Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

HeloTeacher · 2002-05-23 08:58:53

Is there any information that the Mars Society has acquired (or anyone lese for that matter) on the topic of non-governmental funding for a Mars mission?

What I'm wondering is how possible it is to pay for some of the mission cost by selling media rights, access to returned samples, access to medical and life-support data, etc.

Would any of the aerospace manufacturers be willing to pro-rate a launch in order to have the distinction of being the Mars launch vehicle?

Would any of the large brand names be willing to pay to have their name on all the suits, meals, camera shots, etc.?

I have been cruising the various topics in the forums and see what is potentially a solution to some of the concerns. Some of this idea has been catalyzed while reading the NASA Design Reference Mission document. I'd like to try and organize these thoughts and if I can put them together properly I'll post them here.

clark · 2002-05-23 09:48:35

Is there any information that the Mars Society has acquired (or anyone lese for that matter) on the topic of non-governmental funding for a Mars mission?

Non-governmental funding implies that a non-governmental organization must be contracted, or created, to organize and proceed with development of a Man to mars mission. Considering that most of the expertise for this venture exsists almost solely in the governmental sector, it will be difficult to go it alone in terms of creating a non-government funded or directed project. If government agencies are utilized, so that it is a mix of private and public funds, there are certain legal and politcal issues that can make the buisness model you are suggesting untenable.

What I'm wondering is how possible it is to pay for some of the mission cost by selling media rights,

Not a problem if no government funds are used, however, if public funds are used, then how can we justify selling the media rights to anyone? Public funds implies that the resource, in this case the media rights, belong to the public. How can you justify using everyone's money so a few can profit from it? Say we sell the rights to a cable or pay for service provider, you are in effect taking the publicly funded resource and limiting who can have access to it. This in a nut-shell is the problem with mixing government and private funds in my view.

access to returned samples,

Should we set the precedent that scientific discovery for the betterment of Man is for sale? What does this access mean really? Are we allowing people to BUY the limited return samples that could be used by public educational and research facilities for scientific discovery? Are we setting a precedent that money is our goal for human exploration before science?

access to medical and life-support data,

Dosen't the medical data ultimely belong to the Astronauts? What about issues of personal privacy? Shouldn't the results be shared with as many people as possible? Once you start "selling access" you are creating a commodity whose value is based on how many people can access the information- the fewer, the more exspensive it becomes- wouldn't this limit scientific research?

Would any of the aerospace manufacturers be willing to pro-rate a launch in order to have the distinction of being the Mars launch vehicle?

Mabye a better question would be to figure out which rocket outfits have the heavy lift capability to do this- if there are only one or two, then what is the incentive for them to pro-rate?

Would any of the large brand names be willing to pay to have their name on all the suits, meals, camera shots, etc.?

This has possibilities, since this is a passive form of generating funds without compromising scientific endeavours. Taking advertising along for the ride is much different than having advertising pay for the ride.

Here is an idea:

Once ISS is completed to the point where NASA feels confident about letting non-astronauts on board, instutitute a national lottery. One winner is selected for every trip to the ISS on the shuttle. The proceeds can be used to offset the cost of launching th shuttle, as well as maybe paying for othe scientific activities. The lottery acts as a means for EVERYBODY to have a chance to go into space- it reinvigorates the idea of space travel with the general population since it is now at least perceived to be within their reach. It seems regular state lotteries build up into the tens of millions on a weekly basis- now imagine a lottery every three months, with one guareented winner at the end going into space- a dollar a ticket (or whatever) seems a deal- this model would probably generate more funds than the current $20 mil a pop the russsians charge.

Now, space is made "real" to the average Joe- suddenly it becomes an important topic to more of the general population, which leads to further funding, which can hopefully be used to increase the perception that space is attainable. Also, it sets up the argument that every dollar we spend on NASA, is another dollar that leads to a greater chance for you or I to get into space.

This model also avoids the idea that Space, or even NASA, exsist for a select few- afterall, the shuttle, ISS, and NASA are public domain- we own it, and since it is a very limited resource that many individuals want access to, we let lady luck decide who gets to go first.

Since the shuttle has to go to the ISS anyway, it dosen't matter really if we only sell one ticket or a trillion- we still have to go- but any money generated is a good thing, plus the continual publicity of a lottery- Who Wants to Be the Next Astronaut....

Adrian · 2002-05-23 10:29:15

I believe (I'm not certain, though) that the point of Heloteacher's post was suggesting whether a Mars mission could be funded entirely without the aid of the government; hence, it would be possible for media rights, access rights, etc, to be sold - Greg Benford wrote about this possibility in 'The Martian Race.'

Bill White · 2002-05-23 10:31:24

<<What I'm wondering is how possible it is to pay for some of the mission cost by selling media rights, >>
Not a problem if no government funds are used, however, if public funds are used, then how can we justify selling the media rights to anyone? Public funds implies that the resource, in this case the media rights, belong to the public. How can you justify using everyone's money so a few can profit from it? Say we sell the rights to a cable or pay for service provider, you are in effect taking the publicly funded resource and limiting who can have access to it. This in a nut-shell is the problem with mixing government and private funds in my view.

Recent experience with Soyuz tourism suggests that the Russians would be less reluctant to enter into a public / private joint venture in space. If a media company did raise $20 or $30 billion - somehow - I think the Russians would gladly supply Energias and nuclear reactors and the ESA would probably offer use of their MELISSA research.

Then, NASA's cooperation could perhaps be obtained through the application of appropriate leverage on Congress via public opinion, something media companies are experts at doing.

For example, visualize an American TV ad that says - "The first flag on Mars WILL be red / white & blue - what is in question is what will be the exact shade of red / white & blue and whether there will be any stars on that flag. Call Congress today!" I am sure media pros could do this much better, but I hope I have conveyed the idea. . .

clark · 2002-05-23 10:58:01

I believe (I'm not certain, though) that the point of Heloteacher's post was suggesting whether a Mars mission could be funded entirely without the aid of the government; hence, it would be possible for media rights, access rights, etc, to be sold - Greg Benford wrote about this possibility in 'The Martian Race.'

I understand the point, however I was trying to point out that relying on non-governmental funds and agencies might be a long shot at best. One, you have to factor in the cost of either finding suitable organizations to do the work for you, or creating the groups yourself- this adds to the final cost. Next you have to secure the neccessary technical people as well as the neccessary technology that still needs to be developed adn worked out in some cases. None of whihc is guarenteed- which means the business model requirers a commitment of 10-50 billion over ten years with no guareentee of a return of investment. Now you will be competing for this capital with other investment opportunities that offer definite returns with a lot less risk. Maybe you can get people who want to support this endeavour irregardles of the cost- then my next question, do you seriously belive that there is 10-50 billion out there that people will risk becuase of the goal? If you make a plan based on business, then think like a business- right now there is too much risk and not enough return- which neccessitates bringing the government in to reduce the risk, which makes it easier to obtain the capital- but then we are back to my original concern of selling publicly funded science and resources.

I honestly think that the Mars Society could try to get 20 million to buy a spot on the Soyuz and then use that as a prize for a lottery- take the profits to fund the science projects, or send your own sattelite to Mars.

20 million up front, could be easily turned into 100 million dollars if you sold $1 tickets to the Western World. Use the profit to buy more tickets to continue the cycle, and fund some real science or use it to fund a lobby group (a few million can buy quite a few ears in Congress) and to support politcal campaigns that support space exploitation. Again, have the results every three months, and the lottery should be able to generate up into the hundreds of millions each time- you could be looking at half a billion dollars in a single year! Use that for the Mars specfic research you want done, or to offset the actual amount of additional capital you will need to finish a private Mars Mission.

Bill White · 2002-05-23 11:24:59

Revenue source:

I have heard that the Discovery Channel has 80 million subscribers. Sell a 6 year subscription to the Mars Channel - a new specially created CATV channel for 75 cents per month. All Mars - all the time - 7/24/365 - like the Weather Channel content is recycled. (Other space themes are OK too, I suppose)

Today, the New York Yankees add a $1.89 per month surcharge for the ability to view Yankee baseball games on cable TV.

72 months very roughly covers the launch of the 1st Crew Return Vehicle to the splashdown of Mars One in the Pacific Ocean. If there were 100 million subscribers (on average & world wide) over the 72 month period that generates gross revenue of $5.4 billion dollars with NO advertising revenue included.

Sell ads to raise more money and cover production and program content costs.

Carve out the big events - launch of the 1st manned mission - aerocapture into Mars orbit - landing on Mars - first steps on Mars. Sell those broadcast rights for even more money.

What would be the expected TV ratings for the first human steps on Mars? 1 billion viewers or more? From Martian touchdown to hatch opening and first steps could be quite a few hours - far longer than any SuperBowl or World Cup match with lots of dead time for showing ads.

And still, I have included NOTHING for logos and marketing. . .

Adrian is right - Greg Benford did explore this idea but because I believe he was "holding his nose" as he wrote I also think he underestimated the potential revenue sources.

On the ethics of all this, paying for Mars with tax dollars is a coerced contribution extracted from the world economy. Selling "entertainment" media rights also spreads the cost across the world economy but no one who opposes humans to Mars need sign up for the CATV subscription.

clark · 2002-05-23 12:06:04

I grant you that medis rights are a potential gold mine, however, that 5.6 billion is not available until you have a product to sell. The product you are offering is coverage of a Mission to Mars. That means you can't sell the product until you are sure you can send someone to mars, and that you are sending someone to Mars. What can you sell prior to the launch? Or are you expecting to issue some kind of bond whihc will be repaid with the expected profits from this mission- again we get back to the issue of risk and return, You must get a large deal of capital up front with a very large risk to the investor- by most accounts it will take several years before we are even ready to light the fuse and go- it is during this time, prior to launch that you need the most funds for the mission- how will this plan generate the neccessary funds prior to a product?

Aaron Chester · 2002-05-23 14:31:27

This has always been my hope for space. I believe that there are those who would be willing to join in paying for a Mars mission, if there were someone who was seriously attempting the feat. How many investors put money into high risk endeavors? Plenty. New sports franchises, insurance, etc. Granted there is a track record for these products, but there is a track record for space missions also. How many people watched us land on the moon? How many more would tune in to watch a landing on Mars? There are those that think we should not sell samples or other such artifacts. However, if it is a private endeavor that is the only way to make the trip. If it were a government operation then they could give it out freely. I think if enough of these visionaries would pool their efforts instead of creating 10,000 different organizations we could reach Mars through a private endeavor.

clark · 2002-05-23 14:47:43

Granted there is a track record for these products, but there is a track record for space missions also.

There is NO track record for sending a human to another planet. There is no track record for capital investment into technolgies without a promise of a return on investment.

Here is the situation:

You can go to Mars in ten years if you begin a crash course in research and development. Not only will there need to be sufficient progress in all the show-stopper technologies (ie dealing with long term zero-g or mini-g exsposure, bio-regeneration, man rated interplanetary space ship, aero-braking, automated off-site fuel production, etc.) Now, having all the technology and just having to build the ship after the tech has been developed, that's one thing- but that is not where you would be operating from.

You need intial capital to invest in the neccessary tech gaps to make the Mars mission safe and practical. Now, there is no guareente that any of the technology will be, or can be created- it's an unknown, so it is a BIG risk, since any delay in the development of the tech ultimetly delays the final mission. So you will have to require that people invest in this idea with no promise of actually delivering the Mission.

Now lets say we have the tech- okay, there is still the risk inherent of launching all components of the mars mission- any loss of material is a loss of critical infrastruture neccessary to complete the mission. This is in addition to the risk of developing the tech, now we also have to worry about getting the ship into launch position in orbit.

There is the risk asscoiated with the ship sitting in orbit as it is being constructed- sure you can mitigate this, but again, it is an unknown, and a risk- all of this risk beofre you haven even fired the engine.

Then there is the trip to Mars
Then there is landing on Mars
Then there is returning from mars

The media rights don't kick in until you have something to sell- ie, an actual Mars mission- and even then there is no guareentee you would get the neccessary subscriber base to create some of the numbers mentioned.

Bill White · 2002-05-23 23:06:26

I grant you that medis rights are a potential gold mine, however, that 5.6 billion is not available until you have a product to sell.

I agree with this point 100% - establishing a Mars only CATV channel will not get us started. No one will pay $5 - $10 or $15 billion unless/until a mission is already on its way to Mars. Installment payments as mission milestones are achieved are more likely.

Risk tolerant investment bankers might discount a contracted for revenue stream and advance percentages of those media payments as various milestones become more and more likely to be achieved, however, the discounts would carve out quite a significant percentage of the available money.

However, if a government were to underwrite or guarantee the mission costs, the final cost to the taxpayers would be very much less *IF* the mission were successful and the media revenue stream paid in full.

A lump sum appropriation by the taxpayers is not necessarily needed - "merely" - taxpayer guarantees *IF* the mission fails and the media revenue not realised. Kind of like the USA's current Export/Import loan guarantees! !)

* * *

Clark is also correct that such a public/private space related partnership had little or no precedent in the USA - it would require a clear Act of Congress with full Presidential support for NASA to enter into a partnership or joint venture with a media company.

However, my main point is that the current (2002) market value of media rights in the major sports broadcasting events is not too far removed from the actual cost of doing a Mars mission. It still is not enough but it is closer.

clark · 2002-05-24 07:57:23

A lump sum appropriation by the taxpayers is not necessarily needed - "merely" - taxpayer guarantees *IF* the mission fails and the media revenue not realised.

Wouldn't this be considered having the government guarante profits?

I guess I question the rationale of utilizing private enterprise, yet not requiring a solid enough business plan that would meet private interest standards for investment- isn't this combining the worst of the two systems? In effect, we would be having the government guarantee a risky business proposal in order to attract the initial investment for the goal. The US assumes the risk, but what does it get in return?

I have NO doubt that having the US guarantee funds for a private attempt at a Mars Mission will attract the neccessary investment- it's a sure thing- either it works, and you make money, or it dosen't and you get your money back.

Call it what you want, but it sure ain't capitalism.

HeloTeacher · 2002-05-26 05:03:31

My vision of this was quite certainly without, or absolutely minimizing, government input or funding outside of any other research grant given to a commercial operation.

The kitplane industry has several examples of NASA funding being given to help develop a new technology that will be marketed if successful, and without the governement getting a piece of the pie. Similar grants could be used to help fund the development of key items that need more R&D.

A commercial mission to Mars isn't so far-fetched. It's a new source of resources, therefore potential revenue. There are already organizations and people and governments that want to go there, so a market, albeit small, already exists.

People will buy returned samples, and ny data collected, and any governmental organization would have an opportunity to buy it too.

clark · 2002-05-28 08:29:54

A commercial mission to Mars isn't so far-fetched. It's a new source of resources, therefore potential revenue.

What new resources does Mars have that can economicaly compete with terresrial resources? Take the worst grade ore, and it is still magnitudes cheaper to develop then the best grade ore sources on Mars.

There are already organizations and people and governments that want to go there, so a market, albeit small, already exists.

True, a small market does exsist- but the size of the market does not justify the expenditure of resources neccessary to serve that market (i.e. No Profit).

People will buy returned samples, and ny data collected, and any governmental organization would have an opportunity to buy it too.

All true, however it suffers from the same problems as a media funded project- that is, you don't have a product to sell until you have completed the neccessary technology and mission. You need the greatest amount of capital BEFORE the mission can even be considered- since some of the neccessary technology that needs to be developed will ultimetly limit your final mission, you cannot make solid plans on what and how you will be going to Mars.

If you want private enterprise to foot this bill you have to honestly assess means to reduce the risk associated with investing in a manned mission to mars. Having the government ensure it is one way to do it, yet it merely is allowing us to assume all the risk and gain none of the profit- I have serious questions about giving public money to private interests on the assumption that they somehow are better at spending the money- rule of thumb, if it ain't your neck (or money), then you just don't really care- government or otherwise is no different.

That's one of the reasons I tend to favor a Space lottery- it's something you can sell now, make money now, and involves space. You don't have to build anything, only secure a ride for the winner (which can be done well in advance). Use the revenue to help develop the technology neccessary to get us to mars by funding research under a for-profit company- patent the technology developed and market it to increase the revenue and build the space ship.

Phobos · 2002-05-28 14:10:02

Even though a space lottery might generate a good portion of the revenue a Mars mission needs, I'm not sure it would be a good idea from a mission planning perspective because you really don't know anything about the winner. Will they be psychologically or physically fit for such a mission? Will they truly understand the deprivations and hardships that will occur being in space for two years? I guess you could add some disclaimer that winners will have to meet certain requirements, but it could end up being a legal mess or a mission disaster, both of which could possibly kill the mission.

clark · 2002-05-28 14:44:42

I was actually envisoning sending winners into orbit, or onto ISS for a few days. It would be the height of unimaginable stupidity to send Joe Blow to Mars on the first trip.

Also, that would require having a fully functional Mars ship- you would then have a product to sell only after completion- same problem as previously noted with the other suggestions.

Phobos · 2002-05-29 16:53:51

Yeah it would be definately better if the winner just won a three day stay on the ISS than a two year trip to Mars. I was going to mention that it might be a better alternative but it appears you were already thinking about it. What do you think would be the best price for such a ticket? $1? $5? $2000? You know, considering how much it would cost to send someone into space with current technology it might be better just to have an ordinary lotto where the winner wins a lump of cash instead. That way you also avoid the problems of winners who aren't fit for a joyride into space. But then again you could run into severe gambling laws if you went the cash route.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-05-29 19:21:20

My feeling is that all this stuff about private funding for a Mars mission is absolute pie-in-the-sky. The market just doesn't work that way. As others have pointed out, profit is the bottom line and "when do we see a return?" is the catch-cry!
If NASA hadn't sent men to the Moon, no commercial entity would have done it ... even to this day.
No, manned exploration of the Moon and Mars is exactly what NASA was created to do and government agencies are the only way we'll ever get to Mars. The committment is too great, the expenditure is too great, the risk is too great, and, even if nothing goes wrong, the length of time until returns start flowing in, is just too great for a private organisation.
The only possible way I can see for private funding to succeed in such a mission is for a comic book situation to eventuate: Bill Gates and a group of similarly wealthy business people get together and decide to bankroll a mission for no other reason than because they can, and because they want to become part of history!
Otherwise, let's just keep up the pressure on NASA and the ESA. It really is our only hope!

clark · 2002-05-30 08:29:25

What do you think would be the best price for such a ticket? $1? $5? $2000?

I'm partial to a dollar ticket- small amount of money for the greatest amount of reward. The more that the tickets cost, the less total tickets sold. One major reason I lean towards this view is that the Space Lotto can be used to generate interest in space- if you put the chance to go to space within the reach of EVERY person, you make it realistic- spending 2000 dollars a ticket would limit the number of people who could afford it- at a buck a pop, not many people are going to be concerned that they lost- at 10 or 20 bucks, people start to weigh the LOSS of that money without the reward. Now, with millions of people playing (hopefully) you establish clearly that there is a very LARGE market for people who want to go to space. You also reach more eyes and ears to spread your message (that space is important) with each ticket you sell- which can help drive up the membership of this and similar organizations. This in turn can lead to greater politcal clout.

You know, considering how much it would cost to send someone into space with current technology it might be better just to have an ordinary lotto where the winner wins a lump of cash instead.

I thought about this issue as well. A simple stipulation is that if a winner is deemed unfit to fly, they receive a small cash prize (say $100,000)- or they can select someone else to receive the prize. A new winner is selected until a canadite is cleared. This was also another reason why I first suggested that NASA be comfortable with sending people to ISS, I am assuming at that point the criteria for shooting someone into space would be a bit more relaxed than now.

The only possible way I can see for private funding to succeed in such a mission is for a comic book situation to eventuate: Bill Gates and a group of similarly wealthy business people get together and decide to bankroll a mission for no other reason than because they can, and
because they want to become part of history!

You bring up a rather valid point, however I think you are missing something- the Space Lotto is a means for a group of individuals who want to become a part of history to become the wealthy buisness people needed to fund a private mission to mars- since Bill Gates and friends are busy at the moment, WE must become THEM.

Also, the Space Lotto idea also has the side benefit that even if it dosen't make very much money, it still increases awarness for sapce related issues to the average person on the street- ANYTHING that does that benefits Space advocacy groups. Politcs in america is centered on "popular issues"- the Everyman blasting into space- the chance that the average joe, and not some multi-billionaire getting this opportunity would do wonders for NASA and space in general- You will be amazed how fast and how many politicans are clamoring for more space intitives.

Phobos · 2002-05-30 17:14:55

Hey Bill, your making me feel guilty now. I generally agree with you that forcing people to give up money so some other group can spend it at their whim is basically the height of evil,
but I want to see a Mars mission so bad I've turned into the ultimate hypocrite. Really though I would be ecstatic if a way could be done to do go to Mars with private funds. I believe the only really big hurdle to the private development of space is getting off the planet in the first place. Once Mother Earth gives up her over protective grip on us Earthlings, private development won't be far behind.

HeloTeacher · 2002-08-03 04:34:26

Does anyone know how to find data how much CNN etc. have paid for rights to news items in the past. For instance the Concorde video?

Phobos · 2002-08-03 21:51:59

Disney paid those miners that got trapped $150,000 each for the rights to their story. I'm not sure if that qualifies though being that Disney isn't in the news business as far as I know. Hereis the link.

PaganToris · 2002-08-03 22:30:48

Well Phobos to tell u the truth yer all wrong on that Disney paoid those Miners $150.50 a peice he said why must i do that for pay them all that money here is the Link
http://Bigjerm.zzn.com

TJohn · 2002-08-06 10:59:24

I know this is corny, but wouldn't be nice to have a billionaire give some money to fund the Mars Direct mission, i.e. "Contact"? Hey, I can dream can't I?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-05-23 08:58:53

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#2 2002-05-23 09:48:35

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#3 2002-05-23 10:29:15

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#4 2002-05-23 10:31:24

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#5 2002-05-23 10:58:01

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#6 2002-05-23 11:24:59

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#7 2002-05-23 12:06:04

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#8 2002-05-23 14:31:27

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#9 2002-05-23 14:47:43

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#10 2002-05-23 23:06:26

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#11 2002-05-24 07:57:23

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#12 2002-05-26 05:03:31

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#13 2002-05-28 08:29:54

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#14 2002-05-28 14:10:02

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#15 2002-05-28 14:44:42

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#16 2002-05-29 16:53:51

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#17 2002-05-29 19:21:20

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#18 2002-05-30 08:29:25

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#19 2002-05-30 17:14:55

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#20 2002-08-03 04:34:26

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#21 2002-08-03 21:51:59

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#22 2002-08-03 22:30:48

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

#23 2002-08-06 10:59:24

Re: Non-Government Funding - Determining what is out there.

Board footer