in terms of profitability. That was in my post here; the reason for this is probably that that post was on the long side. Nevertheless, I do think that this is an important thing to keep in mind when talking about the economics of a Mars colony that is almost self-sufficient. If you would like to save some time, the stuff that I consider to be most important starts in the third paragraph.

With respect to the Antarctic bases, I think that there are definitely ways in which that is a good comparison. However, there are also ways in which it's not. The relatively low cost of transportation from the civilized world to Antarctica means that there is little impetus for local self-sufficiency, and given that most of the continent is covered in ice anyway it does not seem to me that there are actually many available resources that could be extracted on a small scale even if they were desired. That said, if you subtract out the cost of scientific materials from that $167,000/person, you can perhaps come to some kind of approximation of the total per-person cost of keeping one person alive in a hostile environment for one year, though there is of course a significant margin of error on that. Further, I would like to point out that because there is little attempt at self-sufficiency for an Antarctic base, a significant part of that remainder could be made up by the colonists working towards self-sufficiency by themselves. Our goal, of course, if we're trying to design such a colony is to make the amount that needs to be imported absolutely minimal.

louis · 2011-12-16 16:13:11

GW Johnson wrote:

Wait, I'm just trying to say that we don't know yet what Mars might have to offer economically. Whatever it is, it would have to be a very high value-added physical commodity, to justify the shipping costs. But, it might be an intellectual property, capable of being transmitted electronically. Or something else we simply haven't thought of yet. It will become clear, just give it time once folks are there.
I kind of doubt plain rocks would ever be that valuable. Lots of gold or diamonds might be, at least for a while before the market gets flooded. A supply of high-grade uranium or thorium might be worth it, if enriched and/or bred on Mars to high-grade fission fuels before transport to Earth. (Of course, that last would assume we get over our irrational fears about nuclear power, and proceed with rational solutions to the very real problems of waste disposal and plant vulnerabilities to natural disasters.) Not very likely for a while yet.
I quite agree that what I called "prospecting" would naturally occur, once manned bases get put on Mars. And having robots there working with the men at short distances, is exactly what needs to be done. I rather think we ought to do some serious exploring, based from orbit, at many landing sites, in a single first mission. Then the best 2 or 3 sites get the initial surface bases on the next mission, after we've had time to digest all the data from the first mission.
That's the most practical way to identify what actually might support a future colony. If you don't do that, the colonies never prosper: Spain's mistake 500 years ago with an extractive-mining-only model. Most of those colonies today are 3rd-world countries still.
GW

I am not sure how you can say the plain rocks of Mars won't ever be "that valuable" (I guess you mean in excess of $20,000 per kg if we take that as the cost of transit), given we have the clear example of ordinary bog standard lunar regolith in front of us.

"Moon rocks collected during the course of lunar exploration are currently considered priceless. In 1993, three small fragments from Luna 16, weighing 0.2 g, were sold for US$ 442,500."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock

Can you argue with that? I don't think so. That's $2billion per kg! Or $2 trillion per tonne...Is that enough value for you?

Of course scaling up you $2million per gram won't hold, but clearly there is huge value to be exploited there, particularly in the early years.

louis · 2011-12-16 16:26:51

JoshNH4H wrote:

Quite a discussion going on here. Anyway, specific points:
I don't think that it makes sense to try to get an operating profit out of the Mars base while it is still a "tour of duty" kind of place, and while it is not self sufficient. That seems to not make sense to me, in that before it is self sufficient (or nearly so, e.g. by self-sufficient I mean when it is capable of producing the vast majority of that which it consumes locally and to fill in the gaps with a minimal amount of imports paid for with locally generated funds), its primary goal should be getting to the point of self-sufficiency as opposed to generating income that will be absolutely minimal compared to the real program cost, e.g. the cost of developing equipment and getting there in the first place. It makes a lot more sense to me to do the stage where you're developing the colony's facilities and making it self-sufficient and, directly or indirectly, providing for hundreds of years of future development, correctly. Obviously if there's a way to make money that does not incur any additional costs, then by all means, but I tend to think that as long as the money being put into developing the colony is coming from Earth, it will not be economically feasible to even make an operating profit with exports.
As I mentioned before, though, all of this changes when the colony has its own internal economy that is basically separate from Earth. I saw that nobody replied directly to my argument that it does not make sense to talk about exports from a Martian colony in terms of profitability. That was in my post here; the reason for this is probably that that post was on the long side. Nevertheless, I do think that this is an important thing to keep in mind when talking about the economics of a Mars colony that is almost self-sufficient. If you would like to save some time, the stuff that I consider to be most important starts in the third paragraph.
With respect to the Antarctic bases, I think that there are definitely ways in which that is a good comparison. However, there are also ways in which it's not. The relatively low cost of transportation from the civilized world to Antarctica means that there is little impetus for local self-sufficiency, and given that most of the continent is covered in ice anyway it does not seem to me that there are actually many available resources that could be extracted on a small scale even if they were desired. That said, if you subtract out the cost of scientific materials from that $167,000/person, you can perhaps come to some kind of approximation of the total per-person cost of keeping one person alive in a hostile environment for one year, though there is of course a significant margin of error on that. Further, I would like to point out that because there is little attempt at self-sufficiency for an Antarctic base, a significant part of that remainder could be made up by the colonists working towards self-sufficiency by themselves. Our goal, of course, if we're trying to design such a colony is to make the amount that needs to be imported absolutely minimal.

I agree with your point about Antarctica. I was thinking of that myself. If you told 5,000 people, here's - say - $10 billion dollars to go and live self sufficiently on Antarctica, how difficult would it be for them? Not so v. difficult I think. We can imagine how they might settle there with huge solar arrays and wind turbines, produce their own food, grind down the regolith to create soil, grow food in heated domes etc etc.

I don't disagree that self-sufficiency (or more accurately, near self-sufficiency) should be the primary aim (since that is the quickest way to grow the colony). But if increased revenue allows you to launch more missions or import more complex technology, then surely that will help achieve the aim earlier.

The reality is that the first colonists will be bringing back regolith from Mars. You can either give it away free or sell it. I don't see anything wrong intrinsically with selling it.

I would say that the colonists will ignore raw profitability when it comes to imports and transits. They will effectively subsidise the cost of importing goods because those imports (medicines, communications equipment, rocketry etc) will be vital to the colony's survival and development. But there is scope for huge profit margins on exports from Mars to Earth.

JoshNH4H · 2011-12-16 17:15:48

I agree that if increased revenue were to be a help to further settlement missions, then it would be a good idea to go after it if it did not lead to the scientific and practical aims of the first missions being compromised too much. However, I don't think that that will be the case. I do intend to respond to your thread in Mars Politics and Econ, by the way, but I don't have time for a long post at the moment so I'll probably do it tomorrow.

Selling Mars rocks to Universities vs. giving them away is one of the things that I would say may indeed be a legitimate source of revenue. However, I'm unsure as to what the extent of this market is, and unless it would represent at least a percent or two of the total cost of the mission I don't believe it to be worth it. You talk a lot about the value of Mars meteorites, but there is a very important difference between the meteorites gotten from Antarctica et. al., and rocks gotten from the surface of Mars as part of an ongoing series of exploration and eventually colonization missions: They are both high in value because they represent the sale of a limited resource. In part, I would imagine that the ability to get rocks back from Mars would drop the cost simply because of an increase in supply. Given that Mars rocks tend to be sold at auction etc. as opposed to at a fixed price, I would imagine that each increase in the availability of rocks would lead to a decrease in the price for quite a while.

The more important reason why the prices will drop is the promise of future materials. If we have a base on Mars, or even a serious colonization enterprise, those who would buy Martian materials know that the supply is increasing. For meteorites, that is not really the case, because the increase is at such a small rate that it might as well be zero. An example of the reverse effect is quite current, when the shutdown of Libyan Oil exports led to a significant increase in price, even though Libyan oil is a very small percentage of world oil production not due to an actual shortage but rather due to fears that there would be a shortage. Fears of an excess will lead to a similar drop in prices. Given the energy crisis I doubt we will ever see fears of an excess of oil, but the same cannot be said of Martian materials. Only so many people are in the top 1%, though given the prices you're talking about this is more like a top .001% endeavor.

I actually disagree that colonists will ignore raw profitability. Many of the things that will be imported are things that could conceivably be engineered around. For example, computer chips and chemical catalysts rightly should be used the minimum amount that is possible. Given that there is absolutely no way around the use of medical equipment, I agree that that would be subsidized, but I would put the subsidy at the very end of the line, e.g. have the government pay for a part of the cost of treatment. Raw profitability, assuming that the currency being used on Mars is relatively closely correlated to how much work is put into obtaining the product, is the best measure of efficiency.

louis · 2011-12-16 18:11:00

JoshNH4H wrote:

I agree that if increased revenue were to be a help to further settlement missions, then it would be a good idea to go after it if it did not lead to the scientific and practical aims of the first missions being compromised too much. However, I don't think that that will be the case. I do intend to respond to your thread in Mars Politics and Econ, by the way, but I don't have time for a long post at the moment so I'll probably do it tomorrow.
Selling Mars rocks to Universities vs. giving them away is one of the things that I would say may indeed be a legitimate source of revenue. However, I'm unsure as to what the extent of this market is, and unless it would represent at least a percent or two of the total cost of the mission I don't believe it to be worth it. You talk a lot about the value of Mars meteorites, but there is a very important difference between the meteorites gotten from Antarctica et. al., and rocks gotten from the surface of Mars as part of an ongoing series of exploration and eventually colonization missions: They are both high in value because they represent the sale of a limited resource. In part, I would imagine that the ability to get rocks back from Mars would drop the cost simply because of an increase in supply. Given that Mars rocks tend to be sold at auction etc. as opposed to at a fixed price, I would imagine that each increase in the availability of rocks would lead to a decrease in the price for quite a while.
The more important reason why the prices will drop is the promise of future materials. If we have a base on Mars, or even a serious colonization enterprise, those who would buy Martian materials know that the supply is increasing. For meteorites, that is not really the case, because the increase is at such a small rate that it might as well be zero. An example of the reverse effect is quite current, when the shutdown of Libyan Oil exports led to a significant increase in price, even though Libyan oil is a very small percentage of world oil production not due to an actual shortage but rather due to fears that there would be a shortage. Fears of an excess will lead to a similar drop in prices. Given the energy crisis I doubt we will ever see fears of an excess of oil, but the same cannot be said of Martian materials. Only so many people are in the top 1%, though given the prices you're talking about this is more like a top .001% endeavor.
I actually disagree that colonists will ignore raw profitability. Many of the things that will be imported are things that could conceivably be engineered around. For example, computer chips and chemical catalysts rightly should be used the minimum amount that is possible. Given that there is absolutely no way around the use of medical equipment, I agree that that would be subsidized, but I would put the subsidy at the very end of the line, e.g. have the government pay for a part of the cost of treatment. Raw profitability, assuming that the currency being used on Mars is relatively closely correlated to how much work is put into obtaining the product, is the best measure of efficiency.

I look forward to your comments on the economics thread.

You ask about the market for the rocks.

There are about 20,000 universities on planet Earth. There are probably a few thousand other institutions such as science museums, geological associations, planetariums, well endowed schools, space agencies and major mining companies who would be potential buyers.

I don't know how many people collect gem stones and rocks but clearly the market must run into hundreds of thousands or millions across the world. Among them are some very rich collectors for these intrinsically rare objects, such as meteorites or unusual gems.

To begin with I think the regolith, rocks, meteorites etc would sell at incredibly high prices. I think we would be talking at least $200 per gram. Institutions like Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Bologna, space agencies,research institutes etc will be competing for these first tranches. Two tonnes - producing revenue of $400 million - for Mission One sounds to me like a good target. Maybe that would be spread across a couple of hundred buyers. But that's just the start of the market. You still have tens of thousands of potential buyers out there. One can simply offer smaller lots then - instead of say offering 10-50 kg lots, you offer 500 gram to 5 kgs, and so on until you are reaching the mass market where people buy tiny slivers of rock. I don't think there will be any decline in the price per gram for many years - probably 20-30 years.

I think one should note that there will be a huge market for jewelry from Mars - polished gem stones will have great value well above $20 per gram. Probably in the region of $100 per gram I would say.

There will be some decline in the price per gram, but not a lot I think, and as the colony grows its ability to identify and harvest high value meteorites will grow. I think the trade will remain profitable, not least because the price of transit imposes a price floor (no one else is going to undercut you).

JoshNH4H · 2011-12-17 15:17:41

On the contrary, I believe that the existence of two tonnes of the material will be enough to drive the price down to below $200/g. I'm pretty sure that there is no stable element or natural mineral, rock, etc., no matter how rare, that costs $200,000/kg. That is, based on the charts that I looked at, more than four times the price of the rarest and most expensive elements, even Rhodium. I think that you would want to look at a price 5 or 10 times less than that, even if you're going to be optimistic.

louis · 2011-12-17 15:47:46

JoshNH4H wrote:

On the contrary, I believe that the existence of two tonnes of the material will be enough to drive the price down to below $200/g. I'm pretty sure that there is no stable element or natural mineral, rock, etc., no matter how rare, that costs $200,000/kg. That is, based on the charts that I looked at, more than four times the price of the rarest and most expensive elements, even Rhodium. I think that you would want to look at a price 5 or 10 times less than that, even if you're going to be optimistic.

Didn't you read the post above:

"Moon rocks collected during the course of lunar exploration are currently considered priceless. In 1993, three small fragments from Luna 16, weighing 0.2 g, were sold for US$ 442,500."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock

Or this:

http://www.rockhounds.com/rockshop/martians.shtml

You'll see references to meteorites being sold for $4000 to $10000 per gram - that's up to $10 million per kg.

I don't know why you are ignoring the evidence.

If you have say 10,000 universities, various agencies, and private collectors competing for these very rare items, you can see a 2 tonne load split into maybe 1000 lots ranging from $1million per kg items down to $50,000 per kg objects or sand and an overall value of $400 million being realised. Of course the rocks etc can be sold with photos of the collection sites which agencies and collectors could frame. (They were be returned digitally.)

Of course, if anything is found with a fossil on it the value would be far greater.

In addition, a huge number of valuable collector artefacts could be created e.g. handwritten statements by the first colonists written on Mars. A sale of the first items used on Mars - everything from knives and forks to shaving cream will have value for future generations. Many museums across the globe would be willing to pay to pay well over $50,000 per kg for such items.

SpaceNut · 2011-12-18 10:04:14

GW Johnson wrote:

Once somebody has actually been to Mars the first time and brought some rocks back, I kind of doubt that Mars minerals will remain as valuable commodities. It's a perception thing.

I would say just like moon rocks have been...government owned and not in private collectors property vaults as they did not go and get them....So how did any become sold?

The up front cost to send men to mars, keep them alive all comes out of the collected sums for any return ore or refined metals.

louis · 2011-12-18 16:00:33

SpaceNut wrote:

GW Johnson wrote:
Once somebody has actually been to Mars the first time and brought some rocks back, I kind of doubt that Mars minerals will remain as valuable commodities. It's a perception thing.
I would say just like moon rocks have been...government owned and not in private collectors property vaults as they did not go and get them....So how did any become sold?
The up front cost to send men to mars, keep them alive all comes out of the collected sums for any return ore or refined metals.

How do you know some slivers - like the Luna 17 specimens weren't given to some notables on retirement?

Anyway, we certainly have reliable costing for Mars meteorites - their value is indeniably stratospheric.

Not sure what you mean by "collected sums". Obviously if you have revenue, then you can use that to fund capital developments such as building MTVs.

Terraformer · 2011-12-18 16:34:03

If regolith from Mars can make so much money, why haven't we had a sample return mission yet? If they retail for $1k/g ($1 billion/tonne), a Mars Sample Return Mission should pay for itself easily.

Perhaps the market isn't there?

louis · 2011-12-18 19:06:25

Terraformer wrote:

If regolith from Mars can make so much money, why haven't we had a sample return mission yet? If they retail for $1k/g ($1 billion/tonne), a Mars Sample Return Mission should pay for itself easily.
Perhaps the market isn't there?

NASA have never formally abandoned the "free for humanity" approach to space missions and only NASA up until now have the wherewithal to get to Mars. ESA also appears to follow a "free for humanity" approach. Very laudable, but possibly this approach is holding up development.

I never claimed that a Mission could realise a billion per tonne ( I was illustrating what a $1000 per gram would be worth, so people understood). I think $200 million per tonne for two tonnes is more likely for regolith/meteorites/precious metals and stones ($400 million in total). But of course one can add on: commercial sponsorship ($300million?), sale of TV and film rights ($300million?), sale of first mission artefacts ($50-100 million?), sale of TV appearances, exclusive books etc ($100 million?).

You've got to remember individual art works have sold for hundreds of millions of dollars; Liz Taylor's jewels went for over a hundred million.

How much do you think it costs a university to mount a geological or botanical expedition? How much to build a new telescope? Remember, also, most universities get public funding as well - they have the money to spend on science-related projects. The idea that regolith won't seel is I think preposterous.

I don't think Missions will be able to pay for the initial capital cost. However you cut it, I think you are probably in for $10billion -$40 billion for the overall project spread over maybe 10 years. However, I think they could cover operating costs thereafter.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-09-16 03:15:04

'A liveable city on the moon where babies can be born is now being planned'

https://sea.mashable.com/tech/20939/a-l … ng-planned

The team behind the concept hails from Kyoto University and the Kajima Corporation in Japan, with a joint proposal highlighting a three-phase approach for creating a sustainable and completely habitable environment for humans on the Moon.

This complex would be housed within Lunar Glass structure, and would theoretically be able to support human life to the point that even babies could be born and grow up within the structure.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2011-12-15 07:47:13

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#152 2011-12-15 13:30:08

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#153 2011-12-15 14:35:30

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#154 2011-12-15 16:00:59

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#155 2011-12-15 17:44:06

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#156 2011-12-16 00:50:34

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#157 2011-12-16 07:21:39

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#158 2011-12-16 11:03:10

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#159 2011-12-16 13:37:31

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#160 2011-12-16 16:13:11

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#161 2011-12-16 16:26:51

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#162 2011-12-16 17:15:48

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#163 2011-12-16 18:11:00

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#164 2011-12-17 15:17:41

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#165 2011-12-17 15:47:46

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#166 2011-12-18 10:04:14

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#167 2011-12-18 16:00:33

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#168 2011-12-18 16:34:03

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#169 2011-12-18 19:06:25

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

#170 2023-09-16 03:15:04

Re: Mission One: a one way ticket to Mars?

Board footer