Key Debates

Belter · 2018-10-11 08:13:16

As for funding, sure, I think some of the costs can be offset, but Coca Cola isn't going to spend its entire marketing budget for a banner on Mars. But I think it's a good idea to at least try to get something to fund it privately. Not sure what "low weight jewelry" though. Now, if we were to find a diamond deposit and the diamonds could be marketed as 100% certified Martian diamonds, that would certainly fund some things. If we could figure out how to make rust important, that would help.

louis · 2018-10-11 09:02:27

Did I say they would spend all of it on Mars sponsorship? No. But 13%? Yes they spend that sort of money on the Olympics. This would get way more coverage than the Olympics and over a more sustained period.

The cachet of the jewellery would be that it came from Mars. It wouldn't have to be diamonds or gold. Polished semi-precious stones would be marketable. A jewelry piece might weigh 20 grams. 50 per kg. $2500 per kg cost to cover. Sell at $300 a time. Marginal cost of mining, polishing and packaging? Maybe $50 a time. Profit of $2500.

Belter wrote:

As for funding, sure, I think some of the costs can be offset, but Coca Cola isn't going to spend its entire marketing budget for a banner on Mars. But I think it's a good idea to at least try to get something to fund it privately. Not sure what "low weight jewelry" though. Now, if we were to find a diamond deposit and the diamonds could be marketed as 100% certified Martian diamonds, that would certainly fund some things. If we could figure out how to make rust important, that would help.

Belter · 2018-10-11 09:08:34

We'd have to find it in large quantities just sitting around though. It is possible, unlike on the Earth where you won't see any precious metals laying around on the ground. But the processes to create it may not have existed or they may simply be inaccessible. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to monetize space travel, but the odds of it being more than a drop in the bucket for a long time are pretty slim.

kbd512 · 2018-10-11 10:46:56

I'm not talking about actually building or fabricating an inflatable structure. The dome would be prefabricated and leak tested at the factory on Earth. For ease of transport, it would be deflated and stored in the cargo hold of BFS for the trip to Mars. Once at Mars, this inflatable structure, possibly several of them connected to each other for redundancy, would be transported to a suitable deployment site (somewhere relatively flat and well away from the giant rocket), inflating it with CO2 bladders, and then outfitting it with the life support systems, communications and scientific equipment, and furniture to turn it into a small base of operations that operates independently from BFS.

After initial inflation, the crew would then erect composite support spars (slide the spars through kevlar loops sewn into the inflatable, just like we do here on Earth when we erect a tent) around the inflatable to support the weight of regolith bags emplaced around the dome for radiation protection. The kevlar regolith bags would be filled by a machine that scoops up regolith from the surface, removes large rocks, and grinds the rest of the regolith into a fine powder with a consistent grain size. That powder product is then poured into kevlar bags after the bags are placed around the support spars. Successive bags are then stacked atop each other and filled with more regolith powder. It's just a slightly higher-tech version of sandbagging.

A more laborious version of that sandbagging process is how US troops protect their forward operating bases from mortar and machine gun fire. They're colloquially known as HESCO barriers and have seen extensive service in the Middle East. Hopefully our prospective Martians won't be under threat of mortar fire, but even if they are, in the form of small space rocks hurtling to the ground, our bases will be protected. In this particular case, the goal is to protect the base from radiation. However, a secondary desirable effect is protection from any MMOD threat, however slight. A tertiary desirable effect is stopping any rover that accidentally collides with the barrier using tons of regolith.

After the base is created, we have the means to permanent habitation of Mars, initially for science, and decades into the future, a second home. The BFS can come and go as required. Those who want to remain on Mars, rather than take their chances with another interplanetary transit, may stay there. For those who want to return to Earth, there's a flight leaving the base every two years.

louis · 2018-10-11 14:37:54

You're not being imaginative enough. The world watch industry is worth alone about $50 billion per annum minimum. The idea that Mars with all its associations with martial valour over the centuries (or I believe romance in some countries) couldn't get a significant slice of the market seems unambitious to me.

NASA controls a budget of $18 billion. Are you seriously suggesting they won't devote a significant slab of that to paying Space X to get its experiments, rovers and other people to Mars? Space X could launch probes to the asteroids and outer solar system as well.

Other space agencies - ESA, JAXA, ISA, Brazilian, Argentinian, Nigerian and South African Agencies will all be interested in what Space X can offer in terms of delivering personnel, science experiments and robot rovers. The same will go for the major universities around the world. Won't they all want to be the first to get their people on Mars? They also control billions of dollars of investment in education and research. Billions of dollars are being poured into climate research - some of that will be available for research on Mars I am sure.

This won't be a "drop in the bucket". Putting together a biannual mission of 6 BFSs to Mars will likely cost around $1.5 billion per annum once BFR production has reached economies of scale. I think a combination of all the revenue streams I have mentioned will exceed that figure easily. The profit could be used to fund more BFSs or - a better use I think - pay for more scaled down highly automated infrastructure like PV manufacture.

Belter wrote:

We'd have to find it in large quantities just sitting around though. It is possible, unlike on the Earth where you won't see any precious metals laying around on the ground. But the processes to create it may not have existed or they may simply be inaccessible. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to monetize space travel, but the odds of it being more than a drop in the bucket for a long time are pretty slim.

Belter · 2018-10-11 17:07:19

I have a vivid imagination. But I am also realistic. I think NASA alone spends $10B/year just on the ISS, which, IMO, has become a profound waste of money. So imagine how much they will spend just to maintain a Mars colony or mission. It always costs way more than you think. The one good thing about Space X is that they at least are able to make adjustments on the fly and they downsized the ITS to make it more realistic. I think they are sketchy about a Mars base because they have their hands beyond full just on trying to the very basics of an Apollo style mission.

louis · 2018-10-11 17:35:48

No one's asking NASA to become more effective in its spending. We are talking about a Space X mission and colonisation effort. So we don't want NASA to be more cost effective - quite the reverse: you want them to carry on the way they have hitherto and just continue to splurge billions on Mars...but in future via Space X who will reap the benefits.

You may be right about Space X having their hands full with the rocketry but if so they are being shortsighted. They should simply farm out a lot of the project planning. I see this as a five way problem 1. Get to Mars and back (rocketry) 2. Unload those pesky BFSs 3. Ensure you can create human-friendly habitats following landing. 4. Tap into a reliable water source. 5 Make the propellant. That should just about square the circle. Space X should contract out 2, 3, 4 and 5. They have indicated that is their approach but we haven't yet seen that is what they are doing in fact.

Belter wrote:

I have a vivid imagination. But I am also realistic. I think NASA alone spends $10B/year just on the ISS, which, IMO, has become a profound waste of money. So imagine how much they will spend just to maintain a Mars colony or mission. It always costs way more than you think. The one good thing about Space X is that they at least are able to make adjustments on the fly and they downsized the ITS to make it more realistic. I think they are sketchy about a Mars base because they have their hands beyond full just on trying to the very basics of an Apollo style mission.

Last edited by louis (2018-10-11 18:17:38)

SpaceNut · 2018-10-11 17:46:32

So long as the FAA has the say for whom has a flight into space we can bet that they will say no to anyone but Nasa for doing anything beyond maybe the moon flights if it happens for Space x. Which puts the cash crunch on making use of the Nasa meal ticket to fund its activity.

Belter · 2018-10-11 18:11:53

The fact that the US government nearly arrested a woman for launching her satellites into orbit FROM INDIA without their permission is something that would have caused the Founders to burn down the Capitol building themselves, is telling. They have absolutely no authority over it whatsoever. I think the biggest thing that might drive people to Mars is the lack of free sanctuary on Earth.

Last edited by Belter (2018-10-11 18:12:14)

kbd512 · 2018-10-11 18:19:05

SpaceNut,

Do you think it's reasonable for the FAA to regulate who is fit to fly into space?

They granted approval to that flat-Earth nut to fly his rocket to prove to himself that he's a complete moron. He succeeded... In demonstrating to everyone else that he's not too bright. Since they let that guy fly, how high a hurdle to clear could FAA approval possibly be?

Dudes breathing, gotta pulse, can count backwards from 10 to 1... Yep, he's good to go.

louis · 2018-10-11 18:20:08

Musk isn't stupid. He never says anything negative about NASA. We can but he can't! I think he will build into the Space X mission to Mars a big cash boost for NASA (payment for communications - satellite links and so on plus launch and landing facilities on Earth) that they will find difficult to refuse.

SpaceNut wrote:

So long as the FAA has the say for whom has a flight into space we can bet that they will say no to anyone but Nasa for doing anything beyond maybe the moon flights if it happens for Space x. Which puts the cash crunch on making use of the Nasa meal ticket to fund its activity.

SpaceNut · 2018-10-11 19:20:27

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A … nistration

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/he … fices/ast/

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie … ial_space/

The FAA licenses commercial space launch facilities and private launches of space payloads on expendable launch vehicles. Investigation of aviation incidents, accidents and disasters is conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board , an independent government agency.

According to the FAA SpaceX would have approximately 30 full-time employees or contractors present on-site at the vertical launch area and/or control center area in 2016. Then by 2025, the FAA says there could be as many 150 full-time SpaceX employees or contractors on-site.

The FAA licenses the launch of a launch vehicle and reentry of a reentry vehicle under authority granted to the Secretary of Transportation in the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2018-10-11 08:13:16

Re: Key Debates

#77 2018-10-11 09:02:27

Re: Key Debates

#78 2018-10-11 09:08:34

Re: Key Debates

#79 2018-10-11 10:46:56

Re: Key Debates

#80 2018-10-11 14:37:54

Re: Key Debates

#81 2018-10-11 17:07:19

Re: Key Debates

#82 2018-10-11 17:35:48

Re: Key Debates

#83 2018-10-11 17:46:32

Re: Key Debates

#84 2018-10-11 18:11:53

Re: Key Debates

#85 2018-10-11 18:19:05

Re: Key Debates

#86 2018-10-11 18:20:08

Re: Key Debates

#87 2018-10-11 19:20:27

Re: Key Debates

Board footer