Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

dickbill · 2003-10-02 10:13:47

Mars will export technologies: biotechnologies and terraforming technologies and other kind of technologies. Probably more software than hardware, through.
Imagine the first quantic communication between Earth and Mars, with 2 quantum computers running a program written and made in Mars.
Also, KSR talked about longevity treatment, why not ?

But what if Martians become telepath, we poor australopithecus, what are we gonna do ?

Ian Flint · 2003-10-02 10:52:03

Clark was speculating that as launch costs from Earth fall the advantage of launch from Mars will dissapear.

I agree that if Mars has to depend on all the infrastructure that Earth has to depend on then Earth will always have the advantage. But, does Mars need everything Earth needs to launch something to orbit? I think not.

Earth uses (and for environmental reasons will probably use for a long time to come) chemical rockets for surface launch. Mars on the other hand has no EPA or tree huggers (no trees to hug), so Nuclear rockets should be available for surface launch from the get go.

That's just one example of how Mars can maintain its edge. Mars will have more room to innovate while society on Earth will want safety above all else, thus slowing Earth launch progress.

clark · 2003-10-02 11:12:50

So instead of a simple and flexible chemical launch, they would use a more complicated, and dangerous launch method relying on nuclear power?

While the advantage of being able to more freely pollute in the martian environment is a plus, complicated and advanced technology is not.

Nuclear power will require more people and infrastructure. Now they have to worry about procuring uranium to power the nuclear reactors. They have to worry about manufacture of spare parts for nuclear reactors and other vital components on the ship.

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-02 13:00:45

Nuclear R&D has historically been several times the cost of all other energy R&D combined. I have no hope in nuclear achieving anything worthwhile.

Gennaro · 2003-10-02 14:50:21

RobertDyck, I'd like to ask a question if I may.

The moon only has ice at the bottom of craters at the poles where sunlight never touches it, and its concentration is about one cup of water over an area the size of a football field.

- To me that sounds very discouraging. I was of the impression that those deposits held substantial amounts of water in the form of water ice and/or permafrost.

Do you feel that this web page is in disagreement with your description or even unwittingly manages to convey a false impression?

http://www.permanent.com/l-ices.htm

The initial estimates of water ice in March, 1998, were awesomely high. However, upon further collection and analysis of data, these estimates were dramatically increased by a factor of about 10 times by the time the next major report was published in September, 1998. It was initially thought that the hydrogen exists in the form of small crystals of water ice in concentrations of 0.3% to 1%, dispersed over a large surface area of 5,000 to 20,000 square kilometers at the south pole and 10,000 to 50,000 square kilometers at the north pole. However, as of the time of this writing in December 1998, the most recent data, analysis and predominating theory suggests a total of six billion metric tons of water are concentrated in a small number of lunar polar craters. As explained by Dr. Alan Binder, the Lunar Prospector principal investigator, "if the main source is cometary impacts, as most scientists believe, our expectation is that we have areas at both poles with layers of near-pure water ice" in the form of "discrete, confined, near-pure water ice deposits buried beneath as much as 18 inches (40 centimeters) of dry regolith", which is around the 50 centimeter maximum depth that Lunar Prospector can detect water.

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-02 15:24:06

Gennaro, thanks for that post, it does seem that further inspection has indeed shown larger deposits of Lunar ice. I think if anything it's a welcome clarification; the auxon cycle I mentioned is reliant on H2O. Fortunately, Martian regolith, then, quite meets the requirements for such a cycle (though I'm sure other processes would be available).

These craters on the moon would be prime places to inhabit. Much wealth could be obtained there.

Bill White · 2003-10-02 15:53:32

We could start selling advertising space on trees in the national parks too. That would be grand.

Nah!

If you want $15 billion you have to be real classy about it.

Like Nike!

RobertDyck · 2003-10-02 18:00:27

RobertDyck, I'd like to ask a question if I may.
The moon only has ice at the bottom of craters at the poles where sunlight never touches it, and its concentration is about one cup of water over an area the size of a football field.
- To me that sounds very discouraging. I was of the impression that those deposits held substantial amounts of water in the form of water ice and/or permafrost.
Do you feel that this web page is in disagreement with your description or even unwittingly manages to convey a false impression?

I got that figure from announcements at the time that Lunar Prospector was transmitting data. The final results always seam to be "coming". The updated NASA Lunar Prospector web site states

mission scientists estimate that the total amount of water on the Moon could be anywhere from 10 to 300 million metric tons (2.6 to 26 billion gallons).
...
While changes in the flux of medium-energy neutrons serve as a distinct signature for the presence of water, they say nothing about in what form that water (ice), is present in the lunar soil. Other types of neutrons, called "fast neutrons," indicate to scientists the actual concentration of water, or mixing ratio, in the lunar soil. Large dips in the neutron flux of high-energy "fast" neutrons are a telltale signature of water ice in the form of chunks of solid ice. Lunar Prospector's data, in contrast, does not reveal such signature dips in the high-energy neutron flux, meaning that water is instead present in the form of small crystals at a very low mixing ratio: ranging from 0.3% to 1%. From this data, mission scientists also can infer that the ice crystals must be dispersed over a large surface area: 5,000 to 20,000 square kilometers at the south pole and 10,000 to 50,000 square kilometers at the north pole.

There is ice on the Moon, it's just very spread-out so difficult to collect.

Ian Flint · 2003-10-03 09:23:10

About the nuclear rockets on Mars.

Please forgive my ignorance, but from my readings about the subject I got the impression that NERVA style rockets could be quite simple to operate and maintain. Robert Zubrin may have just been zealously promoting his ideas, but he mentions nothing of the "super-infrastructure" needed to support his NIMF vehicles.

As for the procurement of uranium, it doesn't have to be found locally. It could be an import until a larger population exists to economically mine it.

Here's another thought. Earth depends on chemical (fossil) fuels for most of its power, transportation, space access, etc., but Mars will only have geothermal (hopefully) and nuclear. Martian infrastructure will naturally be built upon (perhaps 50%) nuclear power. Therefore, nuclear launch vehicles will be a natural extension of that infrastructure.

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-03 11:09:29

Robert, I interpret that to mean that "we definitely know water is there in this area" but it doesn't answer whether or not there exist "large concentrated deposits which are easy to get at."

The speculation (ie, expectation) is that there will be concentrated deposits somewhere around there. Prospector isn't really able to look at the moon and say for sure that there exist these large deposits. We won't know until we get there (or at least send a better probe).

Of course, I'm not really telling you anything you don't already know, I'm just clarifying Gennaro's (and my own) belief that there do exist easily obtainable deposits of water ice in concentrated (Mars-like) levels on the moon.

Prime places for habitation, if they really do exist.

Ian Flint,

I'm skeptical, but yeah.

Mars actually has large ammounts of throium deposits. I'm not sure if thorium can be used in rockets, but it does make a good energy fuel for power plants. If something in the way of an elevator could be built on Mars and Earth, the argument then for exports and imports would be increased I would say.

GOM · 2003-10-03 11:13:56

By the time we colonize Mars we might not have to worry so much about exports. Advances in AI, robotics and nanotech might make us all so rich we can afford anything.

Extremely unlikely....

In Matthew 26 Jesus said:

11 "The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me."

All through human history He has been correct. Modern technology will not change that.

GOM · 2003-10-03 11:28:21

But as many of you know, I do not accept the economic forecasts of the space elevator people. We just cannot run enough elevator cars fast enough to get the economies of scale needed to get the costs as low as is being hyped. Besides, elevators will cost more than is being hyped.
Not that we shouldn't start building one, ASAP!

Then why build one???

Won't we just end up with another ISS style of black hole for money?

And do we even have the technology to build such a thing?

Or am I missing a joke here?

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-03 11:37:06

"The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me."

In a universe with finite resources, there will always be poor, I agree.

But that doesn't mean there will be poverty. :;):

RobertDyck · 2003-10-03 13:07:00

Robert, I interpret that to mean that "we definitely know water is there in this area" but it doesn't answer whether or not there exist "large concentrated deposits which are easy to get at."
The speculation (ie, expectation) is that there will be concentrated deposits somewhere around there. Prospector isn't really able to look at the moon and say for sure that there exist these large deposits. We won't know until we get there (or at least send a better probe).
Of course, I'm not really telling you anything you don't already know, I'm just clarifying Gennaro's (and my own) belief that there do exist easily obtainable deposits of water ice in concentrated (Mars-like) levels on the moon.
Prime places for habitation, if they really do exist.

I am not expecting to find more than Lunar Prospector did find. The high-energy neutron data did not indicate deposits of solid ice or permafrost. It did indicate fine ice crystals spread over large areas. There may be relatively higher concentration deposits, but it will always be thinly spread. Remember these ice crystals come from asteroids that impacted the Moon. Where sunlight strikes the surface, the ice has long since been boiled and evaporated into space. But asteroids in the inner solar system have sparse ice mixed with rock, and no ice on the outer surface (sunlight boiling it off again). Your greatest hope would be a comet impact, which would have much more ice, and hope it impacted before boiling off all its ice, and hit a pole. That would leave the slightly less than 50% ice mixture spread over the impact zone, so today's lunar surface would have those ice/rock nuggets spread out over a large impact zone. Asteroids are much more common in the inner solar system, comets tend to boil away, so ice on the Moon is much more likely to come from asteroids; that means much more rock than ice.

Tyr · 2003-10-03 13:31:50

I feel insulted by GOMs inapproprate introduction of religion into an otherwise scientific discussion. If you really want to be fundamentalist, there is no martian future, just the apocalypse. Such superstitious hogwash.

I remain firm. Advances in technology will make the future far richer than it has already! Compare today to the year 1900. We are fabulously wealthy by comparison, thanks to technology. As for God, He has no place on this thread.

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-03 14:38:07

Robert, found a link concerning water ice: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html

Here's a link to the first referenced article: http://lunar.lanl.gov/pubs/2001/Lunar_Water_Ice.pdf

Tyr, don't worry about it, it's no big deal, really. Anyway, I quite agree with you on this particular argument; technology will make colonizing space possible, and easy.

Tyr · 2003-10-03 15:51:10

If GOM wants to discuss religion, there is the Civilization and Culture section.

GOM · 2003-10-03 17:39:33

1. I feel insulted by GOMs inapproprate introduction of religion into an otherwise scientific discussion.
2. If you really want to be fundamentalist, there is no martian future, just the apocalypse. Such superstitious hogwash.
3. I remain firm. Advances in technology will make the future far richer than it has already! Compare today to the year 1900. We are fabulously wealthy by comparison, thanks to technology.
4. As for God, He has no place on this thread.

1. No need to leap into feeling insulted. After all, it was you who introduced "voodoo economics.

2. I'm a Christian who would like to see us have an actual manned space program, instead of the joke we have now. I've even volunteered to go to Mars myself, if NASA could get me there safely. That's how curious I am to explore Mars.

3. That depends, my young friend. Have you taken a look at the national debt lately?! Wealth is not measured by how many electronic toys you have. We are so broke we cannot afford to send a manned exploration to Mars.

4. Sadly, many in America don't want to give God a place in our country or in their own lives. Since God created the whole universe I see no reason to leave Him out of a Mars discussion. However, since you claim to be offended I will drop it in this thread.

Peace.

GOM · 2003-10-03 17:43:18

"The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me."
In a universe with finite resources, there will always be poor, I agree.
But that doesn't mean there will be poverty. :;):

I fail to see the distinction you seem to be trying to make....

What % of the world do you think is in poverty right now?

Communists had a vision of eliminating poverty by making everyone in their society "equal". We can see how well that worked in the USSR.

GOM · 2003-10-03 17:46:34

Anyway, I quite agree with you on this particular argument; technology will make colonizing space possible, and easy.

I don't think so. It's not helpful to be overly simplistic. Space is a hostile environment.

Has high technology made nuclear power plants easy?

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-03 18:36:11

Before Adrian interceeds and recommends we get back on topic, I will answer your questions.

I fail to see the distinction you seem to be trying to make....

It's just that the further you get away from avilable resources, the poorer you are and the more you have to make due with the resources you do have.

Poor means a lack of wealth. Can you agree with this?

Surely there will be poor because it will be impossible to create a system wherein everyone has the same ammount of resources. People living on Pluto, for instance, aren't going to be able to benefit from Earth-like energy consumption; the energy won't be available. This of course, presents those on Pluto an ideal importing situation, but I fail to see what Pluto could export.

What % of the world do you think is in poverty right now?

The comment had nothing to do with "world poverty." It was meant to suggest that those who were poorer than the rest would only be poor by choice.

Communists had a vision of eliminating poverty by making everyone in their society "equal". We can see how well that worked in the USSR.

I don't see any communists in this thread, so I don't know why you mentioned them. This isn't about equality of conditions; this is merely about having our work be done for us by AI and other magical inventions of humanity. Technology.

I don't think so. It's not helpful to be overly simplistic. Space is a hostile environment.
Has high technology made nuclear power plants easy?

Space is definitely hostile. That's why technology is necessary to even begin exploring and colonizing it. You just have to realize, I think, that once we have the technology to effectively colonize space, that technology can benefit everyone.

And nuclear power plants aren't 'easy' because the nuclear concept isn't 'easy.' Fission doesn't exist naturally (ie, in animals) with large scale energy production, and fusion has only been observed naturally in stars (and in fact, we have yet to be able to accomplish fusion in the lab). Nuclear power is a concept born in the intelligence of humans. It's going to be complex. But this point is moot, I think.

BTW, Adrian, or anyone else, I have indeed stayed on topic here. So don't go flaming me.

dicktice · 2003-10-04 10:23:24

How about BBC-style exploration series and Mars real-life setting adventure sitcoms, etc. beamed back to Earth for commercial entertainment?

Byron · 2003-10-04 10:44:37

How about BBC-style exploration series and Mars real-life setting adventure sitcoms, etc. beamed back to Earth for commercial entertainment?

Heck yes! Just think of the mega-bucks that could be made just from TV broadcast rights alone (think: Olympics, Superbowl, etc.)

And this makes for my 500th post...time for another star under my avatar...

B

GOM · 2003-10-04 12:31:43

How about BBC-style exploration series and Mars real-life setting adventure sitcoms, etc. beamed back to Earth for commercial entertainment?

Great idea!

I doubt it will ever happen though....

GOM · 2003-10-04 12:37:03

And nuclear power plants aren't 'easy' because the nuclear concept isn't 'easy.' Fission doesn't exist naturally (ie, in animals) with large scale energy production, and fusion has only been observed naturally in stars (and in fact, we have yet to be able to accomplish fusion in the lab). Nuclear power is a concept born in the intelligence of humans. It's going to be complex. But this point is moot, I think.

Perhaps I failed to make the connection for you. A nuclear power plant is not "easy" due to high technolody in a similar way as space travel will never be "easy" just because we happen to have high technology.

Getting off Earth is much too expensive right now. Sending a team of humans to Mars is out of the question based on cost, not to mention the health concerns.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-10-02 10:13:47

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#52 2003-10-02 10:52:03

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#53 2003-10-02 11:12:50

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#54 2003-10-02 13:00:45

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#55 2003-10-02 14:50:21

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#56 2003-10-02 15:24:06

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#57 2003-10-02 15:53:32

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#58 2003-10-02 18:00:27

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#59 2003-10-03 09:23:10

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#60 2003-10-03 11:09:29

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#61 2003-10-03 11:13:56

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#62 2003-10-03 11:28:21

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#63 2003-10-03 11:37:06

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#64 2003-10-03 13:07:00

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#65 2003-10-03 13:31:50

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#66 2003-10-03 14:38:07

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#67 2003-10-03 15:51:10

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#68 2003-10-03 17:39:33

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#69 2003-10-03 17:43:18

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#70 2003-10-03 17:46:34

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#71 2003-10-03 18:36:11

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#72 2003-10-04 10:23:24

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#73 2003-10-04 10:44:37

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#74 2003-10-04 12:31:43

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

#75 2003-10-04 12:37:03

Re: Martian Exports - What can martians sell?

Board footer